How did an old religion get it directionally right?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2016, 01:35 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 09:56 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  SNAir,
Please provide specific quotations from your sacred writings that back up your assertions. Need chapter and verse, please.

Doc

Valid ask.. I'll try to find and reply to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 01:35 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 01:20 PM)SNair Wrote:  Almost every if not all of the mythological stories do not agree with plausibility and violate laws of physics in nature. That is if you take them literally!

I agree, but deciding that which is literal and that which is metaphor is a tricky business. This very process engenders much skepticism and disagreement.

As an atheist, it only generates simple dismissal.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 01:36 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 09:56 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  SNAir,
Please provide specific quotations from your sacred writings that back up your assertions. Need chapter and verse, please.

Doc

Valid ask.. I'll try to find and reply to you.

To Everyone: I already said, I am not going to reply to any name calling. The moment I realize that's the tone of the reply, I just skip the whole thing. So save yourself some time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 02:14 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 01:33 PM)SNair Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 07:09 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Ancient people were not stupid, just ignorant. They had vivid imagination and vast experience with everyday life including the cyclical nature of the seasons and the movements of the sun, moon, and stars. They saw things being born and dying. They were curious and had a lot of time to kill sitting around the campfires so they made up stories to tell and wove these concepts into their tales.

The things you are matching up are extremely broad statements. The universe either came into existence or always existed; it is either a one-time thing or a cyclical thing; it is either unique or one of many; etc. I do not understand why it seems so amazing to you that some of the ancient stories seem to be mappable to current scientific thought in some very general ways. As others have noted, the details show that they didn't know, they were just making up a story.

By the way "directionally correct" is a meaningless phrase.

Your last para has a valid point. If so, its still observation and inference drawing as opposed to "just making up a story". Charles Darwin did not know about genes or how traits may be passed along, yet he made a story based on observation. That's what you do in absence of data and if you it right, it needs to commended.

There is no meaningless phrase. The meaning to any word or phrase is that the author or reader associate to it. Isn't that how language is created? So long as you understand the intention behind the phrase, its all I am after.

Darwin did not "make a story", he proposed an actual scientific theory - testable, falsifiable, and supported by evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
25-01-2016, 02:18 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:50 AM)SNair Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 12:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  What, exactly, does "directionally correct" even mean? Consider

You haven't made a very good argument that they got anything correct.

Good question regarding "directionally correct". What I intended was that their claims seem to match up with scientific assertions, but they lack any details/specifics. This is after all a 3-5k year old civilization, so one must take that into account when asking for specifics.

I did write down three assertions they make in my original post: Universe from silence, cyclical universe and multiverse. If science does not state the three, then I rest my case. If science does say the same, then my question as to how they got it directionally correct remains. Why did you say I did not make arguments on what they got correct?

You need to be more specific.

What scientific assertions prove the hindu gods?

Authors, papers, quotes only in your answer please.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 02:21 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:19 PM)SNair Wrote:  The problem I have with what you stated is that it leaves no room for the ancient folks to ever be correct.

The issue isn't whether or not there is any possibility that they "got it right". It's that there seems to be something implied that them getting it right would be anything more than luck. Luck wouldn't be impressive. If it's something else, it's going to involve some special, secret knowledge that no one else had.

Now, I'm not saying that's impossible, but there is no reason to assume it's the case. Compare and contrast with leprechauns: I cannot prove to you that there are no leprechauns, but should we give serious consideration to the possibility of their existence? When people are discussing how rainbows work, should we spend any time discussing leprechauns?

There's a big difference between "leaving room" for something and wasting time entertaining unsubstantiated absurdities.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
25-01-2016, 02:22 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:04 AM)SNair Wrote:  I do understand where you are coming from, but I feel one mistake you are doing is using a very broad religion-is-bullshit brush to paint everything and anything that has a religious connotation.


As are you.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 02:24 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 01:33 PM)SNair Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 07:09 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Ancient people were not stupid, just ignorant. They had vivid imagination and vast experience with everyday life including the cyclical nature of the seasons and the movements of the sun, moon, and stars. They saw things being born and dying. They were curious and had a lot of time to kill sitting around the campfires so they made up stories to tell and wove these concepts into their tales.

The things you are matching up are extremely broad statements. The universe either came into existence or always existed; it is either a one-time thing or a cyclical thing; it is either unique or one of many; etc. I do not understand why it seems so amazing to you that some of the ancient stories seem to be mappable to current scientific thought in some very general ways. As others have noted, the details show that they didn't know, they were just making up a story.

By the way "directionally correct" is a meaningless phrase.

Your last para has a valid point. If so, its still observation and inference drawing as opposed to "just making up a story". Charles Darwin did not know about genes or how traits may be passed along, yet he made a story based on observation. That's what you do in absence of data and if you it right, it needs to commended.

As I said in the first paragraph, they weren't stupid and they had a lot of practical experience with how everyday things worked. They tried to extrapolate from what they knew to explain things they didn't understand. That is still making up a story.

Darwin had a great deal of evidence for his conclusion that traits were passed on, with modification, even if he could not identify the specific mechanism. There is a world of difference between the extensive, careful research he did, and documented, and the creation myths of early cultures. That's especially true when you cherry-pick general concepts and ignore the details.

Quote:There is no meaningless phrase. The meaning to any word or phrase is that the author or reader associate to it. Isn't that how language is created? So long as you understand the intention behind the phrase, its all I am after.

The point is that I'm not sure I do know the intention behind the phrase. I am guessing (based on the rest of the post) that you mean something like "substantially" or "generally" right, or that they were headed in the right direction, but when you use non-standard language like that it is bound to muddy the discussion.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
25-01-2016, 03:10 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2016 04:02 PM by xieulong.)
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:38 PM)SNair Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 03:50 AM)xieulong Wrote:  How did the ancients come up with these assertions? Did they do research? Did they show the evidence they gathered to arrive at these assertions?
I don't think they did. Sooooooo ya, it was just dumb luck.

Nope. Even for the discoveries they produced in other non-disputable fields like medicine, music, art. etc. also lack the evidence of a systematic and progressive thought process you are demanding. Please remember its a few thousand year old material that withstood the endless chain of war, destruction and adulteration.

SO though a very valid point and something expected from modern science, I am willing to give concession to these ancient folks for the reasons above. As I mentioned in another post, that is why I called it "Directionally Correct" in my original post... because it lacks the details.

Nope. Medicine is one of the most tested and regulated field of science we have. It works as it has be tested and researched over and over. So please.

Why would you give concession to the ancients who did not show any work? Even farther back in the infancy of modern humans. They struck different types of rocks to certain surfaces to make fire; they conduct simple experiments to make their fire and passed on the knowledge. I give them more credit than your ancients, whom I presume were just making wild guesses, as you have not shown otherwise.

So answer the question. How did your ancients come up with these assertions? What were the thought processes? Sooooooooooooo ya, wild guesses and dumb luck, no more impressive than picking lottery numbers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes xieulong's post
25-01-2016, 03:13 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 02:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 01:33 PM)SNair Wrote:  Your last para has a valid point. If so, its still observation and inference drawing as opposed to "just making up a story". Charles Darwin did not know about genes or how traits may be passed along, yet he made a story based on observation. That's what you do in absence of data and if you it right, it needs to commended.

There is no meaningless phrase. The meaning to any word or phrase is that the author or reader associate to it. Isn't that how language is created? So long as you understand the intention behind the phrase, its all I am after.

Darwin did not "make a story", he proposed an actual scientific theory - testable, falsifiable, and supported by evidence.

I would like to see a "debate" between this guy and Agnostic Shane, HAH! I wonder who can blow more hot air and who is more pretentious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes xieulong's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: