When Will Science End?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2014, 06:41 AM
RE: When Will Science End?
^Everybody is certain he's a theist posing right? It's not just me?

(Being a theist isn't a problem. Lying about it is kinda a problem but not a big one.)

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
17-12-2014, 06:51 AM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2014 08:42 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: When Will Science End?
Warning: anticlimatic.

There is much we don’t know, and we don’t know what we don’t know.

However it is not rational to make unsubstantiated claims and base your life and force others to base theirs on the make-believe.

(There, my 4000th post Big Grin , doing battle with the incognoscenti Thumbsup )

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
17-12-2014, 06:57 AM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Prove to me that human reason can deliver meaningful answers about the ultimate nature of everything.

And don't forget please, we currently don't even know what the word "everything" refers to.

Please explain how we can know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of something we can't even begin to define.

Go for it!

You keep putting words in my mouth. I have not claimed that reason "can deliver meaningful answers about the ultimate nature of everything". I'm not even sure that that phrasing is meaningful.

What I have said is that reason has proven to be the best tool we have for finding answers about claims of fact. Religion has proven itself to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

I am quite open to finding a better method to answer more questions. Until then I will continue to use the best options at my disposal. Reason doesn't tell me that there is no god, it tells me that the claims made regarding Yahweh and Allah and Buddha and others can be rejected as unproven.

Your entire "thesis" is a harangue against an elaborate strawman of what atheism is and what large numbers of atheists believe. The fact that we don't know everything in no way means that we don't know anything.

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
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
17-12-2014, 07:01 AM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 06:41 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  ^Everybody is certain he's a theist posing right? It's not just me?

(Being a theist isn't a problem. Lying about it is kinda a problem but not a big one.)

He certainly uses all the same arguments and even a lot of the phrasing. He has the same twisted understanding of atheism that many espouse. I said before that my impression was that Bozo is a theist. I suppose he could be a Poe.

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
17-12-2014, 07:03 AM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Atheists are making a counter claim, though many or most don't realize it.

Atheists are claiming human reason is qualified to come to some meaningful theory or conclusion regarding issues the scale of the God question.

I decline to accept this huge claim for the same reason I decline to believe in Bible stories. Not enough credible evidence to support the claims of either atheists or theists.

"I have $100,000 in my pocket."

"I don't believe that."
Is not the same as
"No you don't"
One is a claim

-----

Same goes for "God exists"

"I don't believe that"
Makes no claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 07:08 AM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 03:14 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: d80.jpg]

Evidence. One doesn't require religion to be a whack-job.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like houseofcantor's post
17-12-2014, 08:01 AM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Please explain how we can know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of something we can't even begin to define.

Go for it!

You are making the fundamental error of assuming that you know something that you do not actually know, i.e. what atheists think, know, or believe.
You don't.

As an atheist, I am not making any claim to know:
  • the origin of the universe;
  • the purpose of the universe;
  • the meaning of life.
My stating that theists can't possibly know the answers either is not claiming to know what lies at the heart of anything.

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
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
17-12-2014, 09:59 AM
RE: When Will Science End?
(16-12-2014 07:09 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  This is a very common theory. And that's all it is. The Jesus heaven and hell theory is pretty common too. Lots of theories out there, but no answers so far.

No, seriously, just no.

"Hypothesis" is the beginning word you're looking for.. Not "Theory" and second?

If Heaven is an Hypothesis? How does one test it? We've been to the Moon and not been smited as badly as the supposed Tower of Babel. Neat that, don't you think?

As for Jesus? First one has to get over the archeology etc or lack their of before even beginning to think about Hypothesis.

Also, your "Thesis"? They suck.

(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Ok, let's consider the situation of a 7 year old kid. Compared to the family dog, the kid is very smart and can do many impressive things.

But can a 7 year old kid understand the ultimate nature of all reality? It seems to me a smart 7 year old would say, "I'm not old enough to know that yet" whereas the less smart 7 year old might make up an answer and then argue about it with his friends.

Um.. so what does the dog have to do with the statement? Also, can the kid find things by smell? Or lick his own butt? Something the dog has down pat.

(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  My thesis is that both theists and atheists, to the degree they think they have a meaningful useful answer to such enormous questions, are like the less smart seven year old kid in the example above.

No. Because ONLY the Theist is making any claims at all.

The Non-theist is sitting back and just not buying into the tales being told by the Theist. Not to beginning with the lack of good evidence regularly not produced by the Theist.

(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  This is not complicated. What lies beyond the observable universe? Scientists simply say, "we don't know yet" and they don't find it necessary to have an answer. They realize we just aren't there yet on that question. Simple.

Um.. right.. So why is "Why/I don't know not a valid answer?

(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  What makes it not simple is that humans are incredibly socially competitive, and thus many people can't be happy with a simple "I don't know" because then there's no way to be superior to somebody else. And this drive for imaginary superiority is a primary driver of theist vs. atheist debates, and most other human interactions as well.


SO... it's a pissing contest from the point of the Theist, then? Because the Non-theist really doesn't care about the ego thing, generally.

(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Atheists are making a counter claim, though many or most don't realize it.

Citation needed plz.

(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Atheists are claiming human reason is qualified to come to some meaningful theory or conclusion regarding issues the scale of the God question.

Only from your say so. I certainly do not need any 'Theory or conclusion' about any god. Some simply, easily verified evidence would be just dandy, thanks.


(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Reason is indeed very useful for very many things. But then so is religion.

*Nods* Yes, religion can and does have useful social things. It also has a HUGE amount of destructive baggage attached.

(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  If the theories of religion had no value at all, they would have been discarded thousands of years ago. Clearly they have a value to billions of human beings, but that doesn't mean the theories are therefore correct.

Ah, the old "Lots of people do it, so it MUST be okay/true/etc!" trope. *Sigh*

That worked real great for those who fell to the Aztecs, right?

(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Prove to me that human reason can deliver meaningful answers about the ultimate nature of everything.

And don't forget please, we currently don't even know what the word "everything" refers to.

*Scratches head

Wait... you're typing this on a computer. Where in the message is being disseminated over what might effectively be the entire planet. Reaching countless untold numbers of others. For free(Baring paying for line services, providers etc) and can access what would have been undreamed of amounts of information at the push of but a fey key strokes.

And are SERIOUSLY questioning the value of science, with out which said ability would be impossible?

(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Please explain how we can know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of something we can't even begin to define.

Go for it!

I'm sorry, could you please rephrase the above statement? It is worded poorly and I'm having trouble discerning your meaning and hence your request for an answer.


Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
17-12-2014, 11:03 AM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 06:24 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Ok, let's consider the situation of a 7 year old kid. Compared to the family dog, the kid is very smart and can do many impressive things.

But can a 7 year old kid understand the ultimate nature of all reality? It seems to me a smart 7 year old would say, "I'm not old enough to know that yet" whereas the less smart 7 year old might make up an answer and then argue about it with his friends.

My thesis is that both theists and atheists, to the degree they think they have a meaningful useful answer to such enormous questions, are like the less smart seven year old kid in the example above.

I'm not sure why you continue in this when I've shown you, using your own words, that your thesis contains its own contradiction. While it's briefly amusing to watch this snake trying to choke down its own tail your persistence in this brand of science denialism masquerading as epistemological nihlism begins to seem disingenuous. One might question whether a theist arguing from philosophical skeptisism was applying their standards for knowledge equally.

Your problem is that you seem to have a skewed idea of how science and the progression of knowledge works. Let's ask your seven year old kid if he can straighten that out.

"Hey! Kid! Is fire hot?"
"Yes."
"Are you sure?"
"Yup."
"How do you know?"
"I burned myself on the wood stove last year. I hurt!"

All the evidence points to fire being hot. This is as true today as it was when our ancestors discovered fire and will be as true in another 2 million years. Prometheus has been relegated to classical mythology, phlogiston has been debunked and forgotten. We may one day overturn the laws of thermodynamics but on that day I guarantee you that fire will still be hot.

Science allows us to improve our understanding of the universe, not negate it. If it did then we would be stuck so deeply in the bog of ignorance that we could never even hope to initiate the scientific process.

Quote:Atheists are claiming human reason is qualified to come to some meaningful theory or conclusion regarding issues the scale of the God question.

I decline to accept this huge claim for the same reason I decline to believe in Bible stories. Not enough credible evidence to support the claims of either atheists or theists.

And yet you have done exactly that. Of the tens of thousands of gods that humans have ever invented you have dismissed all but one. From Ahura-Mazda to Zeus you have accepted the claim that not one of them exists.

You my friend are an atheist. I mean no disrespect and use the term entirely accurately. It was coined by the Greeks and Romans as a label for the very strange people from Judea who refused to acknowledge the existence of their Gods.

Atheists make no claim. We ask to see the evidence. Bring us The All-Father. Show us Olympus.

Quote:Reason is indeed very useful for very many things. But then so is religion

Perhaps once but, like the appendix, it has outlived its usefulness.

Quote:But being useful for many things does not automatically qualify reason or holy books to be useful for EVERYTHING.

And thus you would have us make the jump to not being useful for anything. At least for reason. I hear special pleading coming for those holy books.

Quote:Prove to me that human reason can deliver meaningful answers about the ultimate nature of everything.

And don't forget please, we currently don't even know what the word "everything" refers to.

Please explain how we can know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of something we can't even begin to define.

Go for it!

Why would I ever do that? It's your absurd claim. I'll just give this strawman a nudge into the ditch.

Science doesn't try to explain the ultimate nature of everything. Science takes small bites. It is incremental. I don't need to know everything to know something. The Higgs boson, superstrings and dark matter may all perish in the next paradigm shift. Fire will still be hot. I will still be better off alive than dead.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
17-12-2014, 11:48 AM
RE: When Will Science End?
Science will end only when there are no more questions we desire answers to. Near as I can tell, that will never happen.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: