Rabid atheists

Post Reply New Topic

nope you just made your own interpretation due to the fact you didn't have an arguement against it. the statement was more of if you don't know the topics inside and out completely then you can't really know the subject your studing and to understand everything is a egotistical notion. So that would make science unable to function since Science uses how it thinks the world works to form all their theories on how things work that would mean that if the world does not work as science dictates then their theories will be false because they were working from a mentality that doesn't allow them to see outside the box.

too bad I;m agnostic and do not subscribe to any organized religion. I do believe in spiritual machinzations in the world but thats due to my disbelief in our extremely low chance of being created through theories offered by science as I said I feel it flies in the face of conventional reasoning. We each find our own truth in this world and thats mine and like your opinion pf how the world was created cannot be disproven neither can mine. Your attack on my opinion just shows that you have decreased confidance in your own opinion.

The extent people will go to deny that is undeniable in order to support a belief in fantasy never ceases to amaze me

Yeah, the reason that science can't find the ghosts is that when they set up cameras and microphones and other monitoring devices, it scares the ghosts away! Or else they ignore the facts that ghosts appear visually in ways that are visible to the human eye, but are invisible to other sensors. If they would bother to read historical accounts about vampires, they would know that vampires do not have a reflection in a mirror - that should tell those egghead scientists something! Instead they use cameras that contain mirrors and lenses and things.

huh wow that was overboard. I don't believe even if a ghost was captured on film it would be accepted it would be called a hoax as several ghosts were photographed and everyone just says they are hoaxs whether or not they are is outside my expertise. the ghost example is to show that if ghosts exist they most likely emit a different energy source then we are used to which would make detecting them through our current means impossible. Are their ghosts? maybe... I never had an experience so I can't say but its an illustration of the closed in thinking of science. Science uses itself to tell us what to believe and what the rules are in this world which is very much like a religion so I don't see the distinction between religions and scientific fanatics. I think science should be redirected to the more broader topics so scientists can have better understanding of the world. I think not completely understanding the world is counterproductive to any research in any other area and I think to imply that there is no spiritual machinations or machinations that fall outside the realm of science is egotistical.

the post was unproductive if you have your own explanation then please enlighten me. Its like this you support science thats great then tell me why and we can have a discussion about it. Just trying to act like I'm the one not getting it while it may be impressive to the viewers that share your opinion really more comes off as you don't know what to say. Neither my pov or your pov can be proven but the more we discuss it the more atleast we can have our views out in the open critique one another's reasoning and compare notes.

I see projecting is one of your strong points, and answering questions isn't.

:lmao::lmao:

Funny how you want other peole to explain things to you, but you can't explain anything yourself!! !

funny maybe your just missing my points due to bia or maybe simply ignoring my point due to your inability to fight the arguement but your instead going to turn this into a flame war which I will not particpate in. If you have any straight forward question that does not involve trying to get into a dissagreement I'd love to answer it for the reasons as I stated above in the response to monty.

Yes, it was a bit sarcastic. But the idea of ghosts is based on reports of sightings, sounds, and unusual occurrences. Some scientists have gone and looked, and found nothing. If a skeptic were to be able to sense these using reliable technology under controlled circumstances, he would no longer be a skeptic.

Some scientists are researching big picture questions, as opposed to reductionist scientists, that are trying to look at an ever smaller set of variables.

Some examples of non-reductionist science includes cybernetics, systems science, and ecology.

Also, there are social scientists who are doing exactly what you call for. But

You said "Science uses itself to tell us what to believe and what the rules are in this world which is very much like a religion so I don't see the distinction between religions and scientific fanatics"

This is not really true. Science has certain methods of measuring and analyzing, which are used to understand the world. But science can test almost any hypothesis to see if it agrees with reality, and then modify itself to incorporate better information while eliminating things that do not make sense.

When a religionist accepts a belief from scripture, they do not test that idea against reality. They bend reality in their mind to fit the preconceived religious idea. Christian creationists subscribe to a 7 day creation that occurred a few thousand years ago. Hindu creationists subscribe to a very different creation story, as do people from various other religions. All of these groups cherry-pick anything that might support their idea, while they ignore or try to discredit things that conflict with their story.

It wasn't that long ago that viruses were discovered. An early belief was that either the virus caused disease and killed the host, or the host got the virus under control and killed it. This belief seemed useful at first. Then some weird sheep diseases broke out in areas of Iceland. Scientists there were able to prove that sometimes there are 'slow' viruses that can cause disease years or decades after infection. They conclusively proved that the visna virus (a relative of HIV) was responsible for the diseases, and that it occurred years after infection, by gradually wearing down part of the immune system. So scientists around the world got rid of the old belief and accepted the idea of slow viruses.

Scientists (including religious ones) have tried to measure the effect of prayer on illness. So far, they have not found any evidence of spiritual forces there. There is some evidence that prayer can have a psychological effect on a person, and that community support via a church group can be valuable. But simply praying for a person does not seem to help them anymore than a similar person who is not prayed for.

that was an excellent reply and very informative but doesn't science do the same thing? We live in a world of senses in which we cannot see things that science considers fact. We have never seen a molecule without the assistance of a microscope and again not to get to matrixy but this world could be an illusion and we do not know it. Even if that is false couldn't it in turn be that we observed something and while we did observe the process that we are studying yes the process has been repeated but is the reason for the process the same as scientists theorize? Thats how I think its very like a religion in christianity for example it says god created the world in 7 days (I believe I'm not much into religion) and he placed us as the dominant species because we are the most able of his creations and are formed in his likeness. That is used to explain why we are the dominant species and other species seem to "work around us" in a way. Is that not unlike science and its theories of how the world works, the same process is there but the explanation for it may be lacking factual evidence because not all the variables are understood correctly?

So let me get this straight...I'm not allowed to disagree with you?

your most certainly allowed I just don't want this to turn into a dissagreement thats more of a flamewar then a reasonable discussion honestly. I'd love to hear your opinions but last posts have been more about bashing me then having a discussion based on our ideals.. Honestly I also do not know what question I left unanswered seeing as I overanalyzed and overexplained its possible that you missed the point where I answered your question.

Last edited by Abangyarudo on 16 Dec 2007, 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm waiting for a reasonable argument on your behalf.. so far you've only offered semi-comprehensible white noise.

Again cause your not looking for the data you settled on the ghost thing because its easy to refute the existance of ghost but your not getting the message of how can they really find out how things work if they really don't have the tools and a complete understanding to truely measure and understand their findings.

If there is a problem with software how can I find out the problem if I don't understand the language used to code it. Under that same analogy how can science understand the world without fully being able to know all the machinizations involved in that. So if they don't understand the world which is a variable in any study how can there be a fact ? There can't be because a fact doesn't change and the addition of more knowledge of the world could change our entire understanding of the topic which makes it a theory. If we view Religion as a science then its filled with theories so how can you assert that your theories are more justified then their's ?

This is known in logic as an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance

Last edited by jfrmeister on 16 Dec 2007, 12:45 am, edited 1 time in total.