ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags atheism , stephen hawking

Reply
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:05 AM   #161
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,457
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Because I don't feel "the other side" is offering anything beyond word games and semantics.
You perceive the search for truth as a contest of opposing sides...because of how you think the opposing side acts? That's circular. What makes you think the search for truth is a contest of opposing sides?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:09 AM   #162
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,074
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You perceive the search for truth as a contest of opposing sides...because of how you think the opposing side acts? That's circular. What makes you think the search for truth is a contest of opposing sides?
I don't. The "The Other Side" was your conceptualization, not mine.

If you want to see me saying "This particular way of thinking isn't adding anything to the discussion" as "opposing sides" so be it. If I don't want to hear about how 2+2=Potato that doesn't mean I see the "2+2=4" side has to beat the "2+2=Potato" side, it just means not everything said is meaningful or valuable or useful.

Noise making with no context, no standards, no falsefiability, and no end goal beyond an endless stream of "Science doesn't know everything neiner neiner neiner" while never actually answering anything itself doesn't interest me.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:10 AM   #163
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,457
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
But none of these things have an identity beyond "Lookit at us, we're not science."

Sure I've heard a lot about "things science can't answer" but nothing even resembling an explanation of how these all these other things are supposed to answer it.
My god, have you ever studied a single religion or philosophy? They aren't science and they don't want to be science. It's not what they're for. If you personally hate the notion of anything that's not science, fine, go with it. But don't claim everything else -things you know little about- simply must be totally wrong because they don't work by your favored methodology. You may think such an attitude benefits science but it does not: science needs no champions to make a religion of it. You're doing it a disservice.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:12 AM   #164
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,074
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
My god, have you ever studied a single religion or philosophy? They aren't science and they don't want to be science. It's not what they're for. If you personally hate the notion of anything that's not science, fine, go with it. But don't claim everything else -things you know little about- simply must be totally wrong because they don't work by your favored methodology. You may think such an attitude benefits science but it does not: science needs no champions to make a religion of it. You're doing it a disservice.
I want my answer to actually be answers and not just faux-clever rewordings of the question that go nowhere ad infinitum.

Magical thinking has consequences. Ignoring the idea that decisions can be made while untethered from reality is double plus not good. Demonize me for opposing it all you wish.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 22nd October 2018 at 10:14 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:18 AM   #165
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Of course, but the assumption lies in the non-scientific claim that only science provides knowledge of things. This cannot be scientifically proven.
Well science and ****house luck. Can you name another system?
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:18 AM   #166
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,646
No room for gods ? Pretty strong claim. Considering we are most likely living in simulation ..
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:30 AM   #167
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,457
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Well science and ****house luck. Can you name another system?
Aristotle has some notions on what is the ethical way to behave. Can you tell us what the scientific conclusions are on ethics? I'd like to hear a scientific definition of right and wrong. And remember: no philosophy! That's unscientific.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:33 AM   #168
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,074
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Aristotle has some notions on what is the ethical way to behave. Can you tell us what the scientific conclusions are on ethics? I'd like to hear a scientific definition of right and wrong. And remember: no philosophy! That's unscientific.
Well apparently we can just say "Philosophy!" and never actually explain the hows or whys of philosophy answering the questions or show any answers they've ever actually given us.

Seems like we don't need a grandiose term and entire ego-driven epistemology that places itself above everything else for the simple concept of "Throwing ideas out there."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:42 AM   #169
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,927
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Why is it so difficult to accept that figuring out the truth of things isn't a contest? You wouldn't accept a bishop declaring they held a perfect understanding of the full truth of reality. Why then would you expect anyone to accept the same claim from a scientist? Science is a method of inquiry, it's not a set of particular conclusions that have been reached and are therefore set in stone as absolute truth. It's as ridiculous to expect absolute finality of science as it is to expect experimentation from religion. If tomorrow someone invents a device that can detect the gnostic divine spark we'd have to adjust current scientific theories. Things are how they are, whether we're remotely right in what we think of them or what system we use to reach those conclusions.
But no one is claiming "science" has a perfect understanding of anything, that doesn't mean we don't know anything.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:44 AM   #170
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,457
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Well apparently we can just say "Philosophy!" and never actually explain the hows or whys of philosophy answering the questions or show any answers they've ever actually given us.

Seems like we don't need a grandiose term and entire ego-driven epistemology that places itself above everything else for the simple concept of "Throwing ideas out there."
I'm getting the impression you haven't actually read much philosophy either. That's not what philosophy is, and it's not what philosophy does. I get it: you have a deep hatred for everything that isn't science. But that isn't a scientific attitude, science greets nonscientific questions with utter disinterest. Science does not say 'God does not exist'. Science says 'there is no evidence God exists' and moves on with other, more pertinent questions. You seem to expect capital A Answers. You're not going to get that from science because it only offers theories, and those conditionally, and only on topics proper to it. Since you reject any other methods you simply won't get Answers on the rest of it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:44 AM   #171
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,927
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay let me lay out my mindset here (100% honest, no snark, no trap, no gotchas.)

Step back from the terminology. If whatever the methodology you use whatever you want to call it to get the answer to a question doesn't at least include the base concepts of falseifiability, repeatable results, removal of unnecessary variables, stuff like that... what are you even doing that isn't "Creative Writing?"

It's not that "Scientific method is the best means to figure out the truth" per se, it's more that without things like what I mentioned what you have at the end isn't an answer by my definition.
For me it's even simpler, all I want to know is "does it do what it says it does on the tin?" If it does I'm interested, even if it then fails in some other way it may be useful in some way at sometime.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:46 AM   #172
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,074
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'm getting the impression you haven't actually read much philosophy either. That's not what philosophy is, and it's not what philosophy does.
Yep. And I'll keep getting greater and greater talking down to's about what is isn't, and never so much as postcard about what it actually is.

Quote:
I get it: you have a deep hatred for everything that isn't science. But that isn't a scientific attitude, science greets nonscientific questions with utter disinterest. Science does not say 'God does not exist'. Science says 'there is no evidence God exists' and moves on with other, more pertinent questions. You seem to expect capital A Answers. You're not going to get that from science because it only offers theories, and those conditionally, and only on topics proper to it. Since you reject any other methods you simply won't get Answers on the rest of it.
Ah the "Philosophobe" argument. Good to see it again.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:46 AM   #173
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,457
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
But no one is claiming "science" has a perfect understanding of anything, that doesn't mean we don't know anything.
I didn't say anything to the contrary. What I'm saying is the inverse is also true: the fact that we know some things scientifically doesn't mean we can know nothing nonscientifically.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:49 AM   #174
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,927
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
My god, have you ever studied a single religion or philosophy? They aren't science and they don't want to be science. It's not what they're for. If you personally hate the notion of anything that's not science, fine, go with it. But don't claim everything else -things you know little about- simply must be totally wrong because they don't work by your favored methodology. You may think such an attitude benefits science but it does not: science needs no champions to make a religion of it. You're doing it a disservice.
Sorry but I think you are very wrong, all the organised religions of the world claim to already have the truth, to be THE way. The problem is that they don't deliver what they claim they do, as I said before if they did what they say on their tins then I'd be interested but they don't. That is why I find no value in them.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:50 AM   #175
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,457
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Yep. And I'll keep getting greater and greater talking down to's about what is isn't, and never so much as postcard about what it actually is.



Ah the "Philosophobe" argument. Good to see it again.
Argument from ignorance seems profoundly unscientific to me. The scientific method itself was devised by a philosopher. Empiricism is a philosophy. You stand on the shoulders of giants crapping on them.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:52 AM   #176
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,074
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Argument from ignorance seems profoundly unscientific to me. The scientific method itself was devised by a philosopher. Empiricism is a philosophy. You stand on the shoulders or giants crapping on them.
Yeah much like astronomers rightly crap on astrologers and chemists rightfully crap on alchemist.

Simply defining your epistemology as broadly as possible doesn't give you domain over everybody.

Philosophy is "over" science only because it says it is.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:57 AM   #177
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,457
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Yeah much like astronomers rightly crap on astrologers and chemists rightfully crap on alchemist.

Simply defining your epistemology as broadly as possible doesn't give you domain over everybody.

Philosophy is "over" science only because it says it is.
You really do perceive all pursuit of knowledge as conflict, don't you? Even the dialectical approach is intended to pursue the truth.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 10:59 AM   #178
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,074
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You really do perceive all pursuit of knowledge as conflict, don't you? Even the dialectical approach is intended to pursue the truth.
I take their actual effectiveness into account. I'm not really sure what all the hostility toward that is coming from.

I really don't get how me saying "I respect methodologies that actually produce usable answers and information more than ones that don't" becomes perceiving "all pursuit of knowledge as a conflict."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 22nd October 2018 at 11:02 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:04 AM   #179
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,410
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Of course we can, have you never checked the definition of god in the RCC et all?
I don't understand the relevance of how a church defines its god.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:04 AM   #180
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,457
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Sorry but I think you are very wrong, all the organised religions of the world claim to already have the truth, to be THE way. The problem is that they don't deliver what they claim they do, as I said before if they did what they say on their tins then I'd be interested but they don't. That is why I find no value in them.
Whether you find value in a thing is up to your personal judgment. As for 'organized religions' I hope you realize that there are as many strands of religious belief as there are individuals. More, in fact, as people change their thinking over time. Marcionic Christianity was as different from modern Roman Catholicism as heychastic Byzantine Christianity is from Quakerism. Knowing at least a little of a given belief before reaching a conclusion about its validity seems reasonable.

Of course it is silly for anybody to claim they know the full truth of reality, whether they are using religion or science to come by their conclusions.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:05 AM   #181
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,595
Didn't Jesus have doubting Thomas actually stick his hand in Jesus's side to prove to him something?
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:09 AM   #182
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 39,283
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I get that people here favor the scientific method as the best means to figure out the truth. I agree with that myself. But if some ancient Greek philosopher theorized the atom based on nothing but his own notions he was just as correct as the scientists millennia later who finally managed to see the damn things. He didn't use the best methodology but he was still right. And the atom would continue existing whether nobody knew of it or not.
Actually Democritus had a some empirical notions to back up the hypothesis
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:11 AM   #183
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,457
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I take their actual effectiveness into account. I'm not really sure what all the hostility toward that is coming from.

I really don't get how me saying "I respect methodologies that actually produce usable answers and information more than ones that don't" becomes perceiving "all pursuit of knowledge as a conflict."
First you spoke of 'sides', then you put listed different fields of study in a hierarchy, saying the later one supplanted the former. How is that not conflict?

As for respecting 'usable answers' I'll leave aside the irony that utilitarianism is a philosophy. If that's all you value is 'usable answers' then that's fine: you are interested in only what science can answer. The mass of Jupiter, the cure for cancer. Not the question of ethics, the definition of the good, because those are not scientific questions.

Which leaves me wondering why, if you aren't interested in religious or philosophical questions, are you so fervently insisting that the answers reached by others on those questions are necessarily wrong? Shouldn't you be, like science, disinterested?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:18 AM   #184
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,927
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't understand the relevance of how a church defines its god.
They define what the word god means.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:19 AM   #185
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,074
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
First you spoke of 'sides', then you put listed different fields of study in a hierarchy, saying the later one supplanted the former. How is that not conflict?
Okay fine you can call it "conflict." Not sure what difference it makes outside you think calling if "conflict" makes me sound unreasonable and militaristic.

Quote:
As for respecting 'usable answers' I'll leave aside the irony that utilitarianism is a philosophy. If that's all you value is 'usable answers' then that's fine: you are interested in only what science can answer. The mass of Jupiter, the cure for cancer. Not the question of ethics, the definition of the good, because those are not scientific questions.
And that's fine for people who see science as nothing outside the beakers and labcoats.

Quote:
Which leaves me wondering why, if you aren't interested in religious or philosophical questions, are you so fervently insisting that the answers reached by others on those questions are necessarily wrong? Shouldn't you be, like science, disinterested?
Because we're talking "Science" not "Straw Vulcanism."

I get it. I said "Science" so you're going to hear "Emotionless logic driven robot."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 22nd October 2018 at 11:29 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:28 AM   #186
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,457
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
They define what the word god means.
They define what they mean by the word when they use it, yes. But not all religions define it the same way. Heck, get different denominations of Christianity to define the Trinity!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:30 AM   #187
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,972
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
you're philosophizing again.

There is no known scientific test that can determine whether any gods exist.
Sounds like your go-to rationalization so you don't have to question your beliefs.

Observable evidence is not philosophy.

No observable evidence when there should be some is not philosophy.

Forming hypotheses based on evidence is how science poses questions. Just because I said you are asking the wrong question doesn't make what I said philosophy unless you take it out of context.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 22nd October 2018 at 11:32 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:30 AM   #188
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,410
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
They define what the word god means.
And . . . . . ?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:33 AM   #189
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,410
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Sounds like your go-to rationalization so you don't have to question your beliefs.

Observable evidence is not philosophy.

No observable evidence when there should be some is not philosophy.
You didn't mention "observable evidence" in your philosophical post.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:36 AM   #190
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,972
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Not even one of those many Hindu deities? How could he know that?
Once you have ruled gods out, one after the other, and nothing suggests one might be ruled in, it's time to say you have sufficient evidence.

Or put another way, do you have any issues saying Zeus and Péle are mythical beings? Do you have any evidence the Judeo-Christian god isn't also a myth?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:38 AM   #191
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,972
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You'd have a devil of a time proving or disproving the existence of a Gnostic-style god: a force without personality or will that exists outside the universe and never interacts with it. Fortunately for the tidy-minded there is no difference in impact if such a god exists or doesn't, the results are exactly the same, so nobody need bother with it.
Not only no need to bother, there's no way anyone could know about a god that doesn't interact with the Universe.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:41 AM   #192
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,457
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Not only no need to bother, there's no way anyone could know about a god that doesn't interact with the Universe.
One could theorize, though. And either be correct or incorrect, although they wouldn't know which.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 11:46 AM   #193
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,972
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Of course, but the assumption lies in the non-scientific claim that only science provides knowledge of things. This cannot be scientifically proven.
Math has proofs, science doesn't.

What best explains god beliefs based on the evidence? They are human generated myths.

End of the trail of evidence.

I don't know where you get the idea only science provides knowledge.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 12:24 PM   #194
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,972
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
...You should think about this.
What makes you think we haven't seriously thought about the god question? Most atheists I know, know more about the Christian religion than most Christians I know. And most atheists know a lot about other religions, philosophy and science.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 12:29 PM   #195
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
They define what the word god means.
They define the attributes of their particular god but the word 'god' has a definition.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 12:35 PM   #196
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,972
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
My god, have you ever studied a single religion or philosophy? They aren't science and they don't want to be science. It's not what they're for. If you personally hate the notion of anything that's not science, fine, go with it. But don't claim everything else -things you know little about- simply must be totally wrong because they don't work by your favored methodology. You may think such an attitude benefits science but it does not: science needs no champions to make a religion of it. You're doing it a disservice.
Not everyone accepts the non-overlapping magisteria. I don't. Faith based religious beliefs don't differ in essence from psychic beliefs. You have to have a blind spot to ignore that fact.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 12:37 PM   #197
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,972
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
No room for gods ? Pretty strong claim. Considering we are most likely living in simulation ..
Because you saw The Matrix?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 22nd October 2018 at 01:01 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 12:39 PM   #198
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
One could theorize, though. And either be correct or incorrect, although they wouldn't know which.
Basically what you are saying is that we have two systems for figuring things out, science and guessing.

I guess if one is the type to give the two equal weight guessing is the smart choice because it's so easy.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

Last edited by qayak; 22nd October 2018 at 12:41 PM.
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 12:45 PM   #199
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,972
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'm getting the impression you haven't actually read much philosophy either. That's not what philosophy is, and it's not what philosophy does. I get it: you have a deep hatred for everything that isn't science. But that isn't a scientific attitude, science greets nonscientific questions with utter disinterest. Science does not say 'God does not exist'. Science says 'there is no evidence God exists' and moves on with other, more pertinent questions. You seem to expect capital A Answers. You're not going to get that from science because it only offers theories, and those conditionally, and only on topics proper to it. Since you reject any other methods you simply won't get Answers on the rest of it.
From where I stand, science is overtaking philosophy as we learn more and more about how moral thinking is biological.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 12:54 PM   #200
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,972
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You didn't mention "observable evidence" in your philosophical post.
You took my post out of context. I clarified it.

Are you now dodging the issue instead of accepting the clarification? Pretty sure that makes it a straw man.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.