Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

You on the other hand seem to be arguing on romantic notions of science and discovery. A reductionist take on things boiling down to mental states is just as bad as the ''beyondness'' of mental states.

I don't see why that should be the case.  Is curiosity equivalent to indifference ? I accept not everyone is interested in the why's and how's; we are mostly happy to use our smartphones without understanding how they work.  But we all benefit because some people do have that curiosity to figure things out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see why that should be the case.  Is curiosity equivalent to indifference ? I accept not everyone is interested in the why's and how's; we are mostly happy to use our smartphones without understanding how they work.  But we all benefit because some people do have that curiosity to figure things out.

Sadly, science suffers from as many nominal scientists as religion has nominal religionists. They are on board for the benefits without the effort hence priests and experts.

And for some of those experts the driver is not curiosity but seeking confirmation of a world view..........................................

And of course there are others who embark on curiosity and then confuse the methodology with the philosophy.

I have no beef with the benefits of science or the methodology but find those opposing the very notion of religion prone to holding science up as a shield whenever they've been rumbled.

[ippy]

Sadly, science suffers from as many nominal scientists as religion has nominal religionists. They are on board for the benefits without the effort hence priests and experts.

And for some of those experts the driver is not curiosity but seeking confirmation of a world view..........................................

And of course there are others who embark on curiosity and then confuse the methodology with the philosophy.

I have no beef with the benefits of science or the methodology but find those opposing the very notion of religion prone to holding science up as a shield whenever they've been rumbled.

It's not holding up a shield when referring to science it's how science works someone, anyone has an idea we test it, goodo if you get it right, if you get it wrong say so as you bin it.

Religion, read a book accept all it says on face value, the book even instructs you not to test it, no testing of the book that is in effect is a manual, believe every word the said manual says.

It's not a difficult choice for me to take between these two, you could say I suppose science can be used as a shield against the words of a bronze age goat herder's scribe's ignorance.

It should be an easy one to rescue religious people, but for some need humans have for the irrational, the magic and supernatural mythology nonsense parts of life that unfortunately for them they're unable to shrug off, people like you Vlad.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrational,

Sadly, science suffers from as many nominal scientists as religion has nominal religionists. They are on board for the benefits without the effort hence priests and experts.

And for some of those experts the driver is not curiosity but seeking confirmation of a world view..........................................

And of course there are others who embark on curiosity and then confuse the methodology with the philosophy.

I have no beef with the benefits of science or the methodology but find those opposing the very notion of religion prone to holding science up as a shield whenever they've been rumbled.

Well, that’s a pretty heady mix of wrongness and bonkersism.

Sadly, science suffers from as many nominal scientists as religion has nominal religionists. They are on board for the benefits without the effort hence priests and experts.

Naturally you’ll be able to provide some evidence then for these scientists who are “on board for the benefits”. I’ve known a reasonable number of them – what they actually do is go to work every day to do research, either for an academic institution or for a company. In both cases in order to eat they draw salaries for their work – is that what you’re thinking of?   

And for some of those experts the driver is not curiosity but seeking confirmation of a world view..........................................

And your evidence for this remarkable assertion is what exactly? What “world view” do you think these people have, and why do you think they choose a nine-to-five job so they can “confirm” it?

And of course there are others who embark on curiosity and then confuse the methodology with the philosophy.

Oh dear. Who are these people, what “philosophy” do you think they have, and what is it that you think they “confuse” exactly?

A typical scientist spends her working life with test tubes and centrifuges looking for cures for illnesses. Where’s the “confusion”?

I have no beef with the benefits of science or the methodology…

Doubtless the scientific community will be delighted to know that..

…but find those opposing the very notion of religion prone to holding science up as a shield whenever they've been rumbled.

And he rounds off with his favourite fallacy – the straw man. Which people do that exactly?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not holding up a shield when referring to science it's how science works

It doesn't wash.
Brobat toilet cleaner works but you never see your average axe grinding antitheist hold that up as an example of something that works.....why, because it isn't sexy.

Use of science for any argument of antitheism is invalid and illegitimate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Use of science for any argument of antitheism is invalid and illegitimate.

Yet again...

First, it's atheist, not "antitheist".

Second, that's yet another straw man. Who does that?

Third, science is perfectly valid when those who would conjecture "God" etc make supporting claims that are themselves scientific (creationism for example) because real science always falsifies pseudo science.

Why is this so difficult for you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Yet again...

First, it's atheist, not "antitheist".

Second, that's yet another straw man. Who does that?

Third, science is perfectly valid when those who would conjecture "God" etc make supporting claims that are themselves scientific (creationism for example) because real science always falsifies pseudo science.

Why is this so difficult for you?

Science disproves the scientific claims of creationism. Namely the process described for the existence of species and the temporal properties of that.

That is far more adequate an explanation of what the situation is than your loaded antitheist guff version.

Now it appears that the axe grinding antitheism is not only prepared to duck behind science when rumbled but is prepared to pull mild mannered atheism in front of it to take the hit. Well done Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Science disproves the scientific claims of creationism. Namely the process described for the existence of species and the temporal properties of that.

That is far more adequate an explanation of what the situation is than your loaded antitheist guff version.

Now it appears that the axe grinding antitheism is not only prepared to duck behind science when rumbled but is prepared to pull mild mannered atheism in front of it to take the hit. Well done Hillside.

I have no way to engage with a mind this disordered. If you seriously think that there’s a coherent point in there somewhere why not try to express it in clear terms, then read it out loud several times before posting to see how it sounds to your ears?

Oh, and the “process described for the existence of species” by the way is called “speciation”.

Hope that helps.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

I have no way to engage with a mind this disordered.

Are you talking to me or yourself?

[ippy]

It doesn't wash.
Brobat toilet cleaner works but you never see your average axe grinding antitheist hold that up as an example of something that works.....why, because it isn't sexy.

Use of science for any argument of antitheism is invalid and illegitimate.

Vlad I know about your love of using assertions, this doesn't do you any favours, you destroy your credibility every time you use them as you frequently do.

I noticed you selectively edited my post where I had said:

'It's not holding up a shield when referring to science it's how science works someone, anyone has an idea we test it, goodo if you get it right, if you get it wrong say so as you bin it'; you then edited this down to:

'It's not holding up a shield when referring to science it's how science works'.

Was there some reason for this edit, something there you were afraid of? Incidentally I'm not saying you were afraid of something I had written, just asking if you were afraid of something I had written in that text?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad I know about your love of using assertions, this doesn't do you any favours, you destroy your credibility every time you use them as you frequently do.

I noticed you selectively edited my post where I had said:

'It's not holding up a shield when referring to science it's how science works someone, anyone has an idea we test it, goodo if you get it right, if you get it wrong say so as you bin it'; you then edited this down to:

'It's not holding up a shield when referring to science it's how science works'.

Was there some reason for this edit, something there you were afraid of? Incidentally I'm not saying you were afraid of something I had written, just asking if you were afraid of something I had written in that text?

ippy

As you know Ippy all I fear is a Stalinist secular humanism.

[Shaker]

As you know Ippy all I fear is a Stalinist secular humanism.

Pity you don't fear contradictions in terms as well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pity you don't fear contradictions in terms as well.

Ah, you see humanism as ''being nice to people''

[Shaker]

Ah, you see humanism as ''being nice to people''

Well that's a fairly central part of it by definition, I'd have thought.

[ippy]

As you know Ippy all I fear is a Stalinist secular humanism.

So no answer to why the edit of my post then Vlad?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So no answer to why the edit of my post then Vlad?

ippy

Sorry if I overlooked any critical point in your post.
Where you are pro science i'm right behind you. If you were science Vs religion then I would think you are barking up the wrong tree.

[ippy]

Sorry if I overlooked any critical point in your post.
Where you are pro science i'm right behind you. If you were science Vs religion then I would think you are barking up the wrong tree.

I see you still haven't wanted to explain the edit you did of my former post.

Their's no reason, I'm aware of, for having a science versus the magical, mystical and superstition based beliefs discourse and why wouldn't anyone be pro science, it beats being disastrously locked into being a pro bronze age ignoranceisitist, any time

Vlad what is this Stalin/secularism thing you're going on about? You should know by now that you are totally incapable of ever being able to understand secularism so it's best you don't go there.

Starlin was just a very nasty man and secularism, well, again, what's the point of trying to explain it to you?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see you still haven't wanted to explain the edit you did of my former post.

Their's no reason, I'm aware of, for having a science versus the magical, mystical and superstition based beliefs discourse and why wouldn't anyone be pro science, it beats being disastrously locked into being a pro bronze age ignoranceisitist, any time

I'm sorry but I find your caricature of religion to be ignorant.
I find magical thinking in antitheism and superstition also.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

I see you still haven't wanted to explain the edit you did of my former post.

He never will

Their's no reason, I'm aware of, for having a science versus the magical, mystical and superstition based beliefs discourse and why wouldn't anyone be pro science, it beats being disastrously locked into being a pro bronze age ignoranceisitist, any time

That’s just one of Vlad’s favourite fallacies – the straw man. He conjures up an army of “science, therefore no god” wallahs and then goes to war against them. That they’re by and large imaginary though troubles him not a jot.

Vlad what is this Stalin/secularism thing you're going on about? You should know by now that you are totally incapable of ever being able to understand secularism so it's best you don't go there.

Starlin was just a very nasty man and secularism, well, again, what's the point of trying to explain it to you?

It’s a bit of paranoid nonsense constructed by cobbling together terms he doesn’t understand (like “secularism”) with something very bad (like Stalinism) in the hope that he can damn by association.

It’s crude stuff, but he’s so invested in it that no amount of correction will get him to see the light.   

[ippy]

I'm sorry but I find your caricature of religion to be ignorant.
I find magical thinking in antitheism and superstition also.

Blue I could add a couple of things to this 21668 post of yours but don't see any need to do so, good post.

Vlad if you read Blue's post 21668, it would be good if you either Google each individual word he uses or go to a decent dictionary and find out the actual meanings of all of the words Blue uses and then you might get to understand the words even the ones you don't understand that you don't understand them.

I'll give you a tip Vlad, you'd be wise to take it in, start to use everyday terms in your posts when you describe or try to explain things you'll be more likely to be understood and a highly likely bonus to you could be some reduction in the trouble you have at present with grammar pedants or semanticists.


I have loads of trouble with spelling I consistently misspell all sorts of words, in some cases the most simple of words for for others to spell; I just put my hands up, yes my spelling is pathetic, and let others worry about it, I don't.

Try to do something similar with, in your case, the words you haven't managed to get your brain around, it'll work and you'll find others will be far more forgiving of your present short fallings in this area.

Regards ippy   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Blue I could add a couple of things to this 21668 post of yours but don't see any need to do so, good post.

Vlad if you read Blue's post 21668, it would be good if you either Google each individual word he uses or go to a decent dictionary and find out the actual meanings of all of the words Blue uses and then you might get to understand the words even the ones you don't understand that you don't understand them.

I'll give you a tip Vlad, you'd be wise to take it in, start to use everyday terms in your posts when you describe or try to explain things you'll be more likely to be understood and a highly likely bonus to you could be some reduction in the trouble you have at present with grammar pedants or semanticists.


I have loads of trouble with spelling I consistently misspell all sorts of words, in some cases the most simple of words for for others to spell; I just put my hands up, yes my spelling is pathetic, and let others worry about it, I don't.

Try to do something similar with, in your case, the words you haven't managed to get your brain around, it'll work and you'll find others will be far more forgiving of your present short fallings in this area.

Regards ippy

Thank you for your concern but I have much experience of Hillside and words thank you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Thank you for your concern but I have much experience of Hillside and words thank you.

But sadly your “experience” of words is that you routinely either misunderstand them or re-define them in order to attack the people you falsely claim to subscribe to your personal meanings.

ippy’s advice to you is thus well made.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

But sadly your “experience” of words is that you routinely either misunderstand them or re-define them in order to attack the people you falsely claim to subscribe to your personal meanings.

ippy’s advice to you is thus well made.

I frequently guide people to the definitions of Wikipedia. If they choose yours over Wikipedia, more fool them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Mendacious,

I frequently guide people to the definitions of Wikipedia. If they choose yours over Wikipedia, more fool them.

Generally my instinct when people make mistakes like this is to suggest that they’re forgetful – have your forgotten already for example that when you did try this (and referenced RationalWiki too by the way) it quite spectacularly blew up in your face when the actual meanings turned out to be what I told you they were and not your personal re-definitions at all?

In your case though, the fact that I use one of the very quotes that undid you as my tag line on every post I make combined your notoriety here for producing more porky pies than Wall’s suggests behaviour less savoury.

And so it goes. “Methodological naturalism” doesn’t entail a philosophical position. Insisting that you at least try to use words correctly isn’t “totalitarian”. “Scientism” does not mean the conviction that science will answer everything there is to know. “Atheism” is not the position that gods necessarily do not exist. “Secularism” is just the separation of state from church, and there’s nothing “Stalinist” about that. To be “reductionist” there has to be something reduced from etc. I could continue with the lexicon of Vladdisms – perfectly good and well-understood words that you’ve had to twist and subvert into different meanings in order to attack them – but frankly what would be the point?           

[ippy]

Thank you for your concern but I have much experience of Hillside and words thank you.

A very good example of your misunderstandings is your total, yes total blind spot is secularism, you really do not understand it Vlad.

I've seen secularism explained to you many times, I've lost count of how many times I've seen the details of secularism expounded to you at length and yet you manage to demonstrate how much you don't or are unable to understand the basics of secularism within, often, in your very next post.

I'm not making this up Vlad, you really need to try to do some revision in this area, believe me you really don't understand secularism.

I don't think you're totally without wit of any kind but your misunderstandings and use of words are almost as bad as Mrs Malaprop's and think about it your posts could have a bit more of a punch if you use the right words in the right place and that can be achieved without having to be that precise with the grammar some would like to see used.

ippy

PS I often think of Les Dawson's, ' the articulate lorry driver', Les was a master at this pacific type of saying. Wish Les could have come back after three days.