Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Instructions in DNA remind me of covalent bonding in molecules.  Hang on, maybe they're intelligent as well?   Jesus wanted two little atoms of hydrogen to cuddle up to one atom of oxygen, and behold, water is wet, hallelujah!

Can one water molecule be wet?

One thing is for certain......Trillions of water molecules can piss on a bonfire.

[SusanDoris]

Well, I have continued to read Sword of the Spirit's posts - more fool me, I suppose" - but in my opinion there is an air of smug, self-satisfaction about them which makes for a sucking in of teeth!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

But this forum exudes hope Enki.......Hope that somewhere something exists without a cause

Which, if found would mean several of Newton's Conservation of XXX laws having to be rewritten, as you could potentially get:
- momentum from no momentum
- a coefficient of restitution greater than one (i.e. if I drop a ball from a height of one metre, it could bounce higher than one metre)
- kinetic energy from no kinetic energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
- potential energy from no potential energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
etc.

.....hope that somewhere there is a scientific explanation for pretty much everything is another one

which was my starting point when I first started posting, as it means that you can never see anything as evidence for religious belief, i.e. the worldview is not falsifiable. Feels like I've come full circle, lol.

...hope for an unknown unknown to save an impossible situation in logic.

Therefore, a good point to agree to disagree, and move on, at least for the time being.

No more sucking in of teeth for SusanDoris.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Which, if found would mean several of Newton's Conservation of XXX laws having to be rewritten, as you could potentially get:
- momentum from no momentum
- a coefficient of restitution greater than one (i.e. if I drop a ball from a height of one metre, it could bounce higher than one metre)
- kinetic energy from no kinetic energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
- potential energy from no potential energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
etc.

Wrong.

which was my starting point when I first started posting, as it means that you can never see anything as evidence for religious belief, i.e. the worldview is not falsifiable. Feels like I've come full circle, lol.

Wrong.

Therefore, a good point to agree to disagree, and move on, at least for the time being.

Wrong.

I could of course tell you again why you're wrong, but as we both know that you'd just ignore the arguments that undo you and then repeat the same mistakes I've given up bothering.

[Dicky Underpants]

Which, if found would mean several of Newton's Conservation of XXX laws having to be rewritten, as you could potentially get:
- momentum from no momentum
- a coefficient of restitution greater than one (i.e. if I drop a ball from a height of one metre, it could bounce higher than one metre)
- kinetic energy from no kinetic energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
- potential energy from no potential energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
etc.
which was my starting point when I first started posting, as it means that you can never see anything as evidence for religious belief, i.e. the worldview is not falsifiable. Feels like I've come full circle, lol.
Therefore, a good point to agree to disagree, and move on, at least for the time being.

No more sucking in of teeth for SusanDoris.

This reads a bit as though you think Vlad is opposing you, whereas he's firmly in the theist camp. Just in case you hadn't noticed.

btw, Vlad has his own interpretation of what 'scientism' means, and thinks this is the approach of every atheist (and probably every agnostic) on the forum. This is a ludicrous, extremely blinkered view.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This reads a bit as though you think Vlad is opposing you, whereas he's firmly in the theist camp. Just in case you hadn't noticed.

btw, Vlad has his own interpretation of what 'scientism' means, and thinks this is the approach of every atheist (and probably every agnostic) on the forum. This is a ludicrous, extremely blinkered view.

Fairs fair Dick. There's only about half a dozen who I would say are dyed in the wool scientismatists.

[Gordon]

Fairs fair Dick. There's only about half a dozen who I would say are dyed in the wool scientismatists.

Do tell.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do tell.

My criteria for being a scientismatist is explicit statement that one expects everything to be answered eventually by science, or implicitly arguing that the unknown will eventually be answered by science as happened with say, thunder.

Such posts have made it onto the forum

On one late lamented spirituality board there were also those who argued that if science couldn't answer a question that question wasn't worth answering.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Continuing with my theme of responding only when something different is attempted:

My criteria for being a scientismatist is explicit statement that one expects everything to be answered eventually by science, or implicitly arguing that the unknown will eventually be answered by science as happened with say, thunder.

To be fair, if you’ve now abandoned corrupting the term “scientism” to your own ends and have instead invented the neologism “scientismatism” then you at least get out from behind your persistent straw man problem. Your problem now then is to find someone who actually is a “scientismatist” – such a person may exist, though I’ve never come across one, least of all from the world of science.

The thunder point by the way is just an example of the mistake of arguing from personal incredulity and building a god of the gaps on it: “I don’t know how thunder happens, therefore Thor”. Even if someone never found out how thunder worked, the “therefore” fails regardless.

Such posts have made it onto the forum

Seems unlikely. Can you cite any?

On one late lamented spirituality board there were also those who argued that if science couldn't answer a question that question wasn't worth answering.

Also seems unlikely. Asking question that science can’t answer is what scientists do – and then they try to find the answers. The “not even wrong” problem tends to concern answers that are incoherent. If you think an answer is “God” how would you propose to define and test that conjecture?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Continuing with my theme of responding only when something different is attempted:

To be fair, if you’ve now abandoned corrupting the term “scientism” to your own ends and have instead invented the neologism “scientismatism” then you at least get out from behind your persistent straw man problem. Your problem now then is to find someone who actually is a “scientismatist” – such a person may exist, though I’ve never come across one, least of all from the world of science.

Blue
You can rest assured that I choose the word scientismatist to distinguish such people from scientists.

A good scientist recognises the limits of science and knows the difference between
science and scientism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You can rest assured that I choose the word scientismatist to distinguish such people from scientists.

A good scientist recognises the limits of science and knows the difference between
science and scientism.

A good scientist does, and so does anyone possessed of a dictionary. You however do not.

Shame really. I thought for one foolish minute that you'd dared to peek out from behind the wall of straw men you habitually hide behind to avoid honest discussion. As clearly though you intend to retain your position here as the Maharajah of Mendacity I'll leave you to it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A good scientist does, and so does anyone possessed of a dictionary. You however do not.

Shame really. I thought for one foolish minute that you'd dared to peek out from behind the wall of straw men you habitually hide behind to avoid honest discussion. As clearly though you intend to retain your position here as the Maharajah of Mendacity I'll leave you to it.

A non sequitur, a literary flourish and the operatic faux indignation for a finale........
Typical Hillsidian post.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Which, if found would mean several of Newton's Conservation of XXX laws having to be rewritten, as you could potentially get:
- momentum from no momentum
- a coefficient of restitution greater than one (i.e. if I drop a ball from a height of one metre, it could bounce higher than one metre)
- kinetic energy from no kinetic energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
- potential energy from no potential energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
etc.
which was my starting point when I first started posting, as it means that you can never see anything as evidence for religious belief, i.e. the worldview is not falsifiable. Feels like I've come full circle, lol.
Therefore, a good point to agree to disagree, and move on, at least for the time being.

This reads a bit as though you think Vlad is opposing you, whereas he's firmly in the theist camp. Just in case you hadn't noticed.

It will read that way Dicky Underpants, because you did not include Vlad's quotes that I responded to.

If anyone compares your #229 with my #227, it will be seen in the latter case that I was backing up what Vlad wrote, along with examples.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Well, I have continued to read Sword of the Spirit's posts - more fool me, I suppose" - but in my opinion there is an air of smug, self-satisfaction about them which makes for a sucking in of teeth!

Perhaps you missed this offering from bluehillside to me:

I could of course tell you again why you're wrong, ...

What are your thoughts on this SusanDoris?

[SusanDoris]

I have been reading bluehillside's posts, and those of the posters who have been since BBC days and I can absolutey assure you that I will always prefer his posts to yours!

[Nearly Sane]

I have been reading bluehillside's posts, and those of the posters who have been since BBC days and I can absolutey assure you that I will always prefer his posts to yours!

Which could surely be confirmation bias?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

What are your thoughts on this SusanDoris?

Susan is of course more than capable on answering for herself, but I'd hope her thoughts would be along the lines of, "blue has indeed posted various rebuttals to the arguments Sword has attempted only for Sword either to misrepresent or just to ignore those rebuttals and then to repeat his mistakes so, on balance, it's fair comment". 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Which could surely be confirmation bias?

It could be, or it could be a reflection of the quality of the arguments each of us deploys.

Anyways, you didn't see me right?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It could be, or it could be a reflection of the quality of the arguments each of us deploys.

Anyways, you didn't see me right?

Surely the quality of arguments are not relevant to whether a poster comes across as smug?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Surely the quality of arguments are not relevant to whether a poster cones across as smug?

Of course they are. Being smug and right is one thing, but when someone is demonstrably wrong (and just misrepresents or ignores all explanations of why he's wrong) the wrongness compounds the smugness.

Anyways, stop it now - I'm retired remember? The nurses are going to wheel us over to the pond in a bit to feed the ducks, and Thursday night is bingo night so I have plenty to keep me occupied instead...

[SusanDoris]

bluehilside

#241 <thumbs up> emoticon!!!

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Of course they are. Being smug and right is one thing, but when someone is demonstrably wrong (and just misrepresents or ignores all explanations of why he's wrong) the wrongness compounds the smugness.

Anyways, stop it now - I'm retired remember? The nurses are going to wheel us over to the pond in a bit to feed the ducks, and Thursday night is bingo night so I have plenty to keep me occupied instead...

How can wrongness compound smugness? And aren't both of those subject to confirmation bias?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

How can wrongness compound smugness? And aren't both of those subject to confirmation bias?

They can be, yes - but the wrongness of the arguments can also make the person attempting them appear even more mistakenly self-satisfied than if he was right.  Either way, neither you nor I have a basis to determine whether someone prefers poster A to poster B because poster A makes arguments that validate what she thinks anyway (confirmation bias) or because she finds the logic of the arguments of poster A to be the more cogent.

Right, time for a nice cuppa and two garilbaldis I think before my nap... 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

They can be, yes - but the wrongness of the arguments can also make the person attempting them appear even more mistakenly self-satisfied than if he was right.  Either way, neither you nor I have a basis to determine whether someone prefers poster A to poster B because poster A makes arguments that validate what she thinks anyway (confirmation bias) or because she finds the logic of the arguments of poster A to be the more cogent.

Right, time for a nice cuppa and two garilbaldis I think before my nap...

Which is irrelevant if the claim is about smugness

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Which is irrelevant if the claim is about smugness

Not it isn't - it makes them appear even smugger.

Enough already!