* ENLIGHTENED *.....by.....* SCIENCE *

OAT

Where is the TAO?
Messages
284
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
If I only knew
Dogma or dogmatic is a strange word to apply to science. All theories in science have assumptions. These are necessary for a particular theory to work. If another theory comes along and proved that an assumption is wrong, inaccurate or can be dropped, scientists will readily accept that. Dogmatic would be more appropriate in a situation where there is holding on to what is incorrect, inaccurate or unnecessary. I don't see that in the science that I know. Any holding to the incorrect, inaccurate or unnecessary in science would be for practical reasons.
 

Diagoras

Interfaith Forums
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
0
"c0de"

I really fail to see where you are coming from. In fact it seems that in essence you are agreeing with me with your examples but in your own monologue you switch to the opposite stance. Very schizophrenic.
Anyone can pop off the name or a quote from an individual to suit their chosen stance. Context is everything. The fact remains that science is a field with millions of people involved in an equal number of avenues of research. Each has their particular specialisation and this insures that every possibility is explored. And their results stimulate further exploration ad-infinitum. You can try to define that as dogmatic if you wish, you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone, but you are not selling it to me.
As for what Saltmeister did or did not say I believe we have reached the point where he should clarify for himself, or are you collaborators? You alone seem to have taken a particular interpretation that others do not. Have you considered that it is you that misreads his statements? To me, as I have said, his statements are reliant on if's built on a poor interpretation of what science is saying. As you linked and I implied some models are deep into the exploration of finding out that the constants are anything but. Science is a vehicle of discovery not a dogma. But humans are humans and cliques and trends come and go. The strength of science is that it insures these blind alleys are sooner or later bathed in the light of new information. That is not a hallmark of dogma.
 

juantoo3

....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
446
Points
83
Location
up to my arse in alligators
You alone seem to have taken a particular interpretation that others do not.
Oh hell no, your arrogance betrays the fact you can't even count.

c0de has been telling you much more eloquently what I have said for years here, which you would have seen had you sufficient genitals to read what I already referenced. By my count that is 3 to 2, against your side. Make that 3-1, since you don't seem to be able to support *any* of your opinions.
 
Last edited:

c0de

Vassal
Messages
2,237
Reaction score
0
Points
0
"c0de"

I really fail to see where you are coming from. In fact it seems that in essence you are agreeing with me with your examples but in your own monologue you switch to the opposite stance. Very schizophrenic.
If you fail to see where I'm coming from, then maybe that's your failure, not my schizophrenia.

Anyone can pop off the name or a quote from an individual to suit their chosen stance.
And which quote did I misuse, exactly? Why don't you point it out?


You alone seem to have taken a particular interpretation that others do not.
First of all: that's a fallacy. You think everyone who has not said anything automatically agrees with you and disagrees with me? Who here has contradicted anything I have said? Not even you or CZ can actually defend your own arguments.

Second of all, and more importantly, I did not just use Salty's quotes. But quoted from multiple sources: philosophers and current publications. All of which disagree with your views directly
.

You can try to define that as dogmatic if you wish, you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone, but you are not selling it to me.
What makes you think I want to "sell" anything to you?

As for what Saltmeister did or did not say I believe we have reached the point where he should clarify for himself, or are you collaborators?
another conspiracy theorist eh?

Speaking of selling things, I might have a special tin foil hat in stock.


Have you considered that it is you that misreads his statements?
"Have you considered that it is you that misreads his statements?"

The strength of science is that it insures these blind alleys are sooner or later bathed in the light of new information. That is not a hallmark of dogma.
Yea, just ignore the whole argument against this point and restate an already nullified point. Great work, give yourself a pat on the back.



EDIT:

Juan's post above should clarify the state of affairs for you further.
 

juantoo3

....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
446
Points
83
Location
up to my arse in alligators
chernobyl.jpg

chernobyl1_gif.jpg

Chernobyl

20060321_thalidomidebaby_3.jpg

THALIDOMIDE%20Babies%20Photos.jpg

Children of Thalidomide

seven-legged-frog1.png

three-legged-frog.gif

Human medications going into the watershed

industrial-pollution_3408.jpg

Industrial%20Pollution--350-1.jpg

fishkill.jpg

industrial pollution

childrens-medicine-recall-list.jpg

recalled children's medication

I can add lots more...all brought to you by science, no religion necessary.

I feel enlightened already.
 
Last edited:

citizenzen

Custom User Title
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
3
Points
0
I can add lots more...all brought to you by science, no religion necessary.

So you'll probably be throwing away your computer... car... refrigerator... electricity.

Don't worry though... I hear telling stories by the light of a fire is pretty cool.
 

c0de

Vassal
Messages
2,237
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So you'll probably be throwing away your computer... car... refrigerator... electricity.

Don't worry though... I hear telling stories by the light of a fire is pretty cool.

What religion do monkeys practice?

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior


Sorry the headline includes that dirty word, "scientist".


Are these posts supposed to qualify as arguments? Do you even know what you're own point is?

If you think you do, then why don't you state it in the form of a thesis,

and then watch what happens when its fallacies (which are already clear) are exposed.
 

shawn

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,085
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
No longer here
What is funny is watching religio-tards seeking in vain to defend the indefensible.
Well, actually it is pathetic.
 

c0de

Vassal
Messages
2,237
Reaction score
0
Points
0
What is funny is watching religio-tards seeking in vain to defend the indefensible.
Well, actually it is
pathetic.

Apparently, the "factist" committee has degenerated into pure ad hominems.

Here's a suggestion:

giveup.jpg
 

citizenzen

Custom User Title
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
3
Points
0
What science do monkeys practice?

I'm glad you asked.

Give them another few million years, and they might be able to chat on a computer...


Tools used by primates

Animals can be said to possess a level of cognition based upon their use of tools for problem solving, an endeavor previously considered the sole domain of humans...​
 

c0de

Vassal
Messages
2,237
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Give them another few million years, and they might be able to chat on a computer...

If their evolution progressed the same as ours
then in a few million years they would also have religion.
(especially considering the cognitive science of religion)

Congratulations CZ. You just destroyed your own argument.
 

juantoo3

....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
446
Points
83
Location
up to my arse in alligators

What science do monkeys practice? -jt3

Give them another few million years, and they might be able to chat on a computer...

Tools used by primates

Thank you for proving my point...religion and science are two sides of the same coin...non-overlapping magisteria...and have roots in the same beginnings.

Religion isn't the source of morality, I have not claimed it was. I did say religion was the *repository* for morality. Even the morality exercised by atheists has its roots in religion.
 

citizenzen

Custom User Title
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Thank you for proving my point...

Watch out now!

I got MAD posting skills, BABY!

Not only do I make my points, but I convince people on the other side of the argument that I made their points as well.

Jump back!

I gots the voodoo!

:rolleyes:
 

Saltmeister

The Dangerous Dinner
Messages
2,130
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
Australia
What is funny is watching religio-tards seeking in vain to defend the indefensible.
Well, actually it is pathetic.

What I find disappointing is people thinking they need to ridicule and belittle the posters on the opposing side in order to make their point, without any attempt to actually understand the opposing view. Such an attitude is driven by prejudice. It is where you have to make the opposition look stupid in order to prove your point. I sure hope you are not using such tactics or going down that path. A good argument does not require that you ridicule and belittle the opposition. What is closer to a good argument is one that actually gives the opposition more credit and shows why their thinking is wrong.

I do not like seeing expressions like "retards" (in its various forms), "defending the indefensible" and "these people are pathetic" because it is about making one group appear more intelligent and another appear stupid without actually any attempt at understanding of opposing views. It's a cheap argument and often seems quite "cowardly" in the way that the user of the argument tries to "win."

It is actually the attitude that these discussions are all about winning and losing that really disgusts me. It is not really about what benefits humanity, but about a game of winning and losing. If a discussion is all about "winning" or "losing" then it's not really a "discussion" at all. It's a pretend discussion.
 

c0de

Vassal
Messages
2,237
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Not only do I make my points....

Which point would that be, exactly?

The one in which you equated science to evolution,
ignoring that religion is also proved to be a higher
function of cognitive evolution?

Watch out now!

I got MAD posting skills, BABY!

---

Jump back!

I gots the voodoo!

:rolleyes:
A retreat into simple wit?

yea, you've got somethin' alrite dude,

but it ain't "voodoo"
 

shawn

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,085
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
No longer here
What I find disappointing is people thinking they need to ridicule and belittle the posters on the opposing side in order to make their point, without any attempt to actually understand the opposing view. Such an attitude is driven by prejudice. It is where you have to make the opposition look stupid in order to prove your point. I sure hope you are not using such tactics or going down that path. A good argument does not require that you ridicule and belittle the opposition. What is closer to a good argument is one that actually gives the opposition more credit and shows why their thinking is wrong.

I do not like seeing expressions like "retards" (in its various forms), "defending the indefensible" and "these people are pathetic" because it is about making one group appear more intelligent and another appear stupid without actually any attempt at understanding of opposing views. It's a cheap argument and often seems quite "cowardly" in the way that the user of the argument tries to "win."

It is actually the attitude that these discussions are all about winning and losing that really disgusts me. It is not really about what benefits humanity, but about a game of winning and losing. If a discussion is all about "winning" or "losing" then it's not really a "discussion" at all. It's a pretend discussion.

It is not about winning or losing.
First.
People cherry pick something which has little or nothing to do with the idea laid out and they rip it apart from there as they are biased against anything of the like and a just seeking to ridicule it or take it down.
How is that a reasonable discussion?
Just go back through the thread and see the play by play.
I post an idea which then people who are biased seek to undermine by any means possible without even discussing in any way in the fashion which you indicate is reasonable.
I agree with you in your post that this is the way things should happen here, but they do not always go that way.
There are virulent and rabid religion-ists who are shills for their religions and will attack anyone who poses any idea that these religions are indeed a problem for humanity, or who even question the value or origins of these religions.
They have emotional investment and attachment to them and so will rally to defend them even if it means being rude and unreasonable.

When people fling mud at me I fling mud right back.
I am not obligated by my beliefs to turn the other cheek (even though I often do, but sometimes it is not going to happen that way).
I am not going to be kind to a rude, opinionated idiot and am not required to be.

Second, the comments you make just make you sound very pretentious .......oh, those horrible barbaric philistines....the rude things they say
Yet this is obvious who those comments are directed towards, so you are just as rude.

Everyone wants to nitpick at some little flaw without really just discussing the idea.
Really, this is not university and these posts and threads are not a thesis or some polished piece of work.
Who the hell has the time....I sure don't, but I have ideas and seek discussion, instead I find pretentious ivory tower prognosticators who make any such interactions extremely difficult.
So why is that pray-tell?
Sure I question at peoples religions, they deserve to be questioned, this does not mean I deserve to be kicked for doing so.
It just reveals the true nature of the adherents to these ideologies.


One more thing....I am not pretending.
 
Top