Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, any term other than 'scientist' seem pejorative. Even materialist scientist. It implies some sort of dogmatic mindset, rather than starting with the mechanisms we know for research, and where they fail, say 'we don't know'.
There are of course a lot of scientists with religious beliefs. That's ok, so long as you don't let it compromise the science - there are even a couple of creationist scientist, but they do not use Creationist data in publishing their papers, not because there is a closed shop in science but because Creationism is not scientifically validated.
I wouldn't even feel happy with scientific atheists, since while, having no truck with faith -claims, we use the tried and tested method of logical reasoning and validated science, to imply that science is atheistic is wrong and atheism scientific is....not wrong, indeed, it's a compliment, it's too broad brush. There a probably more atheists who never think about it than apply science to it.
So Atheism' will do fine and 'scientists' will serve admirably.
And just because I have one one of my tastiest Thai curries for a while washed down with my House cider and I am about to light my red Aroma...(did you think I was eating is a restaurant? I cooked it myself ) I am going to be unforgivably self indulgent and post what is probably my favourite piece of religious music.
Ahh...sorry, but they may be church group, but I have rarely heard better!
Even Nigra Sum (which can be time to nip out to make coffee and a sandwich) is performed with the right style and ornaments of a 17th c opera singer (1) - and in a dog -collar, too!
(1) the whole thing is a mix of church polyphony, madrigal, opera and dance, all with the best singers and instruments that the court of the Gonzagas could provide
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-25-2018 at 05:55 PM..
That's not what I was talking about. I have absolute respect for atheists. But I think they don't realize that they look irrational in some of their arguments, to those who are on the opposite extreme. .
I make an effort to be as rational as possible in the arguments I present. I am an atheist, one of "they" you collectively reference above. So tell me, which of any of the arguments I have presented "looked" irrational to you?
We always welcome efforts to show how irrational or illogical our argument are. Almost always the only look that way because the Theists misunderstand what our arguments actually are.
Opportunities to rectify misunderstandings are welcomed.
This is an unconscious bias incorporated into their misguided belief about objectivity. They come from a position that believes there is NO purpose or design to our reality. That automatically precludes looking for any and ignoring any conceivable implications that there might be. They actually think that is objective and unbiased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
As usual you get it back to front. The -not unconscious, but unrecognised bias of your position failt to admit that the for a purpose or design (other than that of evolution or ourselves) is merely a faith claim on your part. You compound this by implying that we refuse to look because we are afraid of what we might find out.
This is par for your course, bias, faith claims, denial and intellectual dishonesty. Not least in thinking that you are the objective and unbiased one. I doubt that you'll find many others who agree with you.
The only one who refuses to recognize his bias is you, Arq. Your "default" is NOT an unbiased one nor is it remotely objective. A truly objective position is one that makes no "default" assumptions and considers every possibility at each new inference applying neutral tests and eliminating no possibility that cannot absolutely be established to be false.
I'm not trying to change anyone's point of view. I'm just trying to explain how the so-called "irrational" group is not really as irrational as you would think.
As you always do, you ignore or dismiss what has been verified about the world we know as the starting -point. That is the 'default' and your appeals to unknowns and faith -claims have to be verified. This you have failed to to as you simply make plonking faith -claims that you expect to accept on your word, and the attempt to use science to validate it end up in you coming up with a sort of alternative science as we saw in your exchange with Matadora where you represented it as a sort of Philoophical science, whatever that means.
This is just what you did before with a muddled science that was an 'analogy' of this unknown science that nobody knows about but you, apparently through revelation. You (as usual) denied this ever happened, but you did it again.
You still seem to think that you are fooling everyone. You ain't fooling me.
The only one who refuses to recognize his bias is you, Arq. Your "default" is NOT an unbiased one nor is it remotely objective. A truly objective position is one that makes no "default" assumptions and considers every possibility at each new inference applying neutral tests and eliminating no possibility that cannot absolutely be established to be false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
As you always do, you ignore or dismiss what has been verified about the world we know as the starting -point. That is the 'default' and your appeals to unknowns and faith -claims have to be verified.
That there is no purpose or design to our reality has NOT "been verified about the world we know" nor has it been falsified. So your claim to a verified "default" is bogus, period.
That's not what I was talking about. I have absolute respect for atheists. But I think they don't realize that they look irrational in some of their arguments, to those who are on the opposite extreme. I actually think the guy in the video had a valid point, although it's pretty clear that there are no atheists who see it that way.
No, the guy had a very irrational point. We don't know, therefore it could be a god does not work, because every time we did not know and then found out, it was never 'God'. It was always something natural.
And if you have no evidence for a god (or anything), then you are probably wrong. I will use my birthday to demonstrate. If you try and guess my birthday, you will most probably be wrong (1:365.25). Or try it with what car I have.
It doesn't mean there is no god in that large part of the circle, it just means it is very unlikely, especially as intelligent, sentient beings don't simply just exist for no reason at all.
And the reason theists think we are irrational is because most of them don't think logically. That is why they often use arguments that prove their god can not exist as evidence for their god.
The only one who refuses to recognize his bias is you, Arq. Your "default" is NOT an unbiased one nor is it remotely objective. A truly objective position is one that makes no "default" assumptions and considers every possibility at each new inference applying neutral tests and eliminating no possibility that cannot absolutely be established to be false.
Lol, Mystic nukes every religious belief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) I am going to be unforgivably self indulgent and post what is probably my favourite piece of religious music.
