What price religion?

Quote from axeman:

"there need not be a precise definition of "GOD" to enjoy ones faith..."

Strawman. The issue is NOT that a definition is needed to
"enjoy ones faith". This issue is, does god EXIST.

peace

axeman
More...

Axie baby,

Your arguments or retorts are often stodgy and anal almost as though your reading from your little red logic primer. :) This is a good opportunity to show you why so you may learn from it: it's obvious that what elC meant is "there need not be a precise definition of "GOD" to [believe in God]" not merely "enjoy" in the strict sense.

Put your logic primer away from logic 101 class. We've all had the class thank you. Give the other disputant his just due and argue his assertions in the context in which they're obviously meant
anything else makes you look petty.

:)
 
Quote from spect8or:

Shiner, that wasn't the point of the example.

The example just showed how a normal event of a shingle falling from a roof and killing someone could be spun into a tale of "amazing coincedences", too great to have happened by chance alone. You don't really believe anything "supernatural" occurred, do you? It really was just a case of "bad luck" for the poor guy, you understand? (I hope so!)

I have no idea where you got the someone throwing it at him from. :confused:

I included that example because that is very much what you are doing with your design "arguments" (assertions, really).
More...

I get your point. Nothing "intelligent" happened, i.e. the forces of physics account for it all.

And in this example we know all about shingles, wind, etc. and can determine that it was not "supernatural" in origin.

But let's pick a better example. You're walking down the street and a shingle hits you on the head. You look up and there is a roofer on the roof and he's laughing. Did the roofer throw the tile at you as a joke or did the wind just blow it off the roof? You can't really know from the data that you have...

This example is a good one for something else I want to illustrate...
 
>Put your logic primer away from logic
>101 class. We've all had the class thank you

Ohhh...Longshot, I'm not convinced from the evidence that this is a true statement at all. :-)

JB

PS. Just for the record, I never did. shhhhhh
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:



But let's pick a better example. You're walking down the street and a shingle hits you on the head. You look up and there is a roofer on the roof and he's laughing. Did the roofer throw the tile at you as a joke or did the wind just blow it off the roof? You can't really know from the data that you have...

This example is a good one for something else I want to illustrate...
More...

Umm.. I must admit that I can't quite work out how that's a "better" or even a "related" example. Maybe your next one will shed some light.



 
Hi Axe,

A scientist's beliefs shape the direction of his work and may color the interpretation of his results. His beliefs can lead him to a great discovery, or they can lead him to make conclusions that turn out to be untrue.

As far as the science itself goes, the scientist's beliefs are irrelevant. At the end of the day you have a model or theory, evidence for, evidence against, and many times a lot of controversy even between scientists. Furthermore there is no default position with regard to a scientist's beliefs. That depends more on his personality.

With regard to science and God, I am simply pointing out that science can't answer the question of his existence.

Now I have a question for you. That stat about 97% of the National Academy being atheist surprised me (I would have guessed, more like 50/50). I would like read more about that poll, could you please direct me to it. Thanks!

Pete

Quote from axeman:

Tell us Peter,

As a SCIENTIST, when you come across an assertion
with ZERO or little supporting evidence do you simple accept
it and BELIEVE???

As Sagan always said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

97.3% of our National Academy of Scientists are non-believers.
This number has steadily increased over the years.

Clearly our best and brightest scientists know the answer to this question.
In science...NON-BELIEF is the default position on everything.


"Either believe it, or not, there's no test that has shown it to be true."

I really hope your not stating here that its rational to believe
something simply because there is no way to test it.
Not very scientific if that is the case.


peace

axeman
More...
 
>With regard to science and God, I am simply
>pointing out that science can't answer the
>question of his existence.

Are you saying:

A: "can't" as in "hasn't yet".
Or
B: "can't" as in "forever incapable"

Thanks
JB
 
Actually... its 93% percent... my memory was a little off.
The last time they were polled was in 1998 and it was
published in the journal "Nature".
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000068.html
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm

As for beliefs...I agree the scientists beliefs are irrelevant
with regards to the experiments/models/evidence, etc,
but im more interested in how they formed their beliefs.

It would seem irrational to me that someone who follows the
scientific method would form a belief concerning something
they are researching BEFORE they have any evidence for, or
have proved it.

Saying I BELIVE so and so, as a scientist, without strong
evidence for it seems extremely hypocritical to me.
What is the point of doing all this research and gathering
evidence then? If not to further our knowledge of our world/universe
and correctly/rationally have something to BELIEVE in.

If we are free to just believe in whatever we want with
zero evidence and research, then why even bother?

(I'm not saying you dont have a right to self delusion, just that
rational people dont form beliefs out of thin air)

peace

axeman


Quote from peterfigliozzi:

Hi Axe,

A scientist's beliefs shape the direction of his work and may color the interpretation of his results. His beliefs can lead him to a great discovery, or they can lead him to make conclusions that turn out to be untrue.

As far as the science itself goes, the scientist's beliefs are irrelevant. At the end of the day you have a model or theory, evidence for, evidence against, and many times a lot of controversy even between scientists. Furthermore there is no default position with regard to a scientist's beliefs. That depends more on his personality.

With regard to science and God, I am simply pointing out that science can't answer the question of his existence.

Now I have a question for you. That stat about 97% of the National Academy being atheist surprised me (I would have guessed, more like 50/50). I would like read more about that poll, could you please direct me to it. Thanks!

Pete
More...
 
"Forever incapable". You can't do a physical experiment on the metaphysical.

Thanks Axe for the article. The numbers were 72% atheist, 21% agnostic (guess we forgot about those guys), and 7% believers, with half of the 500 or so members of the academy responding.


Quote from Turok:

>With regard to science and God, I am simply
>pointing out that science can't answer the
>question of his existence.

Are you saying:

A: "can't" as in "hasn't yet".
Or
B: "can't" as in "forever incapable"

Thanks
JB
More...
 
If by metaphysical you mean immaterial or incorporeal, then this
begs the question. What's the difference between that
and something which doesn't exist at all?

Carl Sagans dragon in the garage depicts this beautifully.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

Peter, read this snippet from Sagans book "The demon haunted world".

Then please further explain what you mean.


peace

axeman



Quote from peterfigliozzi:

"Forever incapable". You can't do a physical experiment on the metaphysical.

Thanks Axe for the article. The numbers were 72% atheist, 21% agnostic (guess we forgot about those guys), and 7% believers, with half of the 500 or so members of the academy responding.
More...
 
Axe:
>97.3% of our National Academy of Scientists
>are non-believers.

Axe correction:
>Actually... its 93% percent... my memory
>was a little off.

Pete:
>The numbers were 72% atheist, 21% agnostic
>(guess we forgot about those guys)

I'm sure you recognize - or perhaps not from the contents of the parens that an agnostic is also an unbeliever and as such was not "forgotten about" in Axe's original statement.

The literal definition of a/gnostic is "not/knowing" which of course is a far cry from a believer.

JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top