A Few Statements: Feel Free to Pick Apart

[Pendragon]

Religion and Logic have little to do with each other
If you are looking for God, organized religion is often too broad and cults too narrow a search region
Saying God doesn't exist proves only that YOU don't believe it, not necessarily that it is fact, anymore that saying He does proves anything greater that personal faith
The one thing I don't doubt is that many will be surprised when things end: some because they expected too much and some because they didn't expect enough
An honest person is hard to find, be they religious or not
Belief is not synonymous with ignorance, whether you believe in God, or in the magic called Science. Truth exists somewhere between


And as always

God Bless

Pen

[bazarov]

I pick them all.

[Redzeppelin]

Religion and Logic have little to do with each other
If you are looking for God, organized religion is often too broad and cults too narrow a search region
Saying God doesn't exist proves only that YOU don't believe it, not necessarily that it is fact, anymore that saying He does proves anything greater that personal faith
The one thing I don't doubt is that many will be surprised when things end: some because they expected too much and some because they didn't expect enough
An honest person is hard to find, be they religious or not
Belief is not synonymous with ignorance, whether you believe in God, or in the magic called Science. Truth exists somewhere between



Can't pick 'em apart because they're all true - though some would like to pretend otherwise. I look forward to the arrival of the critics...

[RichardHresko]

Statement 1 may be something of a problem. While it is certainly true that religion if it is to be alive must be experienced and not merely reasoned over (recall that Scotus argued that theology can not restrict itself to the via negativa since no one can love a negation) it does not follow that logic can not be used to understand and explicate one's faith. One can make the argument (and it was made in Christianity for over one thousand years) that faith seeking understanding is an important aspect to religious life.

Statement 6 presents some problems as well. One, honestly, is that the claim that Science is a form of magic is unnecessarily inflammatory given that no explanation for equating them is offered for evaluation. The second is that the statement is itself unclear. When you use capital 'T' Truth, what exactly are you talking about? This is reminiscent of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the answer to the ultimate question is found to be useless without knowing precisely what the question was.

[curlyqlink]

1. Theology can be very logical. Once you make the assumption that God exists, you can run all sorts of fun logical games with the implications. Even though I'm an atheist, I find theology fascinating. It's all a house of cards, of course, because it all rests on a very shaky set of assumptions. But building card houses can be endlessly rewarding.

2. Faith is easier to sustain when the concept of "god" is left fuzzy. Preferably warm and fuzzy.

3. It is impossible to prove a negative. However, in life we generally place the burden of proof on those who believe in the existence of secret, invisible, powerful beings (Bigfoot, leprechauns). Only in the area of religion to we invert this burden.

4. I don't expect to be around when things end; things will keep on goin' long after I'm gone. (I detect a certain hubris in the Left Behind mode of thinking, that Armageddon is coming in our lifetimes, that the universe can't possibly go on without us... or them... whatever.)

5. I find people to be fairly honest, and moral, in the whole. Agreed that religion does not make people more so.

6. Agreed that there is no link between belief and ignorance. I'll go you one better, and say that neither is there a link between magic and science. Two better, and say there is no link between religious belief and belief in science.

[Pendragon]

Statement 1 may be something of a problem. While it is certainly true that religion if it is to be alive must be experienced and not merely reasoned over (recall that Scotus argued that theology can not restrict itself to the via negativa since no one can love a negation) it does not follow that logic can not be used to understand and explicate one's faith. One can make the argument (and it was made in Christianity for over one thousand years) that faith seeking understanding is an important aspect to religious life.

Statement 6 presents some problems as well. One, honestly, is that the claim that Science is a form of magic is unnecessarily inflammatory given that no explanation for equating them is offered for evaluation. The second is that the statement is itself unclear. When you use capital 'T' Truth, what exactly are you talking about? This is reminiscent of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the answer to the ultimate question is found to be useless without knowing precisely what the question was.

OK. I wanted to open a discussion, let us see how civilized I can remain, for if not, no discussion.

1.) It is what you say, it requires experience of things logic would deny.

Heb.11
[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

This is illogical, but not unbelievable to any who have experienced it.

6.) The capital T is a typo. Science explains things with things for which our ancestors would have burned at the stake as witches. I saw an entire magic show that relied from start to finish on chemistry, which the lady explained before the show. Not sleight of hand, not spells and conjuring but pure chemistry. Best I ever saw!

God Bless

Pen.

[Pendragon]

1. Theology can be very logical. Once you make the assumption that God exists, you can run all sorts of fun logical games with the implications. Even though I'm an atheist, I find theology fascinating. It's all a house of cards, of course, because it all rests on a very shaky set of assumptions. But building card houses can be endlessly rewarding.

2. Faith is easier to sustain when the concept of "god" is left fuzzy. Preferably warm and fuzzy.

3. It is impossible to prove a negative. However, in life we generally place the burden of proof on those who believe in the existence of secret, invisible, powerful beings (Bigfoot, leprechauns). Only in the area of religion to we invert this burden.

4. I don't expect to be around when things end; things will keep on goin' long after I'm gone. (I detect a certain hubris in the Left Behind mode of thinking, that Armageddon is coming in our lifetimes, that the universe can't possibly go on without us... or them... whatever.)

5. I find people to be fairly honest, and moral, in the whole. Agreed that religion does not make people more so.

6. Agreed that there is no link between belief and ignorance. I'll go you one better, and say that neither is there a link between magic and science. Two better, and say there is no link between religious belief and belief in science.

1.) Perhaps. But I don't consider assumption to be very logical. Proof may have to rest on an assumption. Try that with anyone here and they won't believe. They want "Empirical Evidence" tough to do with God.

2.) Why? In what then do you believe if you want to leave it fuzzy? Fuzzy logical is a contradiction in terms. And I know it works for computers, that's where my education lies. God and the Bible or a belief system cannot run on fuzzy logic.

3.) Correct on the first part. Now as to the second, is this not because people don't want to believe in any of these? You mentioned Bigfoot. Science and skeptics and believers have torn apart the famous "Patterson Film", the footprint casts, etc. and come to many different conclusions. Some of the most die-hard believers in Bigfoot won't accept the evidence presented, and some scientists think there is plenty, even some skeptics have turned. Why do people have to prove belief when unbelief is accepted?

4.) No, that isn't what I meant. Death, the payment all men make. Is there an afterlife for either good or bad? I suspect that many who feel destined for heaven will bust hell wide open and and many people throw away will make it!

Matt. 8: [10] When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
[11] And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
[12] But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Rich Man and Lazarus is another example.

5.) I dunno on that. People tend to say what they hope others want to hear. And no, Religion makes no one more honest. God can do so, not religion. I had more respect for a Muslim man I ran into recently who was praying toward Mecca in public, no long prayer, no big show, simple faith and do his duty, than in many Christians who won't even say grace over their food!

6,) What I meant was that the science of today would have been considered magic yesterday. Belief in neither makes you ignorant of the other.

God Bless

Pen

[NikolaiI]

You are to be greatly appraised for your words and effort in faith, Dale! I really simply want to show my support for you, sharing your thoughts and insight about faith, time and again. It is the greatest service there is. I strongnly believe what Kierkegaard said about this, which is that to be helped to love God is to be truly loved.

I don't agree with your first premise. Logic and faith in God are like two, perfectly harmonious sisters. God is the Supreme Lord, the Absolute Truth and the most attractive being of the universe. He's the supreme controler. Living in this material universe, we are under the control of various influences; namely, the modes of material nature (goodness, passion, and ignorance). We are under control of one of these modes, but ultimately everything is subordinate to the Supreme Controller, God; YWHA, Krsna, Allah, etc.

OH and I saw someone ask why Truth was capitalized-- it was at the first of the sentence. :)

Okay so I also disagree with #5. But that's no biggie.

About God and truth, I just want to show my support for Pen, as a believer. I also believe and I am just agreeing with him. I wish to help people understand, because to me what I know (very litttle) about God is still the greatest part of me.

Sojourner Truth wrote about a time she saw Jesus. It was an image before her, and it materialized, but it was somewhat immaterial and flickering. When she affirmed her belief to herself, then she saw it grow stronger. Our faith is not useless, and I must stress very strongly, it is not a bad thing!!!!!! It is the greatest thing we can know, have, develop, and offer. The Mother said, watch over the birth of your faith as over the birth of something infinitely precious. So if there's anything I believe in, yes, it is this. It is this philosophy of faith and devotion to the Lord, and the community-- worldwide community of many different faiths-- of believers. God says, "Be still, and know that I am God." This is important because He is saying it. He says, do not fear, do not fear; in so many ways and so many times He says this. Anyway.

[RichardHresko]

OK. I wanted to open a discussion, let us see how civilized I can remain, for if not, no discussion.

1.) It is what you say, it requires experience of things logic would deny.

Heb.11
[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

This is illogical, but not unbelievable to any who have experienced it.

6.) The capital T is a typo. Science explains things with things for which our ancestors would have burned at the stake as witches. I saw an entire magic show that relied from start to finish on chemistry, which the lady explained before the show. Not sleight of hand, not spells and conjuring but pure chemistry. Best I ever saw!

God Bless

Pen.
On Statement 1:
I did not say that logic would deny the experience. I indicated that logic is necessary to fully explore and evaluate the experience.

There is nothing in the quote from Hebrews that is contrary to logic. The question of evidence is a separate one from logic itself.

On Statement 6:
Your response to statement 6 is something of a non sequitur. I will point out that back in the days of the Roman persecutions Christians were held to be atheists. Does that mean that they are atheists now? That some people years ago saw the results of a simple phenomenon as magic instead of science does not make what scientists do magic.

[Pendragon]

Niko, your wonderful support is greatly appreciated. May God grant that one day we see each other face to face as Brothers in Faith!

Well, #1 seems to be a problem with people, but I can't count the times I have heard people point out that faith in a God is illogical.

For #5, May I point out I didn't call it impossible, just difficult!

God Bless

Pen

[Pendragon]

On Statement 1:
I did not say that logic would deny the experience. I indicated that logic is necessary to fully explore and evaluate the experience.

There is nothing in the quote from Hebrews that is contrary to logic. The question of evidence is a separate one from logic itself.

On Statement 6:
Your response to statement 6 is something of a non sequitur. I will point out that back in the days of the Roman persecutions Christians were held to be atheists. Does that mean that they are atheists now? That some people years ago saw the results of a simple phenomenon as magic instead of science does not make what scientists do magic.
For #1 See my reply to friend Niko.

#6: Maybe. It might not follow of necessity, but it reminds me of a Doctor Who quote: "Magic is just science others haven't discovered as of yet." I quite agree. But perhaps a better word that "magic" would be "miracle". The things modern science can do are miracles.

[RichardHresko]

For #1 See my reply to friend Niko.

#6: Maybe. It might not follow of necessity, but it remimds me of a Doctor Who quote: "Magic is just science others haven't discovered as of yet." I quite agree. But perjaps a better word that "magic" would be "miracle". The things modern science can do sre miracles.

On statement 1:
Whether or not you have argued about whether faith in God is illogical is not relevant to this statement. Faith is not illogical except in the case in which faith runs contrary to evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt. Once again, there is nothing illogical in the verse from Hebrews you quoted.

On statement 6:
No, the things that science does are not miracles, nor are they magic unless one distorts the meaning of 'miracle' and 'magic' to mean something on the order of "I am ignorant of how it is done, so I am amazed." It would be truly backward to define things on the basis of how those who know the least look at them.

Further, the Doctor Who quote was misinterpreted. The remark means that those who do not understand what is going on label a natural phenomenon as something supernatural.

[Pendragon]

On statement 1:
Whether or not you have argued about whether faith in God is illogical is not relevant to this statement. Faith is not illogical except in the case in which faith runs contrary to evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt. Once again, there is nothing illogical in the verse from Hebrews you quoted.

On statement 6:
No, the things that science does are not miracles, nor are they magic unless one distorts the meaning of 'miracle' and 'magic' to mean something on the order of "I am ignorant of how it is done, so I am amazed." It would be truly backward to define things on the basis of how those who know the least look at them.

Further, the Doctor Who quote was misinterpreted. The remark means that those who do not understand what is going on label a natural phenomenon as something supernatural.

I cease to argue number 1 as that appears to be useless, and that which is a useless battle is best left.

On number 6: I am far from ignorant, my friend, yet I can be amazed by the leaps in technology in my own lifetime. For example, now many illnesses that once were either death traps or meant institutionalization now are very treatable. My own children were born because science came up with ways to treat infertility.

I invite you to do this: Walk in my shoes for about two weeks, especially during a medicine change. Perhaps then you might not be so quick to attach labels to people who offer friendship.

God Bless

Pen

[Pendragon]

7. People who will stand up for what they believe are to be commended, whether or not you actually agree with everything they say.

8. Those who speak in favor of God, believe in God. Those who attempt to speak for God are presumptive on the most part. Is man higher than God?

9. In reconciling science and the Bible or belief in God, expect rocks to be thrown from both directions.

10. People always tend to doubt what they cannot understand, instead of trying to research, or accept possibilities.

11. No one has a firm enough grip on what is truth that that grip may not slip.

12. Age brings wisdom, but also senility. Don't make your stand just based on the "I learned better." idea. Sometimes we must relearn many times.

God Bless

Pen

[RichardHresko]

I cease to argue number 1 as that appears to be useless, and that which is a useless battle is best left.

On number 6: I am far from ignorant, my friend, yet I can be amazed by the leaps in technology in my own lifetime. For example, now many illnesses that once were either death traps or meant institutionalization now are very treatable. My own children were born because science came up with ways to treat infertility.

I invite you to do this: Walk in my shoes for about two weeks, especially during a medicine change. Perhaps then you might not be so quick to attach labels to people who offer friendship.

God Bless

Pen

My position was and is that to describe science as magic because some people are ignorant of how the science works and therefore look at it as a kind of magic is backwards. Such a process of using the perceptions of those with the least understanding to define terms would inevitably lead to the impoverishment of the language as well as the weakening of thought.

To be "amazed" at something is not at all the same thing as to treat it as magic. To marvel at the advances of technology is certainly not the equivalent of taking the results as the product of hocus-pocus. One can be amazed and not confuse science and magic.

As to your final paragraph, there are two related points I would like to make. The first is that I did not refer to you as ignorant, as a careful reading of the post will show. The second is that friendship has nothing to do with intellectual discussion. The points are related because allowing personal feelings into a an intellectual discussion is detrimental to both the feelings and the discussion.

[Pendragon]

The second is that friendship has nothing to do with intellectual discussion. The points are related because allowing personal feelings into a an intellectual discussion is detrimental to both the feelings and the discussion.

As you wish. I publicly apologize for your discomfort. As for the next set of statements, anyone? Richard?

Dale

[curlyqlink]

People who will stand up for what they believe are to be commended

I disagree. Whether or not they are to be commended depends entirely on what it is they believe. Example: belief in the supremacy of the white race. When it comes to wrong-headed beliefs like this, it would be far better if these folks did not stand up for what they believe. There are such things as harmful, dangerous beliefs. Another case: cranks. People who believe in something silly and stupid, and waste precious time and energy on it. Space aliens, Bigfoot, Nessie, perpetual motion machines, conspiracy theories, etc., etc. Far from being inspiring, folks who stand up for these beliefs are pathetic.

Standing up for one's beliefs is not enough. One must also be right. That's the hard part.

This is related to what I wrote before about faith being easier when it's warm and fuzzy. Faith and belief and commitment to a cause sound great until we start examining closely and critically precisely what it is that we believe and are committed to.

This is one reason why I think the scientific method is a more sure guide than is faith. Truths should be held provisionally, absolutes should be shunned, commitments should be made warily.

[Pendragon]

I disagree. Whether or not they are to be commended depends entirely on what it is they believe. Example: belief in the supremacy of the white race. When it comes to wrong-headed beliefs like this, it would be far better if these folks did not stand up for what they believe. There are such things as harmful, dangerous beliefs. Another case: cranks. People who believe in something silly and stupid, and waste precious time and energy on it. Space aliens, Bigfoot, Nessie, perpetual motion machines, conspiracy theories, etc., etc. Far from being inspiring, folks who stand up for these beliefs are pathetic.

Standing up for one's beliefs is not enough. One must also be right. That's the hard part.

This is related to what I wrote before about faith being easier when it's warm and fuzzy. Faith and belief and commitment to a cause sound great until we start examining closely and critically precisely what it is that we believe and are committed to.

This is one reason why I think the scientific method is a more sure guide than is faith. Truths should be held provisionally, absolutes should be shunned, commitments should be made warily.Well certainly I am not advocating wrong thinking such as white imperialism. I am more open minded on Bigfoot, but then I live in the mountains and forests. A lot of things are here that aren't supposed to be, but that is neither proof nor disproof of the existence of cryptological animals.

Still, I would stand with a firm atheist than a wishy-washy Christian who is in one day and out the other. Believe as you will, free will, is the only true freedom, given by God almighty.

I make these statements to elicit discussion. So I have a hard time sometimes dealing with rejection. I'm Bi-Polar with severe complications. I have been disabled since 1994, and could just lay back and quit. I do many things. I have "fear of people", yet I am used as the go to person for calling customers at the computer store where I pretty much volunteer. Why? Because I put people at ease. Mad, I am not the greatest to get along with. Otherwise I am pretty civilized.

But were there not 5 other statements? You have comments, oui?

God Bless

Dale

[The Atheist]

An honest person is hard to find, be they religious or not

I'll go along with that.


Truth exists somewhere between

As I think Dawkins points out - with two opposing views, the truth need not be inbetween; it is possible for one side to be completely wrong.


7. People who will stand up for what they believe are to be commended, whether or not you actually agree with everything they say.

Not always. I don't want to Godwin the discussion, but haven't we had sufficient evidence of when people attach themselves to perverted beliefs? Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, and I'd add morally to that.

Is a racist to be respected for standing up for his belief that black people are inferior?


9. In reconciling science and the Bible or belief in God, expect rocks to be thrown from both directions.

Science doesn't throw rocks. Science observes and records. How can it throw rocks? People may throw a few in the name of science, as a few may be thrown in the name of god, but neither god nor science is responsible.


10. People always tend to doubt what they cannot understand, instead of trying to research, or accept possibilities.

I'd qualify that.

People doubt science they can't understand, yet they will accept pseudoscience and myth, even though they don't understand that either. A classic example is petrol-saving gadgets. The buyers certainly don't understand the science which shows that they can't work, but they have no idea of the pseudoscientific claims of the manufacturers. Yet people buy them in their thousands.


11. No one has a firm enough grip on what is truth that that grip may not slip.

I've already had this argument today. That's a defensive position that I don't agree with, but I'm not going to argue about it - we have different interpretations of what "truth" means.


12. Age brings wisdom, but also senility. Don't make your stand just based on the "I learned better." idea. Sometimes we must relearn many times.

Ain't that the truth!

(I'd like to thinkgreat age brings senility. ;) )

[NikolaiI]

Atheist, you don't really disagree with his #11 I think. Consider if he means that no one is absolutely perfect in retaining their knowledge, and you would surely agree with that, right?

Yes people believe in pseudo sciences and myths, they actually believe whatever they believe, and they usually believe it very strongly. It doesn't matter what the belief, people are usually pretty entrenched. Can you tell them they're wrong? People are uninterested, or even unsettled or displeased with ideas that are different from what they believe. If this is taken very far, then it results in hostility or violence.

[Taliesin]

2.) Why? In what then do you believe if you want to leave it fuzzy? Fuzzy logical is a contradiction in terms. And I know it works for computers, that's where my education lies. God and the Bible or a belief system cannot run on fuzzy logic.
Why not? Humans tend to run on it. And since God, Bible and belief systems seem very human thingies to me, why not?




9. In reconciling science and the Bible or belief in God, expect rocks to be thrown from both directions.
It really depends - when you digress into pseudoscience, then you tend to annoy skeptics and co - but it doesn't have to do with the thing that you included God, it is mainly because it is not scientific and pretends that it is. Am not saying that in reconciling science and belief in God you have to digress to pseudoscience, but a lot of people have done so, and once bitten, twice shy.
I had a physics lecturer in university who was a Christian and whose terms included "Scientific world view", "Mythological world view", "Religious world view" and "Atheistic world view", noting the distinction between the first two as belief in experiment/testing etc versus belief in authorities, noting that there is a connection between atheistic and scientific world view and religious and mythological world view but that it wasn't absolute. As far as I can remember, nobody has had a problem with him over that.
He also had a most wonderful and perverse sense of humor, which kind of scared people so perhaps it was because of that.



10. People always tend to doubt what they cannot understand, instead of trying to research, or accept possibilities.


Doubting doesn't exclude research nor accepting that there are several possibilities in the situation. In my humble opinion (the term, as we all know, really means "this is the absolute truth and anyone who disagrees is a total idiot") doubting is the sign of wisdom. You can't just believe everything you hear, you doubt when the information seems improbable.

[Pendragon]

[QUOTE=The Atheist;618788]I'll go along with that.

Thank you very much!




As I think Dawkins points out - with two opposing views, the truth need not be inbetween; it is possible for one side to be completely wrong.

Yes, but both will have a grain of something. Misinterpretation of evidence or writings are the usual suspects. I respect Dawkins, but does that give Dawkins final say on anything? No.



Not always. I don't want to Godwin the discussion, but haven't we had sufficient evidence of when people attach themselves to perverted beliefs? Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, and I'd add morally to that.





Is a racist to be respected for standing up for his belief that black people are inferior?


I think I covered this in my response to curlyqlink. I am far from a racist. My world and my friends are multicolored and multiracial and I have no problems!



Science doesn't throw rocks. Science observes and records. How can it throw rocks? People may throw a few in the name of science, as a few may be thrown in the name of god, but neither god nor science is responsible.


Yeah, "in the name of" so that the blame lands on those who have nothing to do with it, as when people blame religion for the actions of mad people.




People doubt science they can't understand, yet they will accept pseudoscience and myth, even though they don't understand that either. A classic example is petrol-saving gadgets. The buyers certainly don't understand the science which shows that they can't work, but they have no idea of the pseudoscientific claims of the manufacturers. Yet people buy them in their thousands.


People are gullible. If they don't understand they either accept it anyway or they deny it's existence.



I've already had this argument today. That's a defensive position that I don't agree with, but I'm not going to argue about it - we have different interpretations of what "truth" means.


Nicko did a good good on this question My own, Do you think I could convince you there really is a God? Wouldn
t you probably cling to your beliefs like a possum on a tree?
.




Ain't that the truth!

(I'd like to thinkgreat age brings senility. ;) )

Some earlier, I am afraid!

God Bless

Pen

[The Atheist]

Atheist, you don't really disagree with his #11 I think. Consider if he means that no one is absolutely perfect in retaining their knowledge, and you would surely agree with that, right?

It's because we have different meanings for words like "truth", "knowledge" and "perfection".


Yes people believe in pseudo sciences and myths, they actually believe whatever they believe, and they usually believe it very strongly. It doesn't matter what the belief, people are usually pretty entrenched. Can you tell them they're wrong?

Of course you can! Wrong has no trouble in translation to any language. People can believe things which are completely incorrect and it's perfectly valid to tell them. Some people even listen!


People are uninterested, or even unsettled or displeased with ideas that are different from what they believe. If this is taken very far, then it results in hostility or violence.

They certainly do, which is why I receive death threats occasionally. All for dumping on someone's pet pseudoscience. They are, however, blowhards to a man/woman and I don't take any of it seriously.

[Pendragon]

Why not? Humans tend to run on it. And since God, Bible and belief systems seem very human thingies to me, why not?

If it is human to have a God, a belief system, Bible or other Holy Book, then it certainly isn't logic because then Science would see this, and they don't. Neither will people who want firm, logical explanations, not "warm fuzzies" as facts.





It really depends - when you digress into pseudoscience, then you tend to annoy skeptics and co - but it doesn't have to do with the thing that you included God, it is mainly because it is not scientific and pretends that it is. Am not saying that in reconciling science and belief in God you have to digress to pseudoscience, but a lot of people have done so, and once bitten, twice shy.
I had a physics lecturer in university who was a Christian and whose terms included "Scientific world view", "Mythological world view", "Religious world view" and "Atheistic world view", noting the distinction between the first two as belief in experiment/testing etc versus belief in authorities, noting that there is a connection between atheistic and scientific world view and religious and mythological world view but that it wasn't absolute. As far as I can remember, nobody has had a problem with him over that.
He also had a most wonderful and perverse sense of humor, which kind of scared people so perhaps it was because of that.

Pseudoscience. like many things, is in the eye of the beholder. If many had not dared to think beyond norm thinking, many things today would be possible, yet we would not have them.



Doubting doesn't exclude research nor accepting that there are several possibilities in the situation. In my humble opinion (the term, as we all know, really means "this is the absolute truth and anyone who disagrees is a total idiot") doubting is the sign of wisdom. You can't just believe everything you hear, you doubt when the information seems improbable.



When there is an elimination of the impossible, then the only improbable can be believed. When the impossible cannot be eliminated, part of that impossible has to become believable. Most things we now enjoy, 150 years ago was impossible, or was it? The stuff was here, we didn't know how to use it. We grow, little children just learning how our world works.

But someone has to believe the unbelievable, and they get rocks slung like "pseudoscience" and "irreligious freaks", to "weirdos" and "ignorant". The question is always "do we help throw stuff" or "help build stuff."?


It's because we have different meanings for words like "truth", "knowledge" and "perfection".



Not different meaning, different beliefs. Truth is still truth to the person that believes it. That can be different things, even diametrically opposed, but both still believe that it is true, i.e., not false.







Of course you can! Wrong has no trouble in translation to any language. People can believe things which are completely incorrect and it's perfectly valid to tell them. Some people even listen!

Good! Stick to what you believe. But alllow me to tell you, that I think you are closed-minded to anything that doesn't come from one of your own "reliable sources."






They certainly do, which is why I receive death threats occasionally. All for dumping on someone's pet pseudoscience. They are, however, blowhards to a man/woman and I don't take any of it seriously.

Death treats? Why? Over a disagreement? Grow up, people!

[The Atheist]

Pseudoscience. like many things, is in the eye of the beholder. If many had not dared to think beyond norm thinking, many things today would be possible, yet we would not have them.

The second sentence bears no relationship to the first - you've confused creative thinking with pseudoscience. It is, however, the usual defence of pseudoscience.

That's what distinguishes pseudoscience from science. Science is interested in observing, pseudoscience makes claims which don't apply to the real world. According to what you've posted above, alchemists turning lead into gold is a worthy path to follow because they may discover something else. That's just fantasy.


Not different meaning, different beliefs. Truth is still truth to the person that believes it. That can be different things, even diametrically opposed, but both still believe that it is true, i.e., not false.

No. Believing something to be true gives no credence to the truth value. Try Bertrand Russell's teapot for clarification.


Death treats? Why? Over a disagreement? Grow up, people!

No, it isn't just a disagreement. I run a couple of sites dedicated to shutting down a particularly insidious brand of pseudoscience and I'm cutting the income off for a couple of companies which rip people off with it. That tends to upset people beyond the norm.

Shows it works, though.

[Pendragon]

The second sentence bears no relationship to the first - you've confused creative thinking with pseudoscience. It is, however, the usual defence of pseudoscience. [.quote]

That's what distinguishes pseudoscience from science. Science is interested in observing, pseudoscience makes claims which don't apply to the real world. According to what you've posted above, alchemists turning lead into gold is a worthy path to follow because they may discover something else. That's just fantasy.

Is it now? Thomas Edison came up with the phonograph while trying to develop something to communicate with the dead!




No. Believing something to be true gives no credence to the truth value. Try Bertrand Russell's teapot for clarification.



Did I say it did, other than to the person who believes it? If you want only empirical truth on everything, I wish you good luck! And why should I believe Mr, Russell anymore than any other person?



No, it isn't just a disagreement. I run a couple of sites dedicated to shutting down a particularly insidious brand of pseudoscience and I'm cutting the income off for a couple of companies which rip people off with it. That tends to upset people beyond the norm.

Shows it works, though.
Wouldn't be the pushing of non-medical remedies for illness, especially eye-reading and herbs, would it? I kind of made some people mad there myself!


God Bless

Dale

[The Atheist]

Is it now? Thomas Edison came up with the phonograph while trying to develop something to communicate with the dead!

That's not actually correct. He certainly tried to communicate with dead people, but it wasn't through that he invented the phonograph - it was long after. (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Thomas_Edison_and_his_Spirit_Phone/)


Did I say it did, other than to the person who believes it? If you want only empirical truth on everything, I wish you good luck! And why should I believe Mr, Russell anymore than any other person?

You've missed my point. You claimed that any position must have an opposite, which is clearly wrong. I'm not suggesting Russell should be believed more than anyone else, just that he made explained this particular problem well.


Wouldn't be the pushing of non-medical remedies for illness, especially eye-reading and herbs, would it? I kind of made some people mad there myself!

No, although I do that too!

It's actually about fuel-saving gadgets which don't work. The owners of the companies know they can't sue me - courts deal in facts - so they reort to stupid threats. No worry to me, I just post the threats as further proof of their stupidity. Not all that popular!

:lol:

[Pendragon]

That's not actually correct. He certainly tried to communicate with dead people, but it wasn't through that he invented the phonograph - it was long after. (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Thomas_Edison_and_his_Spirit_Phone/)


:blush::blush::blush::blush::blush:

My bad! I went on misinformation. Apologies. I still think every position has an opposite! :)