Discussion in 'The Science Forum' started by Idrach, Dec 5, 2011.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
As requested. I'll copy and paste when I get to a real computer ...
Actually I was referring to 'the thread which must not be named'.
But if we're going to whisper about heretical blasphemy we can do it in here I guess. I'll get the leg irons and the red hot poker.
Higgs-Bosun's service number ends 666?
Is Kaye right? Is Higgs Bosun a dangerous potential cult leader? Is it appropriate for somebody demanding reason and insisting on evidence in everybody's answers to everything to be called out for not providing reason, evidence or, frankly anything other than rude* assertion in their posts?
Oh, and I apologise for "mutters" rather than "nutters". If a kindly mod would correct that would be nice.
Nope - it's not here to talk about blasphemy, its here to talk about the scientific method and the limits on it.
Unjustified hypothesis alone is not enough. Not for me, not for Higgsy, not even for Dawkins or Hawking.
What else do we have to go on but observation and logic? Do away with that and we fumble in the dark, rational thought gets replaced with fairy stories and the next thing you know we've got dogma and some mystic man telling us he can see the light.
I'm with Feynman and Socrates on this one.
Richard Feynman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If we want to be honest with ourselves we should follow the philosophy of Golden Age Athens and Feynman - to admit ignorance and uncertainty. Not indoctrinate people with answers from myths which have little veracity or moral grounding.
This is the word of DC
There is enough in that post to convince any rational person that religions are wrong. Religions are also malevolent, insidious and a danger to our species....
"I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand"...
Whoops!...that just slipped out....sowie....
I like Jim Jeffries' questions to god. He asks why there are no kangaroos in the bible and why god did'nt know that the world was round.
Okay, now go and jump off a cliff, please. Hopefully I've hurt your feelings enough for that to seem sensible..
Well, you could start by toning down the monomania, cutting the initial dive to ad hominem, and giving people the same freedoms you demand. Your fundamental inconsistency is your most irritating trait.
Why not? It is easy enough to do.
You are a joke. Me, a danger to science because I don't bath in your intolerance? Because I try to provide people with evidence rather than assertion? Because I don't insist that matter and energy are appearing and disappearing through invisible, undetectable, undefined "extra dimensions"?
No, it is not and does not. There are a few people, mostly in the middle USA and in some Islam (although you'd be surprised just how much most Islam, that where the base society has got beyond Dark Ages tribal farmers, sees science as its saviour) who wish to restrict some forms of science - mostly medical. There are many more who don't believe in some aspects of science - mostly to do with anything that insists on deep time. Meh. Have we superluminal neutrinos or not? I don't know - I know what I think (measurement error) but am happy to be proven wrong.
I do not demand that you trivially change what you believe to what I believe, I try to provide evidence when I am trying to convince you were you are making errors of fact. Where you are insisting on errors of logic or understanding, when you are insisting that you are the possessor of the "one, true and holy truth", that's when I start calling you a prat.
Freedom to believe, away from state control, mandated belief, the thought police - is actually more important than whether somebody thinks the same things I do, even about things I believe are important.
You should certainly allow people to believe what they think, that's the entire purpose of liberty. But if they decide to believe a load of dangerous bunkum then it's our duty to point out the flaws of their logic for the benefit of mankind. Repeating old myths which have no grounding in factual evidence ad infinitum does little for human progress of integrity.
Mainstream religion relies on blind faith, you can't question it like you can science. In many places in the US and the ME there is no intellectual liberty to speak of, women go around in burqas and aren't allowed to drive or mingle with men. In some parts of the US children are indoctrinated at 'Jesus Camp' to the same level of brainwashing as Nazi Germany in 1936, the world was made in 6 days and is 6000 years old. Evolution doesn't exist. How does this sort of behaviour represent individual freedom in any way, shape or form? The word of God must be obeyed and any who oppose shall burn in hell or be ostracised by society. Science on the other hand, allows you to question the results, because that's the entire purpose of the Scientific Method.
Admitting that we don't know the answers is being honest, saying that the Islamic/Abrahamic God is the final and only answer is dangerous.
All together now!
He is trampling the infidels ba bababa dadaaaaa...
But, within a (classical, Hume or John Stuart Mill) liberal sense, anything that "society" can do badly, the government can do worse. Would you want Higgsy as the "Department of Anti-Religion priest-finder-in-chief" torturing your children to confess to your grandparents' latent religious sensibilities? He'd do it - you just know he would.
This is an assumption that atheists would do bad, this document isn't mentioned or inspired by the Bible or Koran:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
There should be love for the sake of love, mercy for the sake of mercy and kindness for the sake of kindness. People should not act good because they fear God's wrath, they should do it because they know it to be morally right.
The Bible and Koran, incidentally, preach plenty of intolerance and hatred, just look at non secular society for a tidal wave of bigotry wrapped in the love of baby Jesus (or the other chap).
I think we share common ground with the preservation of liberty, but imho religion stifles the freedom of speech. As Higgsy said, it is rather ironic that to defend freedom one must suppress religion.
When did you go from starting unfunny threads and talking shit to attempting cogent debate?
Well, that doesn't make that much sense as a sentence. And of course a document written in 1948 isn't mentioned in older books. And, frankly, the drafting committee weren't exactly selected for their rigorous atheism. Eleanor Roosevelt had problems with the Catholic Church, true - but then she wasn't a Catholic.
It's not ironic - it's as wrong as most of the rest of what Higgsy writes. We don't need to suppress religion, we need merely to stop people forcing others to adopt their religious beliefs.
Putting my style to one side for a moment... You appear to acknowledge the need to stop religious brainwashing...hey! that's what I am saying.
My questions for you are how and why...?
This should be interesting because if you are honest you will find the real problems. Radical solutions may be required to stop a radical ideology based on myths, islam for example, taking over the world. Trouble is it's probably beyond the tipping point... Thanks to appathy, poor observation or a willful denial of the facts.
It doesn't need to be a big cliff, you know. Ten feet or so and you bleeding out from the shattered marrow in both tibias just above your ankles would be fine
Separate names with a comma.