Religion

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)

61. And you are saying this as a scientist

Thu Aug 9, 2012, 07:08 PM

Aug 2012

who works in an objective, empirical world? Or as someone who is railing against the objective, empirical world?

As an English teacher, I would not attempt to speak for what those working in the empirical world do on a daily basis.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

140 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Where god fails, science succeeds [View all] cleanhippie Aug 2012 OP

And this photo is supposed to demonstrate what? Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2012 #1

The title of the thread? Buzz Clik Aug 2012 #126

How? Be specific Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2012 #131

Any reason to slam religious belief. nt humblebum Aug 2012 #2

The technology is wonderful. rrneck Aug 2012 #3

Faith in one's ability to overcome is one thing, faith in a supernatural entity is another. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #5

One's ability to overcome may or may not be there, rrneck Aug 2012 #6

I do not disagree. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #7

Thanks. Same here. nt rrneck Aug 2012 #8

In fact, while I am sure he is grateful for the technology, he attributes much of his cbayer Aug 2012 #18

I am, in the most technical sense possible, rrneck Aug 2012 #19

I knew a kid in New Orleans who had an amputation due to cancer. cbayer Aug 2012 #20

When I was in the ER I asked the doc if I would be able to play the guitar. rrneck Aug 2012 #23

The question is, had the ER doctor heard it before. Hilarious! cbayer Aug 2012 #24

He just looked at me. It was a tough room. rrneck Aug 2012 #25

Something that does not exist can't fail... rexcat Aug 2012 #4

I guess that would depend on what one considers as evidence, humblebum Aug 2012 #9

And what would you consider "evidence"? rexcat Aug 2012 #10

You need to have "other ways of knowing" abilities. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #11

cleanhippie, is right. It does involve "other ways of knowing" - something humblebum Aug 2012 #12

! cleanhippie Aug 2012 #13

? rexcat Aug 2012 #14

I expected nothing less, but humblebum Aug 2012 #15

You have it completely wrong... rexcat Aug 2012 #21

But the rationale employed in looking for your rational explanation is humblebum Aug 2012 #22

That it has a physical explanation is a narrow set? Confusious Aug 2012 #27

I think you just validated my point. The statement "physical explanation" narrows humblebum Aug 2012 #28

Limited is usually bad Confusious Aug 2012 #29

"otherwise you're treating things that are not real as if they are" - and humblebum Aug 2012 #30

I guess you could call it a trap Confusious Aug 2012 #101

"You prove real by testing" - No, you can prove "your" reality by "your" tests. humblebum Aug 2012 #102

I thought we all lived in the same reality Confusious Aug 2012 #103

Do we all live in the same reality? cbayer Aug 2012 #104

Physical reality Confusious Aug 2012 #105

Sorry for jumping in here, but I found your statement intriguing. cbayer Aug 2012 #106

Thats what I said nt Confusious Aug 2012 #107

Yes, we all live in the same reality. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #132

It is easy for you to say what is "real" and what is not. And humblebum Aug 2012 #108

No actually it wasn't easy Confusious Aug 2012 #109

"The onerous is not on me to prove they exist" - no one said that it was, but as I have already said humblebum Aug 2012 #110

Well you got that wrong Confusious Aug 2012 #111

You still don't seem to have a grip on what you are talking about. humblebum Aug 2012 #112

Oh brother Confusious Aug 2012 #113

You are just kinda "out there" aren't you? humblebum Aug 2012 #114

Not even an obvious on spoon bending? Confusious Aug 2012 #115

When you use the term "obvious" - that is your SUBJECTIVE opinion. You still humblebum Aug 2012 #116

If you can't even agree that a spoon is a physical object, Confusious Aug 2012 #117

Who said a spoon is not a physical object? You referred to "spoon bending." Not humblebum Aug 2012 #118

Well then "spoon bending" is "action" Confusious Aug 2012 #119

You still do not have a clue what you are talking about. No one said that your so called humblebum Aug 2012 #122

you said "prove it" Confusious Aug 2012 #129

You still don't have a clue. Do you even have the least idea of what humblebum Aug 2012 #130

sheesh. Do you even read? Confusious Aug 2012 #134

You are debating against the Scientific Method, not me. Even well-known humblebum Aug 2012 #135

Figures Confusious Aug 2012 #136

Well you would get the same reply from Hawking. And I don't think humblebum Aug 2012 #137

Definitely dementia Confusious Aug 2012 #138

I should have guessed. Even your name is pretty close to confusion. humblebum Aug 2012 #139

No. Shadowflash Aug 2012 #80

If one uses the very narrow epistemology designed specifically for application humblebum Aug 2012 #81

There you go, then. You are correct. Shadowflash Aug 2012 #88

It is obvious to me that you do not have a clue. And I will humblebum Aug 2012 #89

If you find one Shadowflash Aug 2012 #90

Take a look in the mirror. nt humblebum Aug 2012 #91

Ha! Shadowflash Aug 2012 #93

You just keep on proving my point. nt humblebum Aug 2012 #95

Sure. If you say so. Shadowflash Aug 2012 #96

And on and on and on... humblebum Aug 2012 #99

You must never shake your head, then skepticscott Aug 2012 #31

You have never quite figured out the true meaning of empiricism, have you? humblebum Aug 2012 #33

And where have I ever made the claim that there was humblebum Aug 2012 #34

No that's YOUR dishonest projection onto other people skepticscott Aug 2012 #39

It must be just me and the text books that have it wrong. They are humblebum Aug 2012 #57

You know there are more than 5 senses right. Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #59

I'm pretty sure we've been down this road before. But, humblebum Aug 2012 #60

And you are saying this as a scientist Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #61

My sense of D�j� vu must be working overtime today. Or maybe humblebum Aug 2012 #64

Yeah, we've had this conversation before Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #65

As do you. Regardless the definition and process of empiricism remain the same. nt humblebum Aug 2012 #66

Penn Jillette said essentially that Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2012 #74

Most self-identified "agnostics" skepticscott Aug 2012 #77

Penn Jillette has also said "I know there is no God." nt humblebum Aug 2012 #92

In the context of this thread, ... Buzz Clik Aug 2012 #127

If by "scientific evidence" you mean empirical, objective evidence, nowhere humblebum Aug 2012 #128

Only a God would be capable of the absolute conclusion you make. Not even Science engages in such patrice Aug 2012 #52

What is your point? rexcat Aug 2012 #55

For the record, Pisotrius is a dedicated Christian cbayer Aug 2012 #16

"more or less before I could remember" Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #17

Thanks for this post. It is a tribute to the human spirit. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #26

Saying you have no idea skepticscott Aug 2012 #32

Science had everything to with it... rexcat Aug 2012 #35

Pistorius disagrees with you. cbayer Aug 2012 #36

Reality disagrees with him. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #38

And I suppose you spoke to him about this... rexcat Aug 2012 #40

See post 16 cbayer Aug 2012 #41

You did not answer my questions. rexcat Aug 2012 #42

Take it up with Oscar, rexcat. cbayer Aug 2012 #44

See post 42... rexcat Aug 2012 #46

No, he speaks for himself. cbayer Aug 2012 #47

Strange, I have not seen any posts here from him... rexcat Aug 2012 #48

Yeah, the reporter he spoke with probably just made those quotes up. cbayer Aug 2012 #49

My point... rexcat Aug 2012 #50

I see now that you are actually serious. See you around the campfire, cbayer Aug 2012 #51

I have seen from you... rexcat Aug 2012 #53

Yep, just more blatant hypocrisy. It's to be expected. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #70

Of course I did not come out and say... rexcat Aug 2012 #87

Dupe cbayer Aug 2012 #45

Nor god nor science, but the amazing human spirit. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #37

I do believe that the prosthetics were.... rexcat Aug 2012 #43

So what. I'm sure the others' shoes were too. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #56

Thanks for being snarky... rexcat Aug 2012 #85

...and where does that "amazing human" spirit comes from? demosincebirth Aug 2012 #54

It comes from within. Some call it heart, some call it soul. A place beyond the physical reality. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #58

How wise and all-knowing you must be skepticscott Aug 2012 #67

Even you, my friend, probably have a soul. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #69

"Life doesn't have to be all about bitterness and resentment. " cleanhippie Aug 2012 #72

That's hilarious! onager Aug 2012 #79

No more than simply asserting skepticscott Aug 2012 #76

I say that humans have no soul... rexcat Aug 2012 #86

You may be the exception. I can't speak for everyone. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #97

Oh please... rexcat Aug 2012 #120

Begging doesn't really help. Sorry. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #123

I don't see where I begged... rexcat Aug 2012 #125

I never mentioned religion, but reading your post you sound more like a spiritual person demosincebirth Aug 2012 #68

"But all of us are living proof of it's existence." cleanhippie Aug 2012 #71

Hello, little scurrier. Even you, yes you, have a soul. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #73

And good morning to you, passive-aggressive pontificator. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #75

You know what's really sad? skepticscott Aug 2012 #78

It makes perfect sense when you put his "bitter and resentful" comment into context. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #82

"A first year psych student could see where that comes from." Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #83

The visiting pastor comes up to the old farmer working in his cornfield. dimbear Aug 2012 #62

Excellent. I like that, dimbear. cbayer Aug 2012 #63

Now that is funny. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #84

Not the best way to make a point. rug Aug 2012 #94

Incredibly weak, even by your standards onager Aug 2012 #98

Let me see . . . . rug Aug 2012 #100

What? No more argumentum ad photographum? onager Aug 2012 #133

You mean like the argument in the OP? rug Aug 2012 #140

What standards? rexcat Aug 2012 #121

Next time you edit, it's "too". rug Aug 2012 #124