Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
98. So in other words you have no answer
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 03:25 PM
Aug 2012

Except to repeat what you already said and make new things up.

It's utterly false that "just about anyone" can do the tests and see the evidence for the electron, or that "just about anyone" can understand those results. The vast, vast majority of people can't do any of that. And what about muons, neutrinos and quarks? How is accepting the existence of those fundamentally different? What percentage of the population must understand the theory and the math behibd the evidence for those particles (NONE of which are observed directly, btw) for your threshold to be met? How much does the equipment for testing them have to cost before accepting their existence becomes a matter of "faith"?

Still waiting for your objective, concrete standards.

Is this a fight between believers and non believers? People who are firm in their beliefs do not upaloopa Aug 2012 #1
I would also posit that those who are firm in their disbelief cbayer Aug 2012 #3
I meant a believer could also be a non believer. Yes it works both ways. upaloopa Aug 2012 #5
The beginning of religion must have really been a pretty intelligent brewens Aug 2012 #2
There is some interesting work on the evolutionary value of religious beliefs. cbayer Aug 2012 #4
Some religious practices may have been beneficial and some disasters throughout brewens Aug 2012 #6
Nothing can replace religion. MineralMan Aug 2012 #7
Nonbelief is still something. rug Aug 2012 #9
Is it, rug? MineralMan Aug 2012 #12
Yes it is. rug Aug 2012 #18
Ah, OK, rug, whatever you say... MineralMan Aug 2012 #21
Thank you for your permission. rug Aug 2012 #23
No permission is required, from me or anyone else. MineralMan Aug 2012 #25
Oh I see Stryder Aug 2012 #103
Does your nonWinnebago have any meaning without a concept of a Winnebago? rug Aug 2012 #104
Not sure I understand the question but I'll take a stab Stryder Aug 2012 #106
In order to have a nonWinnebago you must know what a Winnebago is. rug Aug 2012 #107
OK I see what you're saying Stryder Aug 2012 #108
It wouldn't exist. rug Aug 2012 #109
So... Stryder Aug 2012 #110
Sure, if somebody asserted it. rug Aug 2012 #111
I'll give you, Stryder Aug 2012 #112
Keep posting! rug Aug 2012 #113
Um, has someone actually said that it should? trotsky Aug 2012 #8
Religion throughout history attempted to explain the unexplainable until science explained it. Lint Head Aug 2012 #10
Your link takes me to Discover Magazine, but I get: Error 404 - Not Found - once there. Jim__ Aug 2012 #11
Weird. It did the same for me. I reposted the link after doing cbayer Aug 2012 #14
Thanks. It works now. Jim__ Aug 2012 #19
A more honest article would be intaglio Aug 2012 #13
I haven't seen any claims that religion replaces science, but have seen cbayer Aug 2012 #15
Yes, there are things that can't be explained. MineralMan Aug 2012 #16
What happens when the "unexplainable" is explained intaglio Aug 2012 #17
How does mathematics, neurology, population genetics and behavioral science explain morality? rug Aug 2012 #20
Morality is a behavioral issue, really. MineralMan Aug 2012 #24
If it's simply behavioral, and the result of . . . whatever, then it's not morality. rug Aug 2012 #28
It's a matter of definition. MineralMan Aug 2012 #32
In this case, it's a matter of substance. rug Aug 2012 #39
So what is morality in your opinion intaglio Aug 2012 #48
I accept the most conventional one. rug Aug 2012 #55
You've just moved the goal posts by using a weak dictionary definition intaglio Aug 2012 #56
You are simply describing natural law, not morality. rug Aug 2012 #58
You again refuse to read intaglio Aug 2012 #59
You demonstrated nothing. rug Aug 2012 #60
Demonstration intaglio Aug 2012 #62
Ossa and Pelion! rug Aug 2012 #64
WELL SAID! eqfan592 Aug 2012 #67
You forgot to mention skepticscott Aug 2012 #69
serotonin levels affect altruistic behavior. Warren Stupidity Aug 2012 #40
They do, indeed. MineralMan Aug 2012 #42
And many, many things can affect serotonin levels. cbayer Aug 2012 #43
Oh, dear intaglio Aug 2012 #26
Then how does science measure a "philosophical concept"? rug Aug 2012 #29
I did not say it did intaglio Aug 2012 #45
Does the word "just" confuse you? rug Aug 2012 #61
Nice try, but the negative takes priority intaglio Aug 2012 #63
Hmm. "not just", "not simply", "not only". rug Aug 2012 #65
Of all the things that can be known, I would suggest that we know a minuscule amount. cbayer Aug 2012 #22
One at a time intaglio Aug 2012 #44
Your answers are interesting and come from your own perspective and experience. cbayer Aug 2012 #46
So you have no rebutals intaglio Aug 2012 #47
Why do you feel the need to make this so personal? cbayer Aug 2012 #49
Because, at base, you live a life unexamined intaglio Aug 2012 #57
Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about. cbayer Aug 2012 #66
Your incessant posting of all sorts of nonsense skepticscott Aug 2012 #70
None of which would be quite as bad skepticscott Aug 2012 #68
Just out of curiosity, LTX Aug 2012 #88
Not sure whether you're aiming that at me or cbayer intaglio Aug 2012 #91
Well, some of both skepticscott Aug 2012 #93
Because science doesn't promise you'll go to heaven if you believe in it and give it money? truebrit71 Aug 2012 #27
I thought the explanation in the article was pretty good, cbayer Aug 2012 #30
Religion doesn't need to be replaced... Kalidurga Aug 2012 #31
If that's all it means to you, then you are right not to participate. cbayer Aug 2012 #34
The corner pub is another sort of gathering place. MineralMan Aug 2012 #36
Science doesn't need to replace religion. Religion needs to just go away. stopbush Aug 2012 #33
Not going to happen. cbayer Aug 2012 #35
You're right, of course. MineralMan Aug 2012 #38
"For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, ... Jim__ Aug 2012 #37
Wow, that is some pretty inspired writing. cbayer Aug 2012 #41
What unadulterated hogwash skepticscott Aug 2012 #75
No, belief in the Higgs boson is not the same as belief in Brunei or tsetse flies. Jim__ Aug 2012 #85
See, even you need skepticscott Aug 2012 #87
Believing in the Higgs boson is fundamentally different than believing in electrons because ... Jim__ Aug 2012 #96
And yet "belief" in the Higgs boson is also fundamentally different than... trotsky Aug 2012 #97
So in other words you have no answer skepticscott Aug 2012 #98
You claiming that I'm "making new things up" is comical. Jim__ Aug 2012 #114
You made up the "fact" skepticscott Aug 2012 #115
No, actually I didn't just make up the fact that just about anyone can run an equivalent ... Jim__ Aug 2012 #116
I noticed you very conspicuously ducked and dodged skepticscott Aug 2012 #117
For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith *in science*. enki23 Aug 2012 #78
The article suggests religion has been around for a long time, won't go away. It's like dimbear Aug 2012 #50
that might be true for people whose understanding of science is too poor... mike_c Aug 2012 #51
But is yours the only way? cbayer Aug 2012 #52
no, I didn't say-- nor did I mean-- that an inability to understand science... mike_c Aug 2012 #71
Agree with what you say here concerning replacing scientific facts with cbayer Aug 2012 #72
You can understand that religion has emotional power without believing any of the dumbshit tenets Nay Aug 2012 #53
Why "Why Science Can't Replace Religion" is a straw man. longship Aug 2012 #54
As Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." SarahM32 Aug 2012 #73
And right after that line, Einstein said... onager Aug 2012 #74
And rightly so. SarahM32 Aug 2012 #100
I have noted before how the faithful cherrypick words intaglio Aug 2012 #105
And "what god is" would be what, exactly? skepticscott Aug 2012 #99
The One. SarahM32 Aug 2012 #101
Oh for fuck's sake. Science is constantly replacing religion as an understanding of the world enki23 Aug 2012 #76
My position is that despite all that science has taught us, we know only the most cbayer Aug 2012 #79
It doesn't help them understand anything. enki23 Aug 2012 #80
Providing comfort and being meaningful skepticscott Aug 2012 #84
First, know your assumptions, for Christ's sake!! Coyotl Aug 2012 #77
Science is the process by which we encroach ever further into the former provinces of of the divine. enki23 Aug 2012 #81
Well, it's great to know that someone around here has the definitive and final answers cbayer Aug 2012 #82
And it's great to know skepticscott Aug 2012 #83
Just a point of clarification - LTX Aug 2012 #89
Well, that depends on what kind skepticscott Aug 2012 #92
It is semantics after a fashion, LTX Aug 2012 #94
They actually did no such thing. trotsky Aug 2012 #95
Amen, brother. LAGC Aug 2012 #86
"rational explanation...can't match the feeling evoked by...religious symbolism" PassingFair Aug 2012 #90
Recreation myth tama Aug 2012 #102
Well, if people were saying that skepticscott Aug 2012 #118
Yep n/t tama Aug 2012 #119
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Why Science Can’t Replace...»Reply #98