Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Anybody learned anything yet from an evolutionist on how choosing works?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are most scientists emotionally mature adults?
- Thread starter Mohammad Nur Syamsu
- Start date
Anybody learned anything yet from an evolutionist on how choosing works?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Why on earth would you think that the link provided represents "atheism", "evolution", or science in general in any way?! That's crazy. It wasn't even written by a scientists. Look at journals, buddy. Don't shape your opinion of scientists based on the media ... sheesh.
It's unlikely I'll bother with this for long. I choose my battles wisely. And where I do, I tend to engage in guerrilla warfare rather than protracted engagements.
I don't really know what you were saying with that first part, so that's gone. But I think it's time for one of my favorite educational diagrams:
Basically, there is often a pretty massive disconnect between what the science actually says, and then how the general public spins it. I'm familiar with the types of articles you quoted here. They frankly tick me off, because they're misconstruing what the science says an inserting in a bunch of personal philosophy that is not the science. But the general public, being generally stupid about science, can't sort out the difference. They can't sort out the actual science from the spin. Thus we end up with grandma wearing a tin foil hat.
It's not too late to take off the hat. Well, maybe it is, but I'm an optimist.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Evolution doesn't speak to "choosing", so I wouldn't expect that to happen. It's a scientific theory, not a world view. It is far more limited than you are implying.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
There is no science of honesty, it is not a matter of fact. You simply accept 0 subjective terms. Not honesty, love, beauty, God, the soul etc. You use them all as objective terms.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Try harder to understand what I am saying. You are obviously just wallowing to and fro among your prejudices.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
There is a subjective aspect to "honesty", but whether or not someone is being honest is either true or false. They are either being "straight" with you or not (or somewhere in between).
Below is how "honest" is commonly defined. Do you agree with this definition? If not, why not.
hon·est
ˈänəst/
adjective
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Right back at ya, slick.
I'm not entirely sure where this "science of honesty" phrase is coming from, but I think I maybe get where this came from now. Again, it's important to understand that while anything can be studied using scientific standards (which can be referred to as, for example, the "science of mice" or the "science of black holes" or the "science of love"), that does not negate other perspectives. Maybe read this post again? Don't so much like repeating myself.
That's not a very nice thing to say. I understand just fine what you're saying (well, except for the parts where the grammar makes it difficult). I also understand that it's wrong, and that you've constructed a very bizarre strawperson about sciences and scientists that is just plain light years away from how actual sciences and actual scientists operate and see things. You do realize that I'm both a scientist by training and a highly religious theist, right?
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Sure it is either true or not that Quintessence is honest, and the answer can only be arrived at by a way of choosing it, and any chosen answer would be logically valid. It is a logically valid opinion he is honest, and it is logically valid he is dishonest. It is a logically valid that the painting is beatiful, and it is logically valid that the painting is ugly.
As demonstrated, scientists are trying to destroy subjectivity.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Logically valid doesn't mean actually valid. There are lots of logically consistent beliefs that are, in actuality, completely unreasonable and foolish.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
So you were using the scientific sense of honesty, whatever that is, and not the common discourse sense of honesty, in regarding honesty as a factual issue?
You write baloney, you replace the common discourse subjective sense of honesty, with an objective factual honesty. You do not allow 2 different senses of honesty.
Except they aren't. There isn't even any "they!" There are individual people. Doing individual things. And perhaps, I'll grant, there's the odd-out screwball who is guilty of what you're suggesting here. If "scientists" were so hell-bent on "destroying subjectivity," there sure as blazes wouldn't be so darned many of them patronizing the arts and having hobbies. One of the professors - a scientist - on my graduate committee writes and publishes poetry, as well as hosts poetry readings. Another professor - also a scientist - who I know does woodworking and shows off his amazing pieces at local galleries. Yet another professor and scientist I knew in graduate school was highly involved in her local church group doing religious education and teaching about the Bible. I follow a religious path that not only embraces subjective experiences, but celebrates them and seeks them. But here you are, claiming we scientists are hell-bent on "destroying subjectivity."
What a crock piece of rubbish nonsense.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
That any opinion that is chosen is logically valid does not mean they are all morally righteous, or that any opinion is morally righteous. For example if you were on drugs, then any opinion you may form in that state may be considered to be corrupt, no matter what opinion you choose.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Well you are guilty of it right here when you made honesty into a factual issue, together with your buddy Leibowde84 in conspiracy.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Why did you bring "morality" into the discussion all of a sudden. I am talking about the truth of a claim, not any moral implications.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
So, whether or not someone is being honest is not factual? Please explain.
I did what now?
Well, I'll grant you one thing. You certainly have a fantastic imagination. May you put that to better use in the future.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Don't give up!! Please help us Quintessence. You're our only hope.
Pfft. I need to go take a shower.
And then I'm going to go do a fun religious ritual that involves a lot of subjective stuff that I'm apparently hell-bent on destroying as a scientist.
