You probably should stop telling me what my problems are, what I'm blind to, and what mistakes you think I'm making. You don't have any chance of making an impact if I don't agree. I've told you repeatedly that my way of approaching and navigating reality works well for me, which I understand as validation of that worldview. I have no incentive to change it.
You probably should stop telling me what my problems are, what I'm blind to, and what mistakes you think I'm making. You don't have any chance of making an impact if I don't agree. I've told you repeatedly that my way of approaching and navigating reality works well for me, which I understand as validation of that worldview. I have no incentive to change it.
All bad thinking will lead to errors in behavior through bad beliefs. Computing how many gallons of gas is required for your car to go to Hawaii can leave you temporally bobbing in the California surf. It can leave you eating wet contaminated chicken for which you paid $10 a pound at some expensive grocery.
Circular reasoning is dangerous even if expected.
For all I know you and yours have no problems at all (God bless you) but the fact is but nobody, no reality, and no model is perfect. I could give you a litany of my problems which would sound inconsequential to many people but most are mere opportunities and challenges. Meanwhile I'm still kicking and having fun while digging the same ditches I dug as a toddler; full circle.
For the begining of the big bang it is an inference. So you can't use it as an observation and thus what you call a hypothesis doesn't have the content you claim it has.
Yet you may still not realize that I agree that Scientism is a curse and a religion that usually rejects even the concept of morality. It is a religion that accepts the existence of miracles but not the miracle of universal (widespread) consciousness or the miracle of free will. It doesn't accept the possibility of a Creation Consciousness in most cases either.
No, you don't understand any of my arguments or even what I'm saying as judged by your counterpoints which are irrelevancies even if true.
Of course. And for the 1000th time I have no problem with science. It is scientism and belief in science that is wrong. Lack of morality goes hand in hand with scientism but that doesn't mean that all believers in science are immoral or amoral. It merely means that the condition of amorality is more common among believers. Even some of the most devout Christians are immoral or use their religion as an excuse to do wrong. But again for the 1000th time most people try to do what's right. Amorality can lead to a twisted sense of right and wrong. It needn't but it can.
We were discussing the belief in miracles among those who believe in science. One of these miracles is that things are always improving so any similarity between society and something going down the toilet is irrelevant to both our omniscience and our future prospects.
You are mistaken. You are in good company because even many scientists and metaphysicians would agree with you. But you are still wrong and you might see it if you understood what I mean by consciousness.
For the begining of the big bang it is an inference. So you can't use it as an observation and thus what you call a hypothesis doesn't have the content you claim it has.
Moral theory also deals with functionality. We're looking to create a world that works a particular way, and we modify our rules for society and our personal interactions to facilitate that vision.
I have thrown out religion, and nobody embraces all of philosophy. You reject materialism and empiricism, and it seems utilitarianism give your questions below
Regarding art, the humanist is not only reality oriented and people enabling, he also has an aesthetic sense. You've seen my drawings and had the chance to hear my music. If not, take a listen. How about a slow blues cover of a Dire Straits song:
The humanist also can have a spiritual life, although it has nothing to do with spirits or afterlives.
I already explained. Maximizing human potential, opportunity, and quality of life. If that's not somebody else's goal, too, then I don't care what it is instead. My conscience insists on that. It insists on justice, kindness, education, freedom, and dignity for all who can live cooperative and responsible lives.
I don't really care about other kinds of people, what they want, or what becomes of them. They're the antisocial among us. They're the ones who tantrummed about masks and vaccines. They're the ones who've become MAGA. They're the climate deniers. They're the ones who support theocracy.
Exactly what any cult member would say. They never see themselves as being in a cult, and they will not tolerate any implication that they are. Anyone that sees it and calls it out for what it is becomes an "enemy" of the cult and the cult dogma that the swear doesn't exist.
You should consider how those words might apply to you. Look at how angry you become at anybody who rejects your claims about having greater truths using special ways of knowing that aren't empirical. That's when the words scientism and cult get thrown around by you and you mischaracterize atheistic humanists as you've been doing here, depicting us as mindless, emotionless, artless robots. Ask yourself what motivates emotional and angry reactions like that. Ask yourself why the humanists don't feel any need to treat you like that.
OK, I'll give you that one, although the word I would use rather than stupid is ignorant and gullible, and that's not all of them. Some are quite well educated and decent, and reject much that their religions teach, including the anti-scientism, the anti-intellectualism, the multiple bigotries, and the theocratic tendencies.
But the susceptible are indeed manipulated. They have no defense against indoctrination, and their religions are no more interested in their well-being than MAGA is. The church wants it adherents to promote it, to tithe to it, and in Amerca at least, to vote for theocratic candidates or in the case of Trump, people sympathetic to their desire to take over the government.
But don't go to them with a need. That's when you'll find out what they really stand for. I've lost track of how many times have I heard stories of people who left the church because it wasn't there for them when they needed help. Both my wife's father and his mother left the church for that reason.
Not always in the short term, but the history of mankind and civilization are one of progress in many areas, most notably in knowledge (what many call science) and moral theory. I just addressed that with you in another recent post.
What you call scientism I call empiricism and the idea that it alone is the path to knowledge about reality, although you might have a definition of knowledge that includes intuitions and faith-based beliefs. Mine doesn't.
I do have to sleep, mikkel, and it was late last night. You should realize that we might live in different time zones.
Social Science is a broad classification that other sciences fall under, like Natural Sciences is umbrella classification for different sciences which study different aspect of natural phenomena (eg physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, astronomy) along with their respective fields and subfields.
With Social Sciences, is any science that study the societies of humans, and their social interactions with each other.
These sciences in social sciences would include the following:
human activities:
Archaeology.
History.
Linguistics.
Political Science.
Law.
Ethics.
Economics.
Demography.
Management.
human cultures:
Sociology.
Cultural Studies.
Anthropology.
Human Geography…or just Geography.
Archaeology.
human behaviours:
Behavioural Science.
Psychology.
Psychiatry.
There are actually lot more different sciences in Social Sciences, but these are the ones I can remember right now, as I just awoke up feeling disoriented.
if you have noticed, I mentioned “archaeology”, twice, as this and some other sciences may covered more areas.
Anyway, the science of morals, is called Ethics. If you wanted to study morals at university or college, you would enrol in a subject or course in Ethics. Don’t ask me what teachers teach in Ethics, as I wouldn’t know.
Excuse me, but how do you determine what is reliable and what isn’t reliable?
You have only made some more assumptions, nothing to do with what is reliable.
Testimony being well informed, are actually dependent on relevant experiences.
Ok. Let‘s pick a person, and see just how how well informed that person is.
Say, Kent Hovind for an example.
Hovind have for years been trying to rid of the theory of Evolution and evolutionary biology. On what basis does that make him well informed, and therefore authoritative on the subject?
If you looked at his education background, none of them involved science, let alone biology. All his qualifications were about religion, including music, eg master in sacred music. None of them in biology or any biology-related field, like applied science in medicine.
And if you look at his work history, he has never worked at any capacity as a biologist of any type. All he has done was worked as teacher, teaching religious education, or being a preacher.
So nothing in qualifications or experiences make he qualified to speak about Evolution, so hence, none of these would make him well informed on the subject of biology. That would make him unreliable.
Even Answers in Genesis, even rejected him for continuing to used arguments that have already been debunked and discredited…and AiG is creationism organisation.
If Hovind just stick with subject of theology, then sure he might be well informed, but he is out of his depth, when he started to dealt into areas of biology or cosmology. Or that of any other sciences.
Actually, you are more like Hovind, talking about things that you don’t understand.
You are not well informed, nor reliable, as you believe yourself to be. You are like a reflection of Hovind.
Please, you need to be more specific than that. If you are complaining about the fossil record being incomplete there are for all practical purposes not "blanks". It is as if you want to claim that only the balls that you observe rebounding from the Earth bounce and that the others do not.
I do have to sleep, mikkel, and it was late last night. You should realize that we might live in different time zones.
Social Science is a broad classification that other sciences fall under, like Natural Sciences is umbrella classification for different sciences which study different aspect of natural phenomena (eg physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, astronomy) along with their respective fields and subfields.
With Social Sciences, is any science that study the societies of humans, and their social interactions with each other.
These sciences in social sciences would include the following:
human activities:
Archaeology.
History.
Linguistics.
Political Science.
Law.
Ethics.
Economics.
Demography.
Management.
human cultures:
Sociology.
Cultural Studies.
Anthropology.
Human Geography…or just Geography.
Archaeology.
human behaviours:
Behavioural Science.
Psychology.
Psychiatry.
There are actually lot more different sciences in Social Sciences, but these are the ones I can remember right now, as I just awoke up feeling disoriented.
if you have noticed, I mentioned “archaeology”, twice, as this and some other sciences may covered more areas.
Anyway, the science of morals, is called Ethics. If you wanted to study morals at university or college, you would enrol in a subject or course in Ethics. Don’t ask me what teachers teach in Ethics, as I wouldn’t know.
In agreement with much of what you wrote, when I was younger I read a lot of Sigmund Freud. I wanted to find out why people are as they (we) are. Frankly, my life--yes--was straightened out when I studied the Bible, depended on God for help. Yes, I can say that God helped me. I can't speak for others as to their situations, but I know that while I am not perfect (yet), the moral guidelines as related in the Bible helped me more than trying to figure life from Dr. Freud, or Carl Jung, if you know about him. Or even preachers on TV or the radio. Or psychiatrists. etc. Add to that, trying to figure out life from social evolution.
Just empty platitudes without some means of determining ethical imperatives. And those aren’t coming from your sacred science. All that’s coming from your sacred science is survival of the fittest. Yet somehow you are imagining the moral future of humanity. That was you I quoted as an example of amoral scientism, and now suddenly you’re trying to pain yourself as imagining the moral future of humanity.
This is why I worry about the ever-growing number of atheist/materialist/religion haters and their cult like worship of science. And it’s not because I love religion, or that I can’t see it’s hypocrisy. It‘s that these pseudo-science cultists are blind as bats to their own hypocrisy and the damage they want to do by throwing the baby out with the religious bath water (so to speak).
Moral theory also deals with functionality. We're looking to create a world that works a particular way, and we modify our rules for society and our personal interactions to facilitate that vision.
What vision? That the fittest survive? That the strongest win? That the richest control the wealth? That the clever enslave the ignorant? I recall you saying you were quite fine with this, as this is the wisdom of “science”.
I have thrown out religion, and nobody embraces all of philosophy. You reject materialism and empiricism, and it seems utilitarianism give your questions below
Regarding art, the humanist is not only reality oriented and people enabling, he also has an aesthetic sense. You've seen my drawings and had the chance to hear my music. If not, take a listen. How about a slow blues cover of a Dire Straits song:
The humanist also can have a spiritual life, although it has nothing to do with spirits or afterlives.
How does he tell a “spiritual life” from random self-indulgence? A spiritual life requires goals based on non-materialist ideals. And you’ve rejected those as being irrelevant to reality.
I already explained. Maximizing human potential, opportunity, and quality of life. If that's not somebody else's goal, too, then I don't care what it is instead. My conscience insists on that. It insists on justice, kindness, education, freedom, and dignity for all who can live cooperative and responsible lives.
Then why are you worshiping science. Science doesn’t care about any of these goals you claim to be so important to you. Science says all that matters is passing on the DNA.
They're the antisocial among us. They're the ones who tantrummed about masks and vaccines. They're the ones who've become MAGA. They're the climate deniers. They're the ones who support theocracy.
You all love to imagine that I’m angry and ranting when I call you on your cult nonsense. Why is that? I’m not the least bit angry or upset. I’m just calling it like I see it. I don’t hate you, or science, or anything else. And I’m not your enemy. I’m trying to do you a favor.
Good point because I have learned there is a cap on chromosomes called telomeres which grow shorter as time goes on within an organism, thereby shortening its lifespan.
Oh boy. Not in the way that you mean. Yes, the entropy of the universe is continually increasing, but that does not mean that the entropy of the Earth has to increase. The universe is an isolated system, but the Earth is for all practical purposes a closed system. That means that energy continually enters and leaves it meaning that your oversimplified approach to entropy is wrong.
I understand that you have no real good answers. But anyway yes have a good evening as the telomeres keep going. For a while. Who knows? Maybe some will seep into the ground and go back to another "abiogenesis." take care, SZ.
I understand that you have no real good answers. But anyway yes have a good evening as the telomeres keep going. For a while. Who knows? Maybe some will seep into the ground and go back to another "abiogenesis." take care, SZ.
Please do not make false claims about others. I have good answers. You are suffering under self imposed ignorance. I cannot force you to understand. Once again, if I was the only one that failed then I might be the one that was a "bad teacher". But almost everyone that has interacted with you has said the same thing. At that point it is rather obvious that the flaw is not with everyone that tries to answer your questions for you. The odds are huge that it is you.
take care, SZ.