"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[Sheldon]

Slap harder, you may grasp the difference.

 

[Sheldon]

Instead of a face palm, why not explain how "the heart" can in anyway be an explanation of reality when it comes to existence of anything.

Maybe he has run out rhetoric?

 

[Sheldon]

I facepalmed the inexplicable degree of denial of the obvious fact that the poster actually has an idea of God

I shan't facepalm your inability to grasp the simplest of facts, that this idea is not one I have, it is one I have heard others espouse, and repeated. hearing an idea, is not the same as having an idea, what is your idea of flegalofaloop? It's invisible by the way. Now is that your idea of a flegalofaloop, or mine? So would it be fair to say if you repeat that you are dubious about this idea of a flegalofaloop, it is your idea of a flegalofaloop, or just an idea you have heard, that you are dubious of?

 

[Sheldon]

No, they're not meaningless. Not at all.

Yes they are.

But before you can listen to your heart, you need to silence the noises in your head.

Deepity....

Prayer and meditation can help you do that it really isn't hard.

I have meditated for many years, I need not use prayer for it's effects to be beneficial. Nor need I believe in or witness anything spiritual or supernatural.

So how come mediation is beneficial for an atheist?

 

[Sheldon]

No..... not at all.
'God' is our superstition.
'Science' is what we know and can do.

I think it is more the case that god in the generic sense PureX wants to pretend he is arguing for, is an unevidenced unfalsifiable and untestable claim. whereas science is the very antithesis of that, as all it's ideas must be falsifiable, testable, and be supported by sufficient objective evidence. Moreover scientific ideas, no matter how well established as facts, must still remain tentative, and open to revision, in the light of new evidence no matter how improbable.

In stark contrast to monotheistic religions, which of course claim absolute truths have been revealed, that cannot be in any way reversed, and is of course what PureX is really arguing for, but with obvious and relentless sophistry.

 

[lukethethird]

Teenagers with honed critical thinking skills? Very interesting. You believe in unicorns and mermaids too, I suppose?

Well, I can't say it was my experience.

 

[Sheldon]

Thank you. Yes. I mentioned to another poster last night that some don't know how to listen to the heart.

Oh I know how to do that alright, thanks to science. A stethoscope for example.

 

[Sheldon]

And if all of what I just said sounds like nonsense to someone, all the more reason for them to take notice of that.

 

[Suave]

I think it is more the case that god in the generic sense PureX wants to pretend he is arguing for, is an unevidenced unfalsifiable and untestable claim. whereas science is the very antithesis of that, as all it's ideas must be falsifiable, testable, and be supported by sufficient objective evidence. Moreover scientific ideas, no matter how well established as facts, must still remain tentative, and open to revision, in the light of new evidence no matter how improbable.

In stark contrast to monotheistic religions, which of course claim absolute truths have been revealed, that cannot be in any way reversed, and is of course what PureX is really arguing for, but with obvious and relentless sophistry.

There is actually a way indeed to determine if we are likely part of a simulated universe with an underlying grid being controlled by a simulator ( a.k.a. - God )

Some physicists have proposed a method for testing if we are in a numerical simulated cubic space-time lattice Matrix or simulated universe with an underlying grid.
[1210.1847] Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

Based on the assumption that there'd be finite computational resources, a simulated universe would be performed by dividing up the space-time continuum into individually separate and distinctive points. Analogous to mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists conduct to construct nuclei based on Quantum Chromodynamics, observable effects of a grid-like space-time have been studied from these computer simulations which use a 3-D grid to model how elementary particles move and collide with each other. Anomalies found in these simulations suggest that if we are in a simulation universe with an underlying grid, then there'd be various amounts of high energy cosmic rays coming at us from each direction; but if space is continuous, then there'd be high energy cosmic rays coming at us equally from every direction.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage
(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))

 

[lukethethird]

Maybe he has run out rhetoric?

Some how I don't think so.

 

[Windwalker]

I shan't facepalm your inability to grasp the simplest of facts, that this idea is not one I have, it is one I have heard others espouse, and repeated. hearing an idea, is not the same as having an idea, what is your idea of flegalofaloop?

And yet, when you presented that idea as what God is. It matters not if you heard if from someone else, it's the image of God in your mind as you crafted your words to describe how absurd you thought it was. Hence, it was a concept in your mind. Words do not proceed from a vacuum.

Well..... perhaps maybe so.

 

[Windwalker]

Well, I can't say it was my experience.

Yes, as a teen, we only imagine we are critical thinkers. We also imagine that we know what the heart is telling us, when it's really just hormones, and us using sophisticated language to make it sound like we know what we're doing. When adults speak of listening to the heart, they don't mean just pulling something out of their arses, like teenagers do.

So my point remains, that is a real, mature, and useful skill to develop as a human being. Listening to your heart. The head can mislead you with all manner of rationalizations over irrational behaviors, because we don't know how to listen to the heart.

 

[Windwalker]

Oh I know how to do that alright, thanks to science. A stethoscope for example.

I see. All too clearly, actually.

 

[Windwalker]

Let's see if it registers.

 

[lukethethird]

You watch too much Oprah.

 

[Windwalker]

I have meditated for many years,

Did anything useful come of that? Any particular insights worth noting? What type of meditation practice?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes they are.



Deepity....



I have meditated for many years, I need not use prayer for it's effects to be beneficial. Nor need I believe in or witness anything spiritual or supernatural.

So how come mediation is beneficial for an atheist?

‘Deepity’ just means you didn’t understand. That’s okay, maybe one day you will.

I’d be interested to hear from you, what benefits you’ve received from meditation?

 

[Secret Chief]

I consider that to be a bare claim, since that is all you have offered.

I suspect if I offered quotes it would only trigger arguing the toss over those quotes, which is something I'm not looking to do. So let's cut to the chase: Is scientism an outlook that you ascribe to or not? (I'm simply curious, I'm not looking to follow through on your response).

 

[oldbadger]

I think it is more the case that god in the generic sense PureX wants to pretend he is arguing for, is an unevidenced unfalsifiable and untestable claim. whereas science is the very antithesis of that, as all it's ideas must be falsifiable, testable, and be supported by sufficient objective evidence. Moreover scientific ideas, no matter how well established as facts, must still remain tentative, and open to revision, in the light of new evidence no matter how improbable.

In stark contrast to monotheistic religions, which of course claim absolute truths have been revealed, that cannot be in any way reversed, and is of course what PureX is really arguing for, but with obvious and relentless sophistry.

Well, relentless sophistry can't spin up theistic Gods any better than a gospel can. And monotheism cannot acknowledge any other religion, belief or faith......I think it's all about itself.

I liked your description of science's foundation as ' tentative, and open to revision, in the light of new evidence'....... yes.... the developing evolution of what we know and understand. A moving growing body of knowledge, well able to review itself.

 

[Sheldon]

And yet, when you presented that idea as what God is.

Nope, wrong again. It was someone else's idea of what a god is. I just repeated it, to show why it seemed flawed to me.

it's the image of God in your mind as you crafted your words to describe how absurd you thought it was.

Nope, it's the image presented to me, the wording of course was mine, but the concept was not.