Atheism on the Decline; Paganism on the Rise

[Agathon]

No. I don't think I ever did a real Goth chick.

I did tell that story about the ass-biting Goth chick that bit that dude I knew, didn't I?

[Whaleboy]

Nein. I'm intrigued....

Goth doms are just mmmm

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Nein. I'm intrigued....

Goth doms are just mmmm

Having been a youngster during Alice Cooper's first brush with sensation and fame, modern Goths are rather like watching any film by De Palma after having seen Hitchcock's oeuvre.

[Agathon]

I'm sure I told it before.

Saw this really hot Goth chick at the pub. Goth crap and all that guk, but a body to die for.

The guy I was drinking with warned me about her. Apparently, a guy we both knew had gone home with her once, and ****ed her. He went to sleep and then woke up in agonizing pain as she had sunk her teeth into his ass cheek and wouldn't let go. He claimed he had to beat her off as she was like one of those pit bull terriers.

He was sore for ages.

[Whaleboy]

Agonising pain

[Patroklos]

That we don't understand the precise mechanisms doesn't mean it is mystical.

Which also proves jack ****. You make the assumption that the exact mechanisms exist, that your current model is accurate in any degree even though most scientific models are eventually proven to be wishful thinking.

Science is only concrete up to what it currently encompasses, and "concrete" only because what science currently encompasses can't prove itself wrong. Blindly believing that everything not in you model will somday be included in someone elses is no different than the faith of a religious person.

You just changed all the crosses, holy water, and bibles to 3.14, distilled water, and thesis statements.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos


... even though most scientific models are eventually proven to be wishful thinking.

Which ones did you have in mind ?

[Whaleboy]

You make the assumption that the exact mechanisms exist, that your current model is accurate in any degree even though most scientific models are eventually proven to be wishful thinking.

WTF? That contradicts itself. That the mechanism exists is a basic tenet of sufficient reason and entropy, models are just that, models. They become more accurate but they are merely represenative, but no-one has claimed a perfect model, your point is defunct.

Science is only concrete up to what it currently encompasses, and "concrete" only because what science currently encompasses can't prove itself wrong.

That's bull****. Sure there are some scientists who are overly zealous but that does not mean science as a whole is. Scientific method is premised by doubt, a central part of that is the ability to prove itself wrong and advance which is something lacking in theism or any statement based upon faith (see my previous post on that distinction).

Science does not require belief, and anyone who has faith in their model is making an error, but that does not reflect upon scientific method. The only belief relevant to science is the belief that the outside world exists, on top of that it's all logic.

My point is that merely because science doesn't understand something as yet, doesn't mean that it is fair game for religion. Furthermore, lack of evidence against, does not constitute evidence for, so religious science is a contradiction in terms.

[Az]

The guy I was drinking with warned me about her. Apparently, a guy we both knew had gone home with her once, and ****ed her. He went to sleep and then woke up in agonizing pain as she had sunk her teeth into his ass cheek and wouldn't let go. He claimed he had to beat her off as she was like one of those pit bull terriers.

Solution: don't stay at her place problem solved.

[Patroklos]

My point is that merely because science doesn't understand something as yet, doesn't mean that it is fair game for religion. Furthermore, lack of evidence against, does not constitute evidence for, so religious science is a contradiction in terms.

I don't believe that religion has been proven. I also don't believe religion needs to be. Unlike science, religion doesn't have the requirement to be proven. If you don't like those rules then don't play, but don't pretend you inablility to prove or disprove religion should shake someones faith. I don't expect my faith to dislodge someones blind allegiance to their scientist clergy.

And I suppose you are correct that the scientific method in itself is not a faith, but the vast majority of people treat it as one because they do make the mistakes in interpretation that you alude too.

Which ones did you have in mind ?

I am pretty sure all of the do, except for the current ones in the process of being proven wrong. Care to mention a theory that has not been discarded or modified since inception, or is not subject to the same in the future. They are after all only theories. Or do you have faith that the ones you believe are infallible?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Azazel



Solution: don't stay at her place problem solved.

Or alternatively, make sure you remove and conceal her false teeth before going to bed.

In fact, do that beforehand- I'm informed that it makes fellatio more 'interesting' .

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I am pretty sure all of the do, except for the current ones in the process of being proven wrong. Care to mention a theory that has not been discarded or modified since inception, or is not subject to the same in the future. They are after all only theories. Or do you have faith that the ones you believe are infallible?

If you are pretty sure, then mention some of these theories.


Explain how invalidating a theory somehow 'disproves' science. I suspect you aren't too sure of what the definition of a theory is, so let's have a look :

" Noun: theory thee(u)ree

A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.

"theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.

"a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

- hypothesis , possibility

A belief that can guide behaviour.

"the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales" "

[monolith94]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
It never fails to amaze me how people could possibly confuse Satanism with adolescent faux-rebel posing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

It (by which I mean LaVeyan Satanism, some others and their derivatives) is a perfectly valid, peaceful philosophy not unlike a kind of hedonistic Buddhism. It is not 15 year old goths licking tomato ketchup from each other's necks while watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

No. See, I've read all that stuff, and more, and I've come to the conclusion that Satanism, LaVeyan Satanism in particular, is a load of rubbish built from absolutely nothing, that says zilch. Paganism at least has some credence. Any religion with Alistair Crowley as a building block will receive no respect from me.

[Az]

Or alternatively, make sure you remove and conceal her false teeth before going to bed.

In fact, do that beforehand- I'm informed that it makes fellatio more 'interesting' .

Oh dear.

[Whaleboy]

I don't believe that religion has been proven. I also don't believe religion needs to be. Unlike science, religion doesn't have the requirement to be proven. If you don't like those rules then don't play, but don't pretend you inablility to prove or disprove religion should shake someones faith. I don't expect my faith to dislodge someones blind allegiance to their scientist clergy.

But now you've just moved the goal posts. In my post I said that religious science is a contradiction in terms, and as I have said throughout this thread, personal faith is irrefutable because it is object to objective reality, it cannot be communicated etc. However, when a religion seeks to make scientific claims, then science and scientific method will always be superior to it, because science and scientific method are integral ways of understanding objective reality itself. Hence I distinguish between faith and religion. Faith, ok fine all well and good, as long as it is not imposed on others. Religion, as a system comprising rules, regulations, truisms etc, is far more suspect... hence science is perfectly able to take some quite large chunks out of accepted Christian doctrine, leaving only personal faith intact and rightly so.

And I suppose you are correct that the scientific method in itself is not a faith, but the vast majority of people treat it as one because they do make the mistakes in interpretation that you alude too.

True, and it irritates me no end when people say that they "believe" in evolution et al. To believe in science completely undermines scientific understanding, and weakens it, because if evolution should ever be scientifically disproved, somehow these people will think that science will be discredited along with it, whereas in reality it will have been strengthened.

Nonetheless, the statement "I believe in the truth of evolution" is stronger than the statement "I believe in creationism", because of the formers' greater merit in terms of evidence. That is, however, irrelevant here.

They are after all only theories. Or do you have faith that the ones you believe are infallible?

There's no such thing as an infallible theory, it's one of the beauties of logic. You seem to present that point as though it is a weakness of science, whereas it is probably one if its greatest strengths.

No. See, I've read all that stuff, and more, and I've come to the conclusion that Satanism, LaVeyan Satanism in particular, is a load of rubbish built from absolutely nothing, that says zilch. Paganism at least has some credence. Any religion with Alistair Crowley as a building block will receive no respect from me.

I disagree, ignoring the magic crap it's a good philosophy if you're an existentialist but not a humanist or a positivist. I agree the "Satanic Bible" leaves a lot to be desired, but the basic philosophy present is sound, and a good counter to monotheism, or dualistic theism (i.e. Christianity). The rest of it is pretty much a case of .