Elton John: ban organised religion

[Whaleboy]

whaleboy, are you gay too? Man, is this board turning people into gaydomhood?

I'm bisexual, or greedy according to my friends!

Loose speedo's tonight

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You have immediately assumed a lab-based view of the God hypothesis. Not even the most delusion Christian physicists could expect to peer into a particle accelerator to see his maker.

This comes back to my point of scientific method being applied to rational concepts, and not necessarily empirical observations. That is why the boundary between logical philosophy and science is blurred, and why I consider Wittgenstein to have been a better scientist by these lights than Einstein.

How is it still the scientific method without observations/experiments? That is what the scientific method is.

Once more, I consider people with this type of thinking to be the greatest danger to science in it's existence. You will turn science back to the rational philosophy that led us down wrong paths for the thousands of years before the scientific method.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The number of A. ex-religionists B. religionists whove converted to another religion C. Religionists whove changed to a radically different philisophical basis for their religious tradition (eg an ex Buberian turned Kaplanite) would argue that this is an empirically false statement.

And religionists are much more likely to switch faiths than atheists (At least according to a poll done on this board). Which suggests that atheists are the much more biased/programmed group.

JM

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The number of A. ex-religionists B. religionists whove converted to another religion C. Religionists whove changed to a radically different philisophical basis for their religious tradition (eg an ex Buberian turned Kaplanite) would argue that this is an empirically false statement.

I dunno. I've met a fair number of converts who became fanatical about whatever it was they had converted to, and now were just as close-minded as before... it seems like a personality trait more than anything.

The nature of belief is such that it can be difficult to consider being wrong.

Besides, not wanting to admit being wrong & therefore being hostile to the possibility does not rule out conversions. Either the person overcame their resistance, or they rationalized it somehow so they weren't "wrong" per se (different interpretation of same basic "Truth").

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
The burden of proof should be on those asserting the existance of God.

Well thank God I dont go around asserting such existence. Instead I try to LIVE it. What would be the point of making STATEMENTS about someone you are trying to dialog with, to find and be found by? Modern religion is a quest, an experience, a "wrestling" not a sequence of syllogisms. Certainly Judaism is, and my strong impression is that the liberal Protestant churches are on a similar quest (if only they didnt have screwed up views on ME politics)

To get back to the OP, who made theological assertions to EJ? He made sociological generalizations, ones which are most definitely falsifiable, and are in fact empirically false.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


And religionists are much more likely to switch faiths than atheists (At least according to a poll done on this board). Which suggests that atheists are the much more biased/programmed group.

JM

A 'poly poll. There's a good data set for ya!

An alternative explanation could be that a person who was not raised religious (or as some might say, indoctrinated) would, as an adult, find religion absurd. Whereas, you get 'em while they're young...

-Arrian

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You don't know what you are talking about. Science provides systems for examining claims for which experiments can be formulated or observations exist. It does not provide systems for examining all positive claims.

I think it does, it's just that the current institutional framework disallows it.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
There are modes of philosophy (and theology) that do claim this, but that is not sciences claim. Once you remove experiment and obersvation from science, you are left with nothing more successful than any other philosophy.

Well this doesn't remove experiment and observation from science. What it does do is elevate the importance of empircally derived data to being the sole source of valid data.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The reason you and others wish to pin your fanciful speculation on science, is that science has been so successful. But science has been so successful because it depends on experimentation and observation. Once you takes those away, science would cease to have it's success. That is why you (and other pseudo-intellectuals like you) piss me off. It is because you are attacking the foundations of science, by claiming that science exists without experimentation or observation.

I don't claim it doesn't exist without experiment or observation, I'm claiming it doesn't exist soley as experiment and observation.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The methods of science are experimentation and observation, as such, you don't know what you are talking about when you say that the methods of science can be used to examine all positive claims.

They aren't the sole methods though. Logical analysis, for example, provides a critical role. The key though is it is focused on making explinations of observed data.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Now I can see saying that you won't beleive in anything that science hasn't provided evidence for. This neccesitates (baring us having already discovered everything there is to know is science, which is definitely not the case) that you don't beleive in some things that are out there, and definitely do exist. This leads to agnosticism. Atheism is only relevant as a beleif.. (and a pretty pointless beleif in my humble opinion) entirely divorced from any line of reasoning based upon science.

What's the difference between not believing in God and atheism?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian
The burden of proof should be on those asserting the existance of God.

Those asserting the existence of God (in this thread) exert it based upon Faith. Without evidence.

Whaleboy and Perfection, on the other hand, assert that God doesn't exist (also without evidence). However, they somehow say that this is proof of God's nonexistence??? (or 99.9% proof ) They also claim that this is scientific, which spits on the face of over 200 years of scientific progress.

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Well thank God I dont go around asserting such existence. Instead I try to LIVE it. What would be the point of making STATEMENTS about someone you are trying to dialog with, to find and be found by? Modern religion is a quest, an experience, a "wrestling" not a sequence of syllogisms. Certainly Judaism is, and my strong impression is that the liberal Protestant churches are on a similar quest (if only they didnt have screwed up views on ME politics)

To get back to the OP, who made theological assertions to EJ? He made sociological generalizations, ones which are most definitely falsifiable, and are in fact empirically false.

I was merely responding to Jon's post, wherein he (it appeared to me) asked what proof Whaleboy had provided of God's non-existance.

My post was about JM's post, in the context of a 'poly debate on the existance/non-existance of God. In that context, I've seen many such posts demanding that atheists disprove God.

As for the rest... um, ok.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Perfection
I think it does, it's just that the current institutional framework disallows it.

Well this doesn't remove experiment and observation from science. What it does do is elevate the importance of empircally derived data to being the sole source of valid data.


I don't claim it doesn't exist without experiment or observation, I'm claiming it doesn't exist soley as experiment and observation.

They aren't the sole methods though. Logical analysis, for example, provides a critical role. The key though is it is focused on making explinations of observed data.

What's the difference between not believing in God and atheism?

Please stay away from science.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


I was merely responding to Jon's post, wherein he (it appeared to me) asked what proof Whaleboy had provided of God's non-existance.

My post was about JM's post, in the context of a 'poly debate on the existance/non-existance of God. In that context, I've seen many such posts demanding that atheists disprove God.

As for the rest... um, ok.

-Arrian

Honestly, I like BK fine. But I am glad he hasn't ventured into this thread.

JM

[Arrian]

Heh, I wasn't necessarily thinking of BK, actually.

I just reacted to the concept of demanding proof of a negative like that is all... carry on.

-Arrian

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You are a stupid pseudo-intellectual if you say that there is scientific evidence against an invisible teleporting Bigfoot. Second, there is scientific evidence against invisibility and teleporting (as would be applicable to Bigfoot), so you can say that. Once you remove the invisibility and teleporting properties from Bigfoot, you can say that there is scientific evidence against Bigfoot.

Please don't confuse issues by playing word games.

Note also, for one, that you said beleive.

There is no scientific evidence against the sort of invisibility and teleportation used by invisible teleporting Bigfoot. How could there be?

[Jon Miller]

Without observation and experimentation you get philosophy and theology. Which has provided some positive ideas/advancements/etc. But have not nearly provided the advancements in understanding of the natural world that a few hundred years of science has provided.

JM
(I wanted to have as my second line "See over two thousand years of intellectual masturbation" but felt that that would denigerate philsophy and theology a bit too much)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian
Heh, I wasn't necessarily thinking of BK, actually.

I just reacted to the concept of demanding proof of a negative like that is all... carry on.

-Arrian

But we do ask for evidence of a negative.

JM