The explanatory power of evolution.

[Kulindahr]

So you bring in a bunch of irrelevant quotes?

Einstein gave a good definition of scientism. It describes your position to a T. Your position is what he condemned.

 

[TX-Beau]

The funniest thing about this whole farce, is that all of your precious "scientism," DOESN'T in any way describe my position "to a T."

 

[Kulindahr]

The funniest thing about this whole farce, is that all of your precious "scientism," DOESN'T in any way describe my position "to a T."

Then you're not very good at portraying your own position. You consistently refuse to allow any route but science to knowledge.

 

[TX-Beau]

Bullshit, you've just invested in this whole "Beau the Scientism-ist" cant because I don't believe in your religion while you failed to actually ask me what I believed.

Kuli: I believe in God

Beau: OK I don't.

Kuli: God exits!

Beau: How do you know that.

Kuli: (miles of epistolary double blinds that don't answer the question beyond "I just do.")

Beau: So you don't have any evidence for that do you?

Kuli: SCINETISM-IST!!! Now I don't have to answer that.

Nevertheless I have told you time and time and time and time again that I DON'T BELIEVE THAT SCIENCE CAN DESCRIBE THE SUPERNATURAL BY DEFINITION!!!!!!!

 

[TX-Beau]

Perhaps I have been remiss in not explaining my position succinctly.

There are a bunch of things that “science” can’t describe, religion, aesthetics, and social interactions. It can’t describe philosophy, theology, the “social sciences,” (I also think Penis Envy is invented) really aren’t sciences. “SCIENCE,” is an investigative tool that has rules, and if those rules can’t be followed, then it’s not science. This doesn’t mean those other things don’t exist.

Will science one day be able to describe those things? Who the hell knows, I certainly don’t. Where the mystical run into problems with me, is their tendency to play fast and loose with matters of fact, and matters of belief.

“…I believe in God…” is a reflexive statement of personal belief, I’m not going to agree, but there you are.
“...God Exists!...” is a GENERAL statement of fact, and “science” is all about fact, proposing things are fact, evaluating possible items of fact, reviewing and testing other people’s assertions of fact – so don’t clutch your pearls when you make a statement of fact and I ask for some backup. If the mystic then retreats into mysticism to back up a statement of fact, then we have a problem.

I really don’t think that “science” has any business describing people’s religious beliefs, how you acquire them is certainly not "science," nor is it possible to apply "science" in that way, it is however relevant when you are telling me something is factual and your reason for that is solely because you feel it is so.

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps I have been remiss in not explaining my position succinctly.

There are a bunch of things that “science” can’t describe, religion, aesthetics, and social interactions. It can’t describe philosophy, theology, the “social sciences,” (I also think Penis Envy is invented) really aren’t sciences. “SCIENCE,” is an investigative tool that has rules, and if those rules can’t be followed, then it’s not science. This doesn’t mean those other things don’t exist.

Will science one day be able to describe those things? Who the hell knows, I certainly don’t. Where the mystical run into problems with me, is their tendency to play fast and loose with matters of fact, and matters of belief.

“…I believe in God…” is a reflexive statement of personal belief, I’m not going to agree, but there you are.
“...God Exists!...” is a GENERAL statement of fact, and “science” is all about fact, proposing things are fact, evaluating possible items of fact, reviewing and testing other people’s assertions of fact – so don’t clutch your pearls when you make a statement of fact and I ask for some backup. If the mystic then retreats into mysticism to back up a statement of fact, then we have a problem.

I really don’t think that “science” has any business describing people’s religious beliefs, how you acquire them is certainly not "science," nor is it possible to apply "science" in that way, it is however relevant when you are telling me something is factual and your reason for that is solely because you feel it is so.

I don't believe very much at all on the basis of what or how I feel.

As for mysticism, that's where Kallipolis excels. I dabble, but I'm too much the skeptic -- and as he demonstrates quite well, it too often leads to toss aside reason.

 

[ludolfo]

Perhaps I have been remiss in not explaining my position succinctly.

There are a bunch of things that “science” can’t describe, religion, aesthetics, and social interactions. It can’t describe philosophy, theology, the “social sciences,” (I also think Penis Envy is invented) really aren’t sciences. “SCIENCE,” is an investigative tool that has rules, and if those rules can’t be followed, then it’s not science. This doesn’t mean those other things don’t exist.

Will science one day be able to describe those things? Who the hell knows, I certainly don’t. Where the mystical run into problems with me, is their tendency to play fast and loose with matters of fact, and matters of belief.

“…I believe in God…” is a reflexive statement of personal belief, I’m not going to agree, but there you are.
“...God Exists!...” is a GENERAL statement of fact, and “science” is all about fact, proposing things are fact, evaluating possible items of fact, reviewing and testing other people’s assertions of fact – so don’t clutch your pearls when you make a statement of fact and I ask for some backup. If the mystic then retreats into mysticism to back up a statement of fact, then we have a problem.

I really don’t think that “science” has any business describing people’s religious beliefs, how you acquire them is certainly not "science," nor is it possible to apply "science" in that way, it is however relevant when you are telling me something is factual and your reason for that is solely because you feel it is so.

Yes, you think only you own 'science'. You imagine it began with Galileo, and before that there was no science ever --ever ever? I say BS to that idea. ' Science--from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing;

it is knowing. the shaman can know. he knows about sacred medicine and can use it to heal people. that is knowing.

This culture which claims to be the Age of Science wages war against sacred medicine. Why? Why doesn;t it know that that is totally ignore-ant to do such a daft thing. To wage war against natural vegetation which alters consciousness?
What are the roots of this ignorance?

 

[TX-Beau]

Yes, you think only you own 'science'. You imagine it began with Galileo, and before that there was no science ever --ever ever? I say BS to that idea. ' Science--from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing;

it is knowing. the shaman can know. he knows about sacred medicine and can use it to heal people. that is knowing.

This culture which claims to be the Age of Science wages war against sacred medicine. Why? Why doesn;t it know that that is totally ignore-ant to do such a daft thing. To wage war against natural vegetation which alters consciousness?
What are the roots of this ignorance?

(emphasis mine)

Peaches come from trees, trees are green, green is color, color is an abstract, therefore peaches are abstract.....

That's just bullshit. If you need to look up the rules of scientific inquiry, you'e one google away. Go for it. It will do you some good. Sadly I DON'T own then, if only, I could make a FORTUNE!

 

[TX-Beau]

I don't believe very much at all on the basis of what or how I feel.

As for mysticism, that's where Kallipolis excels. I dabble, but I'm too much the skeptic -- and as he demonstrates quite well, it too often leads to toss aside reason.

Poor choice of term then. Perhaps faith is closer to the mark. However that might be, it doesn't excuse the hodgepodge of mysticism Lodolfo has just deployed as some kind of logical progression.

 

[ludolfo]

(emphasis mine)

Peaches come from trees, trees are green, green is color, color is an abstract, therefore peaches are abstract.....

That's just bullshit. If you need to look up the rules of scientific inquiry, you'e one google away. Go for it. It will do you some good. Sadly I DON'T own then, if only, I could make a FORTUNE!

peaches come from trees and the soil and the air and the ...all the biosphere and universe, and trees come from peaches etc etc etc.
trees are not just 'green', but depending on how aware and sensitive your perception and feeling are, there can be multiple colours, and hues of a single colour, which are not static but living vibrational presences totally interconnected with surroundings. Colour is not abstract but utterly interfused with all reality including a consciousness observing it. Therefore peaches are not abstract. nor is anything else.....

 

[TX-Beau]

....and on he goes as the point flies miles overhead...

- - - Updated - - -

Sometimes I think you're pulling my leg.

 

[ludolfo]

....and on he goes as the point flies miles overhead...

- - - Updated - - -

Sometimes I think you're pulling my leg.

Oh you are sooo intelligent. I don't know how I dare cometh towardeth your aura oh great one.

Listen next guru gig can i come can i can I? Sit at yur feet and lick your toes....?

 

[ludolfo]

....and on he goes as the point flies miles overhead...

- - - Updated - - -

Sometimes I think you're pulling my leg.

No it is just your thoughts seem very rigid and philosophiky. So in a way...yeah, I am lol

 

[bankside]

Bullshit, you've just invested in this whole "Beau the Scientism-ist" cant because I don't believe in your religion while you failed to actually ask me what I believed.

Kuli: I believe in God

Beau: OK I don't.

Kuli: God exits!

Beau: How do you know that.

Kuli: (miles of epistolary double blinds that don't answer the question beyond "I just do.")

Beau: So you don't have any evidence for that do you?

Kuli: SCINETISM-IST!!! Now I don't have to answer that.

Nevertheless I have told you time and time and time and time again that I DON'T BELIEVE THAT SCIENCE CAN DESCRIBE THE SUPERNATURAL BY DEFINITION!!!!!!!

Yeah that sums it up insightfully

 

[Kulindahr]

Poor choice of term then. Perhaps faith is closer to the mark. However that might be, it doesn't excuse the hodgepodge of mysticism Lodolfo has just deployed as some kind of logical progression.

You dignify his efforts too much.

Faith is a judgment based on evidence short of "proof".

 

[ludolfo]

'logical progression'...?---listen..... "KLUNKITY_KLUNK_KLUNKITY_KLUNK_KLUNKITY..."

ohhh nooo its broken all the fine China!!!! and trampled all the wildflowers