The God Questions

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Is this math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?

No, that would be:

Days until Friday, January 20, 2017
1444 days

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Undoing the damage of the University

Exactly.

Look it up.

This doesn't surprise me at all. Ignorance in its purest form. Keep up the good work

I guess I'll have to wait for one of your radio hosts to tell you what to say

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

No, that would be:

Days until Friday, January 20, 2017
1444 days

I'm looking forward to Hillary as well!

(I see Megyn Kelly didn't pop everyone's epistemic bubble)

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

This doesn't surprise me at all. Ignorance in its purest form. Keep up the good work

I guess I'll have to wait for one of your radio hosts to tell you what to say

Really? Kind of full of ourselves aren't we?

The New Atlantis » The Folly of Scientism

(last page)
Advocates of scientism today claim the sole mantle of rationality, frequently equating science with reason itself. Yet it seems the very antithesis of reason to insist that science can do what it cannot, or even that it has done what it demonstrably has not. As a scientist, I would never deny that scientific discoveries can have important implications for metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, and that everyone interested in these topics needs to be scientifically literate. But the claim that science and science alone can answer longstanding questions in these fields gives rise to countless problems.

In contrast to reason, a defining characteristic of superstition is the stubborn insistence that something — a fetish, an amulet, a pack of Tarot cards — has powers which no evidence supports. From this perspective, scientism appears to have as much in common with superstition as it does with properly conducted scientific research. Scientism claims that science has already resolved questions that are inherently beyond its ability to answer.

Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence. Continued insistence on the universal competence of science will serve only to undermine the credibility of science as a whole. The ultimate outcome will be an increase of radical skepticism that questions the ability of science to address even the questions legitimately within its sphere of competence. One longs for a new Enlightenment to puncture the pretensions of this latest superstition.

Austin L. Hughes is Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina.

[LJT]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Undoing the damage of the University

Exactly.

Look it up.

Scientism is a nothingness, positivism on the other-hand does exist and it is something many scientists try to avoid, though some do, though it's a slightly more nuanced than this scientism nonsense. You don't really need to make up some silly bogeyman.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Really? Kind of full of ourselves aren't we?

The New Atlantis

Why don't you try answering a question in your own words instead of cowering behind short non-answers, links, and pitifully uninformed videos?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Why don't you try answering a question in your own words instead of cowering behind short non-answers, links, and pitifully uninformed videos?

I did yesterday, what good did that do?

Dennis Prager is not anti-science he's anti-scientism, as am I. To co-opt your language, no truly logical thought can lead toward a belief that science alone can render truth about the world, reality and the nature of man.

Now, why don't you try answering a question without resorting to insults or a condescending attitude? And if you feel you're too learned and wise to be bothered by my hayseed notions and prejudices please let me know now so we don't waste our time.

[Jive Turkey]

So you follow these posts:

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

What does this even mean?

And what is "scientism"? Is that a made up word for when one doesn't like the answers science gives?

Originally Posted by INDY500

Dennis Prager is not anti-science he's anti-scientism, as am I. To co-opt your language, no truly logical thought can lead toward a belief that science alone can render truth about the world, reality and the nature of man.

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

this doesn't mean anything.

Science has been chipping away at all of these things for centuries. What has religion done?

Up with this:

Originally Posted by INDY500

Undoing the damage of the University



Exactly.


Look it up.

And I'm the one resorting to condescension? Are you mad at me for ripping into the shitty video you posted?

[LemonMelon]

"Look it up" is almost always a terrible response to someone online, considering backing up your claims with something takes a quick google search.

[Jive Turkey]

To me "look it up" means that what he would post himself would just be a cut and paste job anyway. At least digest what you're reading and shit it out all over me under your own volition

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

To me "look it up" means that what he would post himself would just be a cut and paste job anyway. At least digest what you're reading and shit it out all over me under your own volition

Please forgive me Your Grace. I've been away from FYM for 3 months and didn't get the memo that providing links or videos to support or elaborate on a statement was tantamount to "a cut and paste job."

Forgive me as well for mistaking you as someone wishing to actually engage someone with different answers than yourself on "The God questions."

Perhaps another thread?

[PhilsFan]

After reading the last few pages, I think my only comment is that I do not understand how "You can't prove that God doesn't exist" is in any way a valid argument. If anyone could elaborate on why that should even enter the discussion, I'd like to discuss that.

[LemonMelon]

Everyone has made every argument imaginable on this topic and they've all failed.

Look it up.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Please forgive me Your Grace. I've been away from FYM for 3 months and didn't get the memo that providing links or videos to support or elaborate on a statement was tantamount to "a cut and paste job."

Forgive me as well for mistaking you as someone wishing to actually engage someone with different answers than yourself on "The God questions."

Perhaps another thread?

It's "Your Splendor", but whatever.

I'm actually very interested in what others have to say. I was even interested in what you had to say. If you can't take a playful ribbing for posting a garbage video (anything particularly harsh I had to say was directed at the halfwit in the video), then I can't help you.
You're a smart guy; you can muster up something with more substance than posting a link in response or telling people to look things up (I'm on the internet; if I wasn't interested in the actual conversation, I could just look up everything I wanted to know, but it's not as fun).
You also don't have tissue paper skin, so stop acting so offended. A playful jab back is more than welcome.

[Irvine511]

http://lmgtfy.com/

[Jive Turkey]

more like The Google Questions, amirite gang?

[IWasBored]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

After reading the last few pages, I think my only comment is that I do not understand how "You can't prove that God doesn't exist" is in any way a valid argument. If anyone could elaborate on why that should even enter the discussion, I'd like to discuss that.

Is like when you're a kid and someone calls you a name, and then instead of a real comeback, you reply with, "no, you are!" It isn't an argument at all.

[LJT]

The arguing about God's existence stuff is kind of a pointless exercise, plus its also the wrong way to approach believer's if you want to actually debate how their beliefs may impact others.

Personally I'm fairly atheist, I tend to think though that if God does exist in the way he is represented in the Bible, then he's more of a monster than anything else. I find it difficult to comprehend Christians who sort of airbrush those sections of the Bible aside, as they have kind of invented their own God without the bad bits. What I'm trying to say is if you ignore all this stuff God is meant to have done, you are leaving out so much why bother believing at all?

Other things would bother me within the context of the Bible. For instance the flood and Noah. Are we really meant to believe there were no good people in the world other than Noah and his family? No good people in Sodom and Gomorrah but Lots family ?(and they were pretty messed up). It's kind of like killing everyone in Iran because of they have a lot of bad leaders, but surely you can't believe every single person in the country is evil or wicked because the nation as a whole isn't great?

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

What did Jesus look like?

Like us.



Press Play What If God Was One of Us

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

What did Jesus look like?

I think He looked like any other man from the Middle East - dark hair, dark eyes, olive skin. I don't buy that Jesus was blond and blue-eyed because people like that weren't indigenous to that region.

I personally don't like arguments over whether Jesus was blond or black. Not only does it not make sense, for reasons that I mentioned above, but does it really matter? If there was some way to find out what He truly looked like and He was a white, blond haired blue eyed man, or a black man, should that really determine if He is worth following? I've heard some so-called Christians say they could never worshop a black Jesus. I also once read an article about Muslim converts and a black man said he became a Muslim so he wouldn't have to worship a white man. Those two attitudes are very sad, and not godly at all.