Re: Expelled....Liberal's Exposed....

On Apr 11, 8:41 am, Bert Byfield <bertbyfi...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Your faith in "science" is as deep as any religious faith. You
just like to assume that the whole universe is nothing but
bouncing atoms, like a zillion billiard balls, and you think this
explains Shakespeare and Mozart and Rebecca DeMornay.
If you believe that, then you don't understand much about modern
science or the way scientists think.

If you believe that, then you weren't listening or just don't get it.

You just put forth a cartoonish, faulty assumption about how
scientists imagine the world works. I get it -- you don't understand
how physicists see the world. They do not imagine it as bouncing
atoms. It is much more beautiful and complex.

Just because you have
this fanatic faith in your religion of "science" does NOT make
you right, any more than does the faith of one of the regular
religions.
Science makes testable predictions. If the prediction is wrong,
then the theory is discarded. Religion, at least some of them,
make testable predictions or assertions. If the prediction or the
assertion is wrong, then excuses follow.

I understand that your faith is beyond all reason.

No, you don't. You are purposely distorting what I said.

You have this sort
of mantra to repeat when your faith is challenged. But in fact
science is based on inductive logic, which is inherently weak.

In what way? It does exactly what it claims to do. From a set of
axioms
and rules of inference it deduces additional structure. Change the
axioms and you get different structures.

Theories of science replace former theories on a regular basis.

That is its strength -- it is evidence based. When a theory reaches
the limits of its predictive power, it is replaced with a better one
that accounts for the anomalies and encompasses the old theory.

Scientists were recommending we stick leaches on our skin not long
ago. So on. So by definition the scientists always have their latest
theory which has not yet been discredited that they imply is absolute
truth, and you true believers believe it.

You are wrong. Whether through ignorance or lies, you are claiming
that scientists imply their theories are absolute truth. They do no
such thing. Sometimes non-scientists will mistakenly make these
claims, but they don't know what they are talking about.

How for example does your faith in science explain that you are
you, and you care if "you" or a chair is tossed into the fire. I
mean, if it is all only atoms, why are you being so sensitive
subjective about "yourself"?
Because it hurts.

But according to science, it shouldn't matter.

Science makes no such claim. That is a strawman, and I suspect you
know that. Go ahead; provide a citation for that ridiculous assertion.

Science does not
explain personal identity, does it.

Sure it does. Read articles about theories of mind and computational
intelligence here: http://www.scholarpedia.com

An atheist is like a blind man denying the existence of
sunsets,
Very inept analogy.

Then you, as usual, had your fingers in your ears while I was
speaking.

Not at all. If you think it is apt, tell me -- what sort of additional
sensory apparatus do you have that I don't?

and being smug that he is above such a silly superstition.
Aren't you smug.
Sri Bodhi Prana

Aren't you speechless when your faith is questioned.

I may be an insufferable ass, but I am never speechless. Let's get one
thing straight: I am not an atheist (far from it!) and have never
ridiculed anyone for believing in higher powers. I have, however,
challenged people who claim that ID is a scientific theory, and those
who cite articles of faith to attempt to counter scientific evidence.
Reality is what it is, and if experiment contradicts religious belief,
then experiment is right and religious belief is wrong.

We must be careful, though, when talking about spiritual matters. The
great masters, Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tse, etc. (I exclude Mohammed --
there is no evidence that he had anything profound to say) spoke from
a position of understanding the mind of God -- they were unified with
the "creator", so to speak. The words they used were meant to lead
people to understanding, not as dogmatic, concrete statements about
ordinary life. Religious charlatans will take what these people said
out of context and bend it to suit their purposes, and their followers
will be misled by the misinterpretation. There are no conflicts
between science and the understanding of mystics (Meister Eckhart is
one of my favorites).

Sri Bodhi Prana
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Security Guard - God Guided Me And Protected Me
    ... would simply say "Science doesn't provide the tools ... unlike religion which is static until it ... and then the next moment can talk seriously about faith ... trying to find the candy store where your friend just bought ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: NBC VENTING
    ... > belief in 2005 then I will happily condemn religion as superstitious ... Weird Science on the Religious Right ... "Condoms are full of holes" ... scientists at Columbia University showed that by saying appropriate ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Dover decision Redux
    ... endorsement of religion. ... mere re-labeling of creationism, ... position, ID is not science. ... scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Quran and Modern Science
    ... Based upon extracts from the video The Truth. ... RELIGION and SCIENCE have always been considered to be twin sisters by Islam ... Professor Moore presented his findings to scientists at ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... acceleration of the universe was found? ... "Science any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical ... this is no more than religion. ... "Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading