Re: Collins to head NIH?

On Jul 22, 5:34 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 22, 1:05 pm, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 22, 2:55 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It isn't good enough for you or me.  But so what?  It is good enough for
the person who believes it, and as long as they don't try to push it on
other people, then there is absolutely no reason why they should not
believe in teapots orbiting Saturn.
Of course, all too often those people do try to push their beliefs on
others, and that is a problem.  Just like it is a problem for me or you
to push our unverifiable beliefs on them.
nobody is pushing anything on anyone.
Sure they are. You, in fact, are pushing the notion that adopting an
"a-scientific" attitude or position is equivalent to adopting an anti-
scientific one. It's the same doctrinaire misapprehension you've been
pushing for as long as I've been arguing with you.
what we are saying is that
people who choose to take the route you describe are acting an anti-
scientific manner, and that their route of arriving at truths is
inherently anti-scientific.

Translation: if you ain't with me, you are against me.
Application, if I can find some small way in which you
are not completely with me, you are a danger to me.

uh no. how about "you are acting in a manner that is anti-scientific."
dont put words into my mouth.


Some people choose not to apply scientific methodology to all
questions (for well understood and accepted reasons I might add). For
some areas of inquiry they pursue different paths to knowledge based
upon their belief that these other "ways of knowing" exist. Neither
you nor I happen to accept that premise, but neither you nor I can
prove scientifically that such is not the case. This
compartmentalization allows them to - while believing in non-natural
phenomena - be competent scientists or believe in the output of
science.

Your insistence that they must use scientific methodology to answers
all questions all the time is, besides being extraordinarily naive, an
example of scientism. You'll pardon some of us, I hope, for not
leaping to substitute one dogma for another.

In the particular case of Collins, his completely
naive mindset from his youth got thwacked about
the head when a parent died. He found that at the
core, he believes in life after death. He never
claimed proof of such, just a core belief.

You can call such a belief supersticious twaddle
and ridicule it away. Perhaps many here will join
you. They stop at saying his belief necessarily
impairs him elsewhere in life, especially given
evidence to the contrary. His particular belief
comes with others that he attempts to reconcile
with things that can be rationally and objectively
tested. One such belief is that there is a creator
God who takes a personal interest in her creation.
Others involve particular one time event miracles.
So what? Such beliefs do not interfere with the
practice of science.

The do interfere with the extremist version
of naturalism that takes skepticism so far
as to believe in the non-existence of things
that have no evidence to support them. To
assert that there is no god as a proven
item is an abandonment of scientific principles.
To promote skepticism to certainty is an
abandonment of skepticism. They are
hypocrisies.

how many times do atheists have to correct this lie about our
position?

once more, everyone. NOBODY HAS STATED THAT NO GOD DEFINITIVELY
EXISTS, NOR HAS ANYBODY STATED THAT THEY CAN PROVE THAT NO GOD EXISTS.
WHAT WE SAY IS THAT THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON FOR ANYBODY TO
BELIEVE IN A GOD UNTIL EVIDENCE FOR GOD HAS BEEN PRESENTED.

can you stop lying now? or are capital letters not big enough? should
i try ascii art next time?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God, Family, and Country
    ... I recall science replacing God as the place I ... I realized two things about family and country - both had ... reason than to bring further enlightenment and progress to humanity. ... depressed by the fact that other scientists are not willing to ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: evolution gaps
    ... scholar and scientists is relatively small. ... have a reason to hold my faith so strong. ... You all of the ones who speak against GOD are not ... If there's a good reason for believing in your ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evolution gaps
    ... scholar and scientists is relatively small. ... have a reason to hold my faith so strong. ... You all of the ones who speak against GOD are not ... If there's a good reason for believing in your ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evolution gaps
    ... scholar and scientists is relatively small. ... have a reason to hold my faith so strong. ... You all of the ones who speak against GOD are not ... If there's a good reason for believing in your ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... then there is absolutely no reason why they should not ... to push our unverifiable beliefs on them. ... phenomena - be competent scientists or believe in the output of ... of naturalism that takes skepticism so far ...
    (talk.origins)