seven77 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Ok, I get it now. People react to the emotional wounding they received. And you are reacting to the fact that someone was able to brainwash you (to believe something like a religion) so you go to another extreme and try to be very scientific to make sure that "it never happens again". [part omitted by seven77 to reduce wall of text syndrome] I've learned something new today (from all this back and forth). I think that religious people and spiritual people have their set of ideas that they believe and they do not want to think outside the box, and expand their thinking. I mean I knew this. The part that I did not realize until now is that scientific-only people do the same, but from the other side. They don't like to think outside the box either. It's only philosophical people that are true thinkers and that come up with new ideas and change things. That's the ones that I need to find. (But this forum doesn't have that, so I have to find another). Now that I get this, I won't bother scientific-only people. You make some very broad assumptions in your post, Daylight. You do not know me. Have you read my extimony? How about "My Former Faith" post? Did you glance at "My Science Resources List"? No? Regardless, you are assuming that scientific-only people are unnecessarily harsh. Please understand that we are only being harsh because you refuse to have an honest dialogue with us. We don't mind sharing information and ideas. Some of us will even do research on various science topics for other members who may be unfamiliar with certain topics. Many of us put a great deal of thought into our posts and have been members of this community for a long time. It is very disrespectful to paint all of us with such a broad brush because we refuse to engage in philosophical metaphysical discussions on our science subforum. That is your problem, not ours. Furthermore, you are making a dangerously snide claim that borders on familiar accusations of science worship. I assure you that I do not worship science. Science is far from perfect. There are many unsolved problems in mathematics. Physics still has its mysteries. The universe is a vast place and the human experience varied. I have been a scientific person for most of my life. I have two science degrees. I am employed in a scientific field. My primary hobbies are science-related. (I write science fiction, belong to a science and technology-centered online community, and enjoy hacking computers and video game consoles when I have the time.) That doesn't mean that those are my only interests though. I am also interested in philosophy, but unlike you, I take a more formal approach to this interest. I enjoy debates, reading and writing essays and engaging with others on forums and other communities. I read a lot of books on a variety of topics. I research my answers thoroughly and use my education to determine whether or not a source or idea is worth further consideration. My primary reason for deconverting was that I could not rectify my former faith and its practices with my knowledge of science, maths, philosophy and good ol' logic. My old church was very deep in pseudoscientific practices, such anti-vaxx movement, herbalism, vitalism, detoxing, eschewing modern medicine (especially psychiatry and the use of pharmaceuticals for most conditions), and many other things. I could not in good conscience remain part of a church that taught and preached such things. I did lasting damage to my body due to refusing treatment for a genetic condition that I have for 4 years while I was in the church. It took my getting seriously ill to wake me up to the reality of what I was doing. It pained me greatly to see your earlier posts speculating on how pills work and so on. I know how pills work and even that knowledge wasn't enough to keep me from destroying my own body for God. I know that you have questions, but to refuse the answers given on the grounds that they are not worthy of your time, not taking you seriously or whatever...is really your loss. Eventually, you will have to learn about science to continue discussing it in any meaningful way. Sure, you can go find another forum to peddle your mostly empty speculations if you want to do so. And so I encourage you to shake the dust from your sandals and move on to the next virtual village. Toodles. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted December 12, 2014 Moderator Share Posted December 12, 2014 /me 7 is so cool <3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 DayLight, In math, they have to assume that something is true first (because they can't prove it) and then they use the assumption to see if it's working out in real life. I am making an assumption (through observation) and then will need to see if it seems to be true in reality by more observation. I think that math should be a part of science. Terms can be modified as people understand more. Math can be classified as classical or theoretical. For classical math no assumptions have been made. There are systems of mathematical logic where classical math can be proven. Although theoretical math involves self consistent logic, sometimes assumptions are involved. An example of this is Riemann Geometry, a type of non-linear geometry that the theoretical physics of General Relativity is based upon. The development of theoretical math, whether ever functional or not,, is based upon logic and often the scientific method. I think you may be confusing math with physics. Although physics is expressed mathematically, it all has a theoretical basis unlike classical math. Modern physics, for example, is based upon theoretical physics resulting in mathematical systems and equations based upon observations and perspectives, rather than mathematical proofs or classical logic. So-called Laws of Physics are called "laws" not because they can be proven in any way, but because they are not believed to have been contradicted by any observations to date, or are generally valid in most cases, such as the inverse square "laws" of gravity and light. There are two parts to life: physical and social/mental. The sciences relating to physical life, social, mental attributes and its function are unrelated to both math and physics. Classical math and statistics are tools to predict and express sciences quantitatively but are otherwise unrelated to these sciences. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 I'd like to add that you can't separate physical and mental/social life - they are intimately interconnected. So to say there are 2 parts to life is incorrect. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts