Something For The Dude : Limited Vs Complete Understanding

[duderonomy]

BAA, are you sure that proofs exist in logic? 

 

It seems to me that logic is a human construct, based on what we know so far.   Not to thicken the soup at all, but still...

 

 

[duderonomy]

Also this...

 

"Ok, the Christian faith cannot deliver proof and science cannot deliver proof, but the reasons why they cannot do this are NOT the same.

"It's not in the remit of Christianity to deliver proof, because it operates on faith and not evidence.  It's not in the remit of science to deliver proof, because it operates on evidence and not proof.  Can you see how you're comparing apples and oranges and using an impossible-to-satisfy standard in doing so?"

 

BAA, it's not apples to apples if neither can provide proof? Really?

 

It sounds like you are putting your (non-religious, of course) faith in science, although it provides no proof at all by your own admission, and it seems that whichever or whatever standard we apply to finding truth is unable to supply a definitive answer, so both are an impossible standard.

 

EDIT:  BAA, I do believe we are going in circles. Should we sum up and move on?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Dude,

 

We can't move, because we're stuck on... proof.  

You set it as the condition that both science and religion need to satisfy - but I've pointed out that neither deal in proofs and I've cited evidence (those five links) to support this.  Interestingly enough, in this thread... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/76715-multiverse-one-universe-or-many/?page=1 ...Pantheory claimed that scientific theories could be proven wrong.  Please check out posts # 18, 19, 20, 22, 24 and 25.  I  pointed out that this was not so and showed him the same five links that I showed you, in this thread.  The ones that explain how science doesn't deal in proofs.  In post # 25 he wrote this...

 

Posted Sunday at 07:00 PM · Report post

Yes, I see and agree with you. I did qualify my wordings by using the word "somehow," but agree with you that the words "proof,""disproved," "unproven," or "not proved" should not be used concerning theory or even hypothesis. Even the wordings "true," "valid" or "invalid" concerning discussions of theory should not be used IMO. More accurate wordings can be found.

 

Now, I'm highlighting this for two reasons, Dude.

First, to demonstrate that I'm on the level here and dealing honestly with you.  I held the same position on proofs with Pantheory as I'm holding here, with you, here in this thread.  The second reason is that when presented with evidence that science doesn't deal in proofs, Pantheory accepted that evidence.   He accepted it and we moved on.

 

But in your last post you are still trying to apply the use of proofs to science.

'BAA, it's not apples to apples if neither can provide proof?'  This tells me that, unlike Pantheory, you haven't accepted my evidence that science doesn't do proofs.  If you had accepted that evidence, then you still wouldn't be talking about science providing proof.   In the light of this, I will have to ask you a question and politely request that you answer it directly.  If your answer is NO, then this thread can go no further - we will remain stuck on proof.  We'll be stuck here because you and I couldn't agree that science doesn't deal in proofs.  If we can't agree on a common definition of proof , then no further dialog is possible.  

 

Dude, do you accept that science doesn't deal in proofs, as per the evidence I posted in the links in post # 128?

 

(Please answer,  because this is pivotal.)

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[sdelsolray]

BAA and Dude,

 

I think both of you need to agree on some basic definitions of some of the words you are using, such as "proof", "evidence", "prove", etc., at least for purposes of your discussion here.  That should be an easy task.

[bornagainathiest]

 

BAA and Dude,

 

I think both of you need to agree on some basic definitions of some of the words you are using, such as "proof", "evidence", "prove", etc., at least for purposes of your discussion here.  That should be an easy task.

 

If the Dude is willing, so am I sdelsolray.

[duderonomy]

BAA,

 

If I ever said that science or religion or faith "proves" anything, I must have done it inadvertently. I don't recall claiming that either provides proof of anything.

 

It seems to me that you are saying over and over that science doesn't "prove" anything, and that has been my point from the start of this. I really don't know what the big deal is about "proof", when we both agree that nothing can be proven (leaving math and maybe logic out of it).

 

 With respect to sdelsolray, who once called me an "alt-right wannabe" and never got back to me when I asked him to define what the hell "alt-right" means, and who now calls for us to define what the common meaning of real, universally used words mean, I'm happy with the common definition of the word proof. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

BAA,

 

If I ever said that science or religion or faith "proves" anything, I must have done it inadvertently. I don't recall claiming that either provides proof of anything.

 

It seems to me that you are saying over and over that science doesn't "prove" anything, and that has been my point from the start of this. I really don't know what the big deal is about "proof", when we both agree that nothing can be proven (leaving math and maybe logic out of it).

 

 With respect to sdelsolray, who once called me an "alt-right wannabe" and never got back to me when I asked him to define what the hell "alt-right" means, and who now calls for us to define what the common meaning of real, universally used words mean, I'm happy with the common definition of the word proof. 

 

Ok Dude,

 

The big deal about proof, now we agree that nothing can be be proven, is this.

Since nothing can be proven, setting proof as the condition that science and religion have to achieve, is knowingly setting them a condition that neither can achieve.  This is an argument where the conclusion (the failure of both parties to achieve the desired condition) is assumed beforehand by the person making the argument.  

 

But this is a logical fallacy.

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question

 

Therefore, any argument built upon a logical fallacy must be an invalid one.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[duderonomy]

BAA,

 

I wonder if you pointing to the logical fallacy of 'begging the question' is itself a bit of a logical fallacy known as the 'red herring'.   I don't believe that I have set proof as a condition that religion or science must achieve (for whatever reason), but rather I have pointed out that neither one can achieve proof, the same as you have.

 

ETA: Not accusing you of throwing out a red herring on purpose (if that's the correct fallacy to cite). 

[bornagainathiest]

 

BAA,

 

I wonder if you pointing to the logical fallacy of 'begging the question' is itself a bit of a logical fallacy known as the 'red herring'.   I don't believe that I have set proof as a condition that religion or science must achieve (for whatever reason), but rather I have pointed out that neither one can achieve proof, the same as you have.

 

ETA: Not accusing you of throwing out a red herring on purpose (if that's the correct fallacy to cite). 

 

Ok Dude,

 

That being so and if we're agreed that neither religion nor science deal in proofs, does your argument come down to this?

 

Because both systems are trusted and believed, they can be considered as the same.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

 

BAA,

 

My simplest response and the simplest explanation of my point is this...

 

Science is cool, and medical science (or was it "God's" will?) has saved my life quite a few times, yet science can't show that Earth is not standing still at the center of the entire universe. 

 

Science says that the universe is expanding, but it doesn't even know where the edges of the universe are, and if it did, it can't tell me what the universe is expanding into.

 

So then, science has limitations, and should not be looked upon as a substitute for "God".  Likewise, "God" should not be used as a substitute for science. 

 

People that believe that science will one day make everything known are no different than the people that believe that someday "God" will one day make everything known.

 

Both sides need to bring proof, and neither side can.

 

This is a general point, for perhaps new exchristians wondering what's what, and how things break down. 

 

Don't try replacing belief and faith in religion for belief and faith in science. Good point. 

 

The only real problem here that BAA has been able to hone in on is the idea that both sides need to bring "proof." The semantic issues of using the word "proof" as technically a reference to the maths, and also what the Dude means by his usage of the word "proof", which is credible evidence, finality, something of that nature. What other context can his usage of "proof" can be taken? 

 

To correct the point being made by the Dude, I'd say only one side needs to "prove" themselves and that's religion. The person making positive claims of absolute truth bears what we call, all the time, "the burden of proof." Let's not get too side tracked here on semantics and taking issue with the word "proof" as a type or red herring to the points being made. What we're talking about is the "burden of proof" requirement, so shall we call it as such? 

 

Religion carries this "burden of proof" requirement. 

 

Science, however, not so much. Claims are made based on available evidence, and also subject to change. It's fluid, not rigid like religion. The "burden of proof," is squarely a theistic burden. And perhaps that's simply another reason not to approach science as if it were a replacement for religion. 

 

Science doesn't carry the sort of "burden of proof" for the BBT, that religion carries for claims of supernatural "creation." BAA's point holds in terms of science and religion not being on equal footing, and also, that any attempt at putting science and religion on equal footing will have holes in it. 

 

Where they're similar is simply that each claims to explain reality. 

 

And the reality explained by religion has been failed for centuries. It's not even in the ball park. It's acting as if it's still a contender when it isn't. 

 

That leaves the only contender as science. It's literally the only contender when it comes to describing reality. The idea that religion is even in the game, is completely false. And it doesn't matter how many people are fooled by religions false claims at being a contender in the game of describing reality. It just isn't anymore. And this is what I just explained to my father the other weekend when he expressed doubt about evolution. I set him straight on the fact of there being only one option on the table to try and describe origins. He was a little taken back, and deer in the headlights, but understood that I was right. Myths which are demonstrably not literal, automatically drop off the contender list. They're something else, not literal reality. And this is a very important point for exchristians to sink their minds into. 

 

One option, not two. 

 

From here, at only one real option for describing reality, I can concede that the Dudes point would lead to acknowledging that our one and only option has limitations that keep us in mystery, possibly perpetually. The best thing that we do have is a frame work of pretty certain things, with good evidence to go on, and many not so certain things. That's why when it comes to origins I always refer to it as an ongoing mystery. My truth seeking has led me to acknowledge mystery and uncertainty as the final absolute truth. Because of the apparently perpetual issue of ultimate truth eluding our ability to conceive. That's unsatisfactory for some people, who have not made friends with uncertainty. But the truth is the truth, you can not like it but what you can not do is change it. And so the challenge to go ahead and try to change that fact ought to be made as often as people doubt the absolute truth of uncertainty. 

 

So this whole thing has been a good exercise. And since BAA concedes to uncertainty at absolute levels, it would appear that this is a firm, firm point. All else thereafter is beating a dead horse. 

[duderonomy]

 

 

Ok Dude,

 

That being so and if we're agreed that neither religion nor science deal in proofs, does your argument come down to this?

 

Because both systems are trusted and believed, they can be considered as the same.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

No.

 

BAA,

The thing is this...when we speak of religion, are we talking about the Bible/Talmud/Koran, etc, or a generic view of "God" whatever that loaded term may include, such as ultimate being, creator, something out there, New Age baloney, or something else?

 

When we speak of science, are we talking about science as the scientific method or "The All Knowing Ultimate Arbiter Of All Human Knowledge Of What Is Whether Now Known Or In The Future" or science with a capital S that has it's own priesthood known as Scientists (from their many denominations), or "scientific studies that suggest", or humans that make their living from grant money and know they will be damned and ostracized if they dare to offer an alternative view backed by just as much 'science' as the mainstream has to offer to 'prove' their point?  

BAA, other than the scientific method, how is science a system?  

[duderonomy]

 

 

This is a general point, for perhaps new exchristians wondering what's what, and how things break down. 

 

Don't try replacing belief and faith in religion for belief and faith in science. Good point. 

 

The only real problem here that BAA has been able to hone in on is the idea that both sides need to bring "proof." The semantic issues of using the word "proof" as technically a reference to the maths, and also what the Dude means by his usage of the word "proof", which is credible evidence, finality, something of that nature. What other context can his usage of "proof" can be taken? 

 

To correct the point being made by the Dude, I'd say only one side needs to "prove" themselves and that's religion. The person making positive claims of absolute truth bears what we call, all the time, "the burden of proof." Let's not get too side tracked here on semantics and taking issue with the word "proof" as a type or red herring to the points being made. What we're talking about is the "burden of proof" requirement, so shall we call it as such? 

 

Religion carries this "burden of proof" requirement. 

 

Science, however, not so much. Claims are made based on available evidence, and also subject to change. It's fluid, not rigid like religion. The "burden of proof," is squarely a theistic burden. And perhaps that's simply another reason not to approach science as if it were a replacement for religion. 

 

Science doesn't carry the sort of "burden of proof" for the BBT, that religion carries for claims of supernatural "creation." BAA's point holds in terms of science and religion not being on equal footing, and also, that any attempt at putting science and religion on equal footing will have holes in it. 

 

Where they're similar is simply that each claims to explain reality. 

 

And the reality explained by religion has been failed for centuries. It's not even in the ball park. It's acting as if it's still a contender when it isn't. 

 

That leaves the only contender as science. It's literally the only contender when it comes to describing reality. The idea that religion is even in the game, is completely false. And it doesn't matter how many people are fooled by religions false claims at being a contender in the game of describing reality. It just isn't anymore. And this is what I just explained to my father the other weekend when he expressed doubt about evolution. I set him straight on the fact of there being only one option on the table to try and describe origins. He was a little taken back, and deer in the headlights, but understood that I was right. Myths which are demonstrably not literal, automatically drop off the contender list. They're something else, not literal reality. And this is a very important point for exchristians to sink their minds into. 

 

One option, not two. 

 

From here, at only one real option for describing reality, I can concede that the Dudes point would lead to acknowledging that our one and only option has limitations that keep us in mystery, possibly perpetually. The best thing that we do have is a frame work of pretty certain things, with good evidence to go on, and many not so certain things. That's why when it comes to origins I always refer to it as an ongoing mystery. My truth seeking has led me to acknowledge mystery and uncertainty as the final absolute truth. Because of the apparently perpetual issue of ultimate truth eluding our ability to conceive. That's unsatisfactory for some people, who have not made friends with uncertainty. But the truth is the truth, you can not like it but what you can not do is change it. And so the challenge to go ahead and try to change that fact ought to be made as often as people doubt the absolute truth of uncertainty. 

 

So this whole thing has been a good exercise. And since BAA concedes to uncertainty at absolute levels, it would appear that this is a firm, firm point. All else thereafter is beating a dead horse. 

 

Josh,

 

Just saying that I'm not ignoring your points or ideas, and I agree with most (but not all) of your points.  I welcome and appreciate your input always. 

 

One thing though, I know BAA calls me "the Dude", and I don't really like that. Call me Duderonomy, Duder, Asshat, Sweet Cheeks, Dumb Shit, or anything else, but please don't refer to me as "the Dude" if you don't mind. 

 

Thanks!

[Joshpantera]

 

 

Josh,

 

Just saying that I'm not ignoring your points or ideas, and I agree with most (but not all) of your points.  I welcome and appreciate your input always. 

 

One thing though, I know BAA calls me "the Dude", and I don't really like that. Call me Duderonomy, Duder, Asshat, Sweet Cheeks, Dumb Shit, or anything else, but please don't refer to me as "the Dude" if you don't mind. 

 

Thanks!

 

I thought it was like the movie, "The Dude." lol

 

Very well, then, Sweet Cheeks, what do you care to differ with? 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

No.

 

BAA,

The thing is this...when we speak of religion, are we talking about the Bible/Talmud/Koran, etc, or a generic view of "God" whatever that loaded term may include, such as ultimate being, creator, something out there, New Age baloney, or something else?

 

When we speak of science, are we talking about science as the scientific method or "The All Knowing Ultimate Arbiter Of All Human Knowledge Of What Is Whether Now Known Or In The Future" or science with a capital S that has it's own priesthood known as Scientists (from their many denominations), or "scientific studies that suggest", or humans that make their living from grant money and know they will be damned and ostracized if they dare to offer an alternative view backed by just as much 'science' as the mainstream has to offer to 'prove' their point?  

BAA, other than the scientific method, how is science a system?  

 

Duderonomy,

 

My stated position in this thread is that of all the ways humans can describe reality, science is the one that offers the best shot.

My reason for holding this position is based purely on results.  It's really that simple.  I've already explained in this thread that if you are talking about cliques and factions, then you're not actually talking about a position I hold.  So, I can't really address any problem you have with the 'establishment' or any view you have about a perceived scientific priesthood.  Imho, you and I will continue to talk past each other in this way until we are able to find some common ground.

 

Here's what I propose, by way of a solution.

 

Why don't we draw up a list of the things that people place their trust in, when it comes to describing reality, and see which one comes out on top?

That way, we don't have to get involved in what constitutes a system and what doesn't.  We don't have to get into the issue of establishment vs. alternative viewpoints.  We don't have to do any of that.  We just list all the different ways people believe in and then compare them on the basis of the results they give.  That's the one and only criterion that really matters, wouldn't you agree?

 

How about it?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Joshpantera]

Why don't we draw up a list of the things that people place their trust in, when it comes to describing reality, and see which one comes out on top?

That way, we don't have to get involved in what constitutes a system and what doesn't.  We don't have to get into the issue of establishment vs. alternative viewpoints.  We don't have to do any of that.  We just list all the different ways people believe in and then compare them on the basis of the results they give.  That's the one and only criterion that really matters, wouldn't you agree?

 

How about it?

 

1) Religion (traditional beliefs based on creation myths and folklore)

 

2) Spiritual, but not religious (aliens, atlantis, and new age stuff that isn't directly ancient religion)

 

3) Scientific (standard model) 

 

4) Scientific (alternative models) 

 

 

Can we condense this down to just 4 categories for claims at describing reality? 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Josh,

 

It remains to be seen if Duderonomy will come on board.

But in the meantime,  rather than condensing, why don't we cast our net as wide as possible and see what we can find?   With that in mind, I reckon I can extend (in no particular order) your list.

 

 

1) Religion (traditional beliefs based on creation myths and folklore)

 

2) Spiritual, but not religious (aliens, atlantis, and new age stuff that isn't directly ancient religion)

 

3) Scientific (standard model) 

 

4) Scientific (alternative models) 

 

5)  Family 

 

6)  Friends

 

7)  Our own memories

 

8)  Authority figures

 

9)  Intuition

 

10)  Conspiracy theories

 

11)  Logic

 

12)  Reason

 

 

There may well be other things that we place our trust in, when it comes to describing reality.   Please add whatever comes to mind.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

This should get good. 

 

But that's really what it takes to come down to the point I was making about only one real option out of the lot.  

[duderonomy]

 

 

I thought it was like the movie, "The Dude." lol

 

Very well, then, Sweet Cheeks, what do you care to differ with? 

 

Josh, for example, you said:

 

"That leaves the only contender as science. It's literally the only contender when it comes to describing reality. The idea that religion is even in the game, is completely false."

 

I have to ask where you get your definition of reality (not what the word means).  Do you get it from science, religion, or something else? If you already know what reality is, why would you need science or religion to describe it? There might be a logical fallacy in there someplace, don't you think?

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

 

 

Duderonomy,

 

My stated position in this thread is that of all the ways humans can describe reality, science is the one that offers the best shot.

My reason for holding this position is based purely on results.  It's really that simple.  I've already explained in this thread that if you are talking about cliques and factions, then you're not actually talking about a position I hold.  So, I can't really address any problem you have with the 'establishment' or any view you have about a perceived scientific priesthood.  Imho, you and I will continue to talk past each other in this way until we are able to find some common ground.

 

Here's what I propose, by way of a solution.

 

Why don't we draw up a list of the things that people place their trust in, when it comes to describing reality, and see which one comes out on top?

That way, we don't have to get involved in what constitutes a system and what doesn't.  We don't have to get into the issue of establishment vs. alternative viewpoints.  We don't have to do any of that.  We just list all the different ways people believe in and then compare them on the basis of the results they give.  That's the one and only criterion that really matters, wouldn't you agree?

 

How about it?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

No BAA.  

 

Until you can show with science that the earth isn't unmoving with the entire universe revolving around it I'm not sure I can trust your science, and we've been through that, right?  It's called 'relative motion' and when I brought it up, you said you didn't know what that meant, remember?

 

There are billions of people that trust religion, and I suppose there are billions that also trust science. I would posit that there are billions that trust both and don't have a problem doing so, but so what, because...

"Which one comes out on top" is an argumentum ad populum, isn't it?  Yes it is, so I won't be participating in drawing up your list.

Plus, the very idea that you and I should put our trust in what other people put their trust in is a bit unscientific, isn't it?

 

As to your refusal to identify with a clique or a faction, how is it that you and Pantheory don't agree? Are you in a different denomination?   It's all Science isn't it?

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Josh,

 

It remains to be seen if Duderonomy will come on board.

But in the meantime,  rather than condensing, why don't we cast our net as wide as possible and see what we can find?   With that in mind, I reckon I can extend (in no particular order) your list.

 

 

1) Religion (traditional beliefs based on creation myths and folklore)

 

2) Spiritual, but not religious (aliens, atlantis, and new age stuff that isn't directly ancient religion)

 

3) Scientific (standard model) 

 

4) Scientific (alternative models) 

 

5)  Family 

 

6)  Friends

 

7)  Our own memories

 

8)  Authority figures

 

9)  Intuition

 

10)  Conspiracy theories

 

11)  Logic

 

12)  Reason

 

 

There may well be other things that we place our trust in, when it comes to describing reality.   Please add whatever comes to mind.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't class aliens,  Atlantis or ancient humans building pyramids under spiritual... I think there needs to be another category... "Mysterious"?

 

Spiritual I tend to class as things like energy healing flows, charkas, auras, one with nature etc (New age stuff)

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

No BAA.  

 

Until you can show with science that the earth isn't unmoving with the entire universe revolving around it I'm not sure I can trust your science, and we've been through that, right?  

 

 

Correct.

We have been through that.  I can present scientific evidence that would be sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that the above scenario isn't the case.   But at this juncture I simply don't know if this would be sufficient to persuade you.

 

 

It's called 'relative motion' and when I brought it up, you said you didn't know what that meant, remember?

 

I remember.  But even though I now understand what you mean, I still don't know what would be sufficient evidence to persuade you that this scenario is not so.

 

 

 

There are billions of people that trust religion, and I suppose there are billions that also trust science. I would posit that there are billions that trust both and don't have a problem doing so, but so what, because...

"Which one comes out on top" is an argumentum ad populum, isn't it?  Yes it is, so I won't be participating in drawing up your list.

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal-to-Common-Belief

 

Example #1:

Up until the late 16th century, most people believed that the earth was the center of the universe.  This, of course, is not true.

 

Explanation: The geocentric model was an observation (limited) and faith-based, but most who accepted the model did so based on the common and accepted belief of the time, not on their own observations, calculations, and/or reasoning.  It was people like Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, who refused to appeal to the common belief and uncovered a truth not obvious to the rest of humanity.

 

If you refer back to my previous post you'll see that "which one comes out on top" will be decided by the results it yields, NOT the number of people who believe and trust in it.  Therefore, your accusation that I am committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum is false.  I am doing no such thing.  Nor I am not inviting Josh and LF to join me in doing that.  Nor am I inviting you to join us in doing that.  

 

Now that you know what it is I am actually doing, I'm going to repeat my invitation for you to join us.

Duderonomy,  please join us in drawing up a list of things that people trust, when it comes to describing reality.  Also please participate in helping us find out which one gives the best results.

 

 

Plus, the very idea that you and I should put our trust in what other people put their trust in is a bit unscientific, isn't it?

 

We all make unscientific decisions and choices... every day.

That being so, why should you and I use science to decide to trust what other people trust?  

I never suggested or requested that we should. 

 

 

 

As to your refusal to identify with a clique or a faction, how is it that you and Pantheory don't agree? Are you in a different denomination?   It's all Science isn't it?

 

 

 

I'm glad you've mentioned Pantheory.  I'll answer your questions and I also have something to say to you about him.  But I'll do that in another post, dedicated to that purpose.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Joshpantera]

 

 

Josh, for example, you said:

 

"That leaves the only contender as science. It's literally the only contender when it comes to describing reality. The idea that religion is even in the game, is completely false."

 

I have to ask where you get your definition of reality (not what the word means).  Do you get it from science, religion, or something else? If you already know what reality is, why would you need science or religion to describe it? There might be a logical fallacy in there someplace, don't you think?

 

 

 

 

@duderonomy, I like to challenge thought, so let me consider this. 

 

I think to consider this in depth I'd say that I get my description of reality from science. As a kid I would say it came from religion. For instance, my view of reality used to consist of a liner timeline that I could see in my mind. It started out with the creation story in Genesis and moved forward to present. And I had world history and everything imposed onto this mental linear timeline that I could see in my mind, as if the timeline were floating in a void or space. And I'd think in terms of such and such a date being the time of Daniel, or the time of the Flood, or the time of Adam and Eve, for instance, and it was an unbroken extension right through to the time of Jesus and on to today, with no gaps or breaks between secular history and biblical mythology. It was all thrown in together. 

 

So that's what I viewed as reality, and it was a combination of the entire bible along with some science and secular history peppered around the bible stories. Granted this was the mind set of a young male with the edition of YEC christian fundamentalism imposed on it. 

 

And it was, in fact, largely false in that most of it has no bearing in real world history, the geological record, modern cosmology and theoretical physics, etc. etc. I suffered a largely 'false reality' even though there was some peppering of substantiated reality worked in around the edges. Current world history and what have you was there, but it was over shadowed with pure mythology. 

 

Now obviously I eventually analyzed the Genesis myth and all biblical and pagan mythology, and then concluded that not one tradition describes the origins of the cosmos and earth in a verifiable or reasonable and logical manner. It's zero for zero, pretty much, in terms of describing origins that we can look at the records and substantiate.

 

So off the list religion goes, all of it, world wide. Religion can not describe the reality of planet earth which can be verified or logically deduced. And the main reason being is that religion WAS the science of it's time and place. In short, ancient religions are OUT DATED science from remote periods of human development when we had not made the discoveries that would be later made. They combined the 'science of the day' with spiritual dynamics all wrapped up into one package. 

 

So beneath all of this we find old and long outdated science (religions) verses new science, with the idea of religion verses science. It's the mythological stories and science of 2,000 BCE verses the science without mythological stories of 2,000 CE. 

 

I'm not seeing the logical fallacy yet. Unless outdated science (religion) being crossed off the list of valid descriptions of reality is logically fallacious, which, I don't think it is. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

 

 

I wouldn't class aliens,  Atlantis or ancient humans building pyramids under spiritual... I think there needs to be another category... "Mysterious"?

 

Spiritual I tend to class as things like energy healing flows, charkas, auras, one with nature etc (New age stuff)

 

The New Age does class aliens and atlantis along with channeling spirits in their spiritual ideas. So any discussion of New Age descriptions of reality will involve Edger Cayce, Blavatsky and Theosophy, The Ramtha Cult, etc. And also involve what you're talking about. The whole thing encompasses the spiritual but not religious crowds. And the descriptions of reality given are just as bad or even worse than ancient religion. 

 

My own thoughts have to been clean up the New Age of unsubstantiated and ill logical claims and strip it down to only what can be substantiated in the best ways possible. And not to cling to things that can not be substantiated. And in doing so weed out the wankers (Blavatsky's, Ramtha's, even Greg Braden) while opening up to a much more logical based spiritual, but not religious stance on reality and existence. And that means getting on board with modern science without trying to twist and pervert it in preconceived directions. Accepting the science of the day and separating speculation as speculation, but speculation based on sound reason and good existing science.

 

So I'm with you in terms of spiritual but not religious describing reality, but only in so much as it's use of modern science and theory in order to get there. And at the end of the day, it will take embracing science for any spiritual but not religious outlook to go about trying to describe reality in any substantial and verifiable way. Remember, meditation is a type of experimental method for zeroing in on things like consciousness and it doesn't have to stray from a scientific world view. Neither does interconnection or any of the substantial aspects of human spiritual insight. Sam Harris made that more than clear in his book. 

[bornagainathiest]

As to your refusal to identify with a clique or a faction, how is it that you and Pantheory don't agree?

 

The answer to this question has to do with how I can help fulfill the purpose of this forum.

Ex-C is designed to assist those wishing to leave religion and I can help in this by utilizing my scientific knowledge and my critical thinking skills.  Often, those who de-lurk come from uber-religious, homeschooled backgrounds where science and critical thinking were either non-existent or treated as the work of Satan.  As such they are innocent, vulnerable and gullible.  They are unable to tell the difference between evidence-based science and evidence-free pseudoscience.  They need the help of Ex-Christians who can tell the difference between these two things.  This is where scientists like TheRedNeckProf, the RogueScholar and Bhim can be of assistance.  

 

The catch is that these three members are professional scientists and cannot always spare the time to help out.

They have careers to pursue and they cannot always commit themselves, when they are needed most.  At times like this, I can be of some assistance.  Even though I'm not a scientist, I do have the time to help.  I also have the motivation to shield the vulnerable from those who would mislead them and so do them harm.  The limited astronomical knowledge I possess is usually sufficient to spot instances of chicanery and deliberate disinformation.  

 

And these instances have occurred.

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71959-outragiosly-bright-galaxies/  Here observations of ultra-distant galaxies are deliberately misrepresented.

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71751-astronomers-just-saw-farther-back-in-time/ Here observations of the galaxy Gn-z11 are deliberately misrepresented.

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71096-is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-standard-model/ Here Matt Strassler's blog is deliberately misrepresented.

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/70834-multiverses-require-faith-for-belief/ Here Smolin's Cosmic Natural Selection hypothesis is deliberately misrepresented.

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/69966-our-simple-universe/ Here, the Steinhardt-Turok Ekpyrotic theory is deliberately misrepresented.

 

There is a member who suffers from bipolar disorder, who requires medication and who often posts questions in the Science subforum.

This person is especially vulnerable and doesn't possess the wherewithal to differentiate between bona fide science and pseudoscience.  His vulnerability was a cause of worry, not just for me but also for several other members.  One of these members privately messaged me about this.  Here is a verbatim quote.

 

His actions on the thread with ****** when ****** was struggling with his bipolar disorder were particularly despicable.

.

.

.

Duderonomy,

I disagree with Pantheory because I consider him a risk to vulnerable members.

I disagree with him because he deliberately misrepresents mainstream science.  

 

Now I have some questions for you.  

Since I have the time, the knowledge and the motivation to shield the vulnerable from his influence, do you think I should do so?

If so, why?

If not, why?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[Joshpantera]

The above is quite true. Pantheory was summoned here while BAA and I were engaging a member who was struggling with false claims of finding the real exodus. Somehow it went to her posting us a link to Pantheory and him a link to this website. From there he anchored in and started proselytizing his own pet theory which is alternative to the standard model.

 

In a way this is similar to something like the orthodox christian priesthood rejecting some gnostic priesthood. BAA, let's not loose sight of the point that sweet cheeks is making. It's a point not lost on me. In fact, that's exactly what's happening right now. This is a modern version of things that would occur in priesthoods back then, because, once again, those old priesthoods represented the science and astronomy of those remote periods. It's not so much that we're acting like priests now, it's that priests were acting as scientists back then. Scientists without the where with all that scientists have today. 

 

And the dominant theory / belief system won out and pushed aside the opposition. 

 

Another point, the dominant theory / belief wasn't correct in the first place, even though it pushed out the opposition. So the appeal to popularity had nothing to do with it being correct about describing reality, it just had to do with power of influence. And of course it lost out to better methods of astronomy and science as the years went on. So our current situation is but an extension of things that have always been taking place. Pantheory is like a gnostic priest to the orthodoxy of the standard model cosmology. Such a parallel can be made. 

 

But, the game is played much different now. And that's what BAA's discourse will show in the above line of questioning. And that's what my posts will show as well. With current amount of evidence, observation and logical deduction pretty much every prior way of trying to describe the reality of planet earth and the universe itself has been swept aside by modern science. And it's only been swept aside because of testable data. That's what the old priesthoods lacked. Provable data that details the necessary conclusions. And that it's all open to anyone to come along and change, if they can do it. 

 

Pantheory hasn't done it.

 

His model hasn't replaced the standard model. Because it lacks the where with all to replace the standard model. And so it stands in line with all of the other gnostic theories off to the side whining, bitching, and complaining because no one will take it seriously. But to have it taken seriously means to man up, face off the standard model and show the world that you're theory is preferred and that the standard model must be altered and changed in some significant way. And succeed in doing so. Only then can we take an alternative model seriously. All of the big leaps in science came from some one manning up and taking on the status quo and succeeding.