Ro-bear Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I do agree with this and you have a good point. People shouldn't throw out science, but they also shouldn't worship science. There are people who do this. Just like everything, moderation is best. I have never seen a single case of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I do agree with this and you have a good point. People shouldn't throw out science, but they also shouldn't worship science. There are people who do this. Just like everything, moderation is best. I have never seen a single case of this. Me neither. Anyone who would "worship" science obviously doesn't understand the scientific process. So whatever they're worshipping, it's not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I do agree with this and you have a good point. People shouldn't throw out science, but they also shouldn't worship science. There are people who do this. Just like everything, moderation is best. I have never seen a single case of this. Me neither. Anyone who would "worship" science obviously doesn't understand the scientific process. So whatever they're worshipping, it's not science. I think her use of the term "worship" may be throwing this off. There ARE people who think Science has all the answers and even if those answers aren't complete yet, some day they will be and that there is no way to ascertain truth about our world outside of science. There are people who define science as... naturalistic and materialistic and they will INSIST upon an answer that fits that assumption. Now, that is fine as far as it goes... if science wants to stay in it's corner and let spirituality have another corner, but that's not as far as it goes... often people who follow a materialistic assumption, using science as their authority (which they do)... say that not only is science only concerned with naturalistic explanations but... because we have some naturally observable answers that is all there is and anything else is superstition or a "god of the gaps". So yes... materialists can be QUITE religious about their "beliefs/opinions" about the nature of reality. THey want to pretend they are mere objective observers of life and not participants. And that their philosophical positions are "facts". They stretch beyond the actual facts and extrapolate their personal views, then say science stands behind them. That's not how science is supposed to be in my opinion. It's a methoed of inquiry, but that doesn't mean there aren't a LOT of people who see it this way and treat it this way and very openly and loudly. Like I would consider Richard Dawkins a man who is quite religious/dogmatic about his atheism. He can't stick to observation, he instead has to flap off at the mouth about how spiritual people are deluded idiots and all spiritual sentiment should be eradicated from the planet. HARDLY a rational or scientific position. If he's not the poster boy for this idea of "worship" toward science, then I don't know who is. Further... saying... "whatever they're worshipping, it's not science" sounds suspiciously to me like the No True Scotsman fallacy. I was going to just let this go but since three whole people have decided that this is some fake argument I thought I would explain why it is not. Simply denying that this attitude exists doesn't mean it doesn't exist... and rather LOUDLY. If you aren't denying these attitudes exist and are prevalent in the west, then are you saying they constitute what "real science is". Maybe you're one of the "religious faithful". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 This is also an example of constantly redefining things. Nobody is arguing what "science is". We are arguing how SOME human beings behave toward science and their attitudes and beliefs with regards to science. Mostly these attitudes and beliefs are held by lay people, but there are a few actual scientists (like Richard Dawkins) who have clearly lost that dispassionate stance. Acting as if no scientists can have fundamentalist attitudes or as if no human beings who respect science can have fundamentalist attitudes toward science, IS the No True Scotsman fallacy. Insisting repeatedly that it's a strawman doesn't make it so. A strawman would be if I said SCIENCE was a religion or if I said ALL scientists were practicing their own religion. Nobody here has said that. (So then who has the strawman here?) We all agree what science actually IS, what we obviously disagree about is whether or not some human beings don't fully grasp that and treat it differently. This also goes back to this idea that it is clear many people think that science is this totally objective thing where we can completely remove the observer as if the observer isn't also a being who is participating in this world and has perceptions and ideas of their own. It's this idea extended. The Scientific Method may be rational and objective... but human beings often are not... even if they claim to respect science or BE scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Your religious. No your religious. NO YOUR RELIGIOUS!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Your religious. No your religious. NO YOUR RELIGIOUS!! LMAO! I prefer "spiritual". I still fail to see why the idea that some human beings are fundamentalist or somewhat "religious" in their attitude NO MATTER WHAT VIEW THEY THINK IS TRUE is controversial or threatening in any way. It's obviously demonstrable and observed. Why is it threatening? It doesn't undermine the scientific method. It doesn't discredit science as a method of inquiry. It simply admits scientists and those who are just "into science" are not perfect, infallible, or without their own biases and ability to make errors. That's it. If that idea is a threat... then it would require these people to be gods... then we're back to religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I don't see anyone who relies on science claiming that science has all the answers, which is what you appear to be suggesting. Clearly it doesn't. Yet, again, without it, all anyone is doing is taking a stab in the dark and guessing; or worse, holding out hope that what they believe can somehow be vindicated even though there is currently no reliable evidence supporting it. The probabilities of that working out are roughly nil to none. To bump up the probabilities, you have to have evidence of some sort and that evidence has to be valid. Otherwise the possibilities are endless and in a realm of endless possibilities, it's practically, if virtually mathmatically, impossible to hit a target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I don't see anyone who relies on science claiming that science has all the answers, which is what you appear to be suggesting. Clearly it doesn't. Yet, again, without it, all anyone is doing is taking a stab in the dark and guessing; or worse, holding out hope that what they believe can somehow be vindicated even though there is currently no reliable evidence supporting it. The probabilities of that working out are roughly nil to none. You've never met anyone who thinks that science proves there is no spiritual reality and that any belief in one is merely a "god of the gaps"? (basically filling in a "god" in the areas science just hasn't figured out yet?") Because to me that sounds very much like a faith statement. I feel you're pulling my "science has all the answers" out of context of the greater body of what I said... It is obvious to me that many materialists believe that science basically proves "no need to posit any spiritual realities". And... even if science doesn't have all the answers YET... that that doesn't mean we wont have them later. We've all witnessed this line of thought: "Just because science doesn't have all the answers now, doesnt' mean we won't know more in the future. It doesn't mean "God" did it". (almost always, upon further questioning... their view of "God" is a supernatural fundamentalist version. When someone expresses a more Eastern conception it gets called a "God of the Gaps" to protect their stance.) Materialists don't get to pretend they don't have an opinion/belief/philosophical position about reality while hiding behind the skirts of science. And yet... repeatedly, that is what I've observed them to be doing. Nothing is their "opinion", there "is no god". There is no conceptualization of god that could possibly be true... Once one says they can't prove a negative... they claim they aren't making the extraordinary claim and that it's not their job to prove anything, but the person who makes an assertion (even if the spiritual believer hasn't actually MADE an assertion about empirical truth, just a personal statement of their own opinion/belief.) Then it devolves into nonsense regarding the flying spaghetti monster and invisible pink unicorns. How this doesn't qualify as "fundamentalism", I have no idea. Why it's so threatening to say: "I can't prove there is no spiritual reality but I personally don't believe there is", I have no idea. People like this want to rest on FACTS and when the facts aren't there they just say they aren't "there yet" and the other person is superstitious or a wishful thinker or whatever. But it is the dogmatic atheist who has "faith" the facts will somehow magically materialize later. Maybe they will and maybe they won't. And maybe they'll suggest a reality that is less material than they originally thought (which is what I think is happening now in quantum physics especially). This is taking a position while pretending not to take a position. THis is having an opinion while pretending it is a fact. There are plenty of dogmatic atheists who assert there is no god... not as a personal OPINION/belief... but as some "factual statement" they think is fully supported by science. There is no possible conceptualization of spirituality they won't regard as "woo". Even though they have no proof. They pretend that just because it's a 'negative' that they aren't somehow responsible for their "empirical assertions". It's no different from how Christian believers treat unbelievers. It's arrogant bullshit. In my opinion. And I don't respect it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 The way I see it, it comes down to this: Everybody has an opinion about what makes a person dogmatic and/or fundamentatlist in their worldview. When a materialist acts like everybody who isn't a materialist just "doesn't understand science" it sounds eerily similar to the Christian who tells the unbeliever they just "don't understand the bible." These types of conversations happen repeatedly. The type of disdain and contempt and arrogance I've been shown by SOME atheists (not all... my husband as well as my BFF are both atheists and are not like this, nor do I class them as fundamentalists), exactly mirrors the type of disdain and contempt and arrogance I've been shown by fundie Christians. I can't ignore or pretend this doesn't exist. Atheists have two choices when confronted with people like me: 1. Don't BE a fundamentalist about it. It does you no harm to admit you don't know everything and that some spirituality "might" exist even if you don't believe personally that it does. Admitting you could be wrong is the hallmark of NOT being dogmatic. (I also admit I could be wrong. Materialism could be the whole of reality and if that's so, then it is. I just don't personally believe it's so.) 2. Decide not to give a shit what I and others like me think. Atheists already are able to "not care" what spiritual people think about god, so why not extend that to what those people think about any given atheist? We all find SOME people to be obnoxious assholes. I don't think an atheist who is dogmatic is that way because they are an atheist. I think they're just a dogmatic personality who happens to be an atheist. Dogmatic personalities tend to appeal to an "authority or proof" that makes them "right", in this case, I think it's "science". What irritates me is how often atheists seem to think they can "opt out" of all character flaws by pulling out their atheist card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 You've never met anyone who thinks that science proves there is no spiritual reality and that any belief in one is merely a "god of the gaps"? I've met many, including myself, who approach this issue with a show me the proof attitude, but it's rare that someone approaches these subjects with the idea that what we can't see/touch etc... are absolutely disproven. That would be wrong as they are not. Many claims are simply unproven, not disproven. As for spirituality, I think there is a psychological place for it for many people; perhaps all if you keep the definitions loose. Leaping to conclusions on subjects we don't have valid evidence for, however, oftentimes is using the god of the gaps fallacy among others. It is obvious to me that many materialists believe that science basically proves "no need to posit any spiritual realities Actually, most you call materialist simply don't give credence to guesswork. Spiritual reality is a very ill-defined term. If someone posits ESP abilities, for example, that's something that can be more easily defined and thus tested. But spiritual realities is virtually meaningless and cannot be tested or proven or disproven, so what exactly should a scientist posit? "Just because science doesn't have all the answers now, doesnt' mean we won't know more in the future. It doesn't mean "God" did it". (almost always, upon further questioning... their view of "God" is a supernatural fundamentalist version. When someone expresses a more Eastern conception it gets called a "God of the Gaps" to protect their stance.) But again, what exactly is it we will know more about in the future? You have to have evidence of some phenomena otherwise how do you know there is even a phenomena? If you don't have evidence of this phenomena today, but just think it might exist, you are simply taking a stab in the dark, which as I pointed out earlier, leaves you at the mercy of endless possibilities and one whopping hell of a lucky shot if you got something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 The way I see it, it comes down to this: Everybody has an opinion about what makes a person dogmatic and/or fundamentatlist in their worldview. When a materialist acts like everybody who isn't a materialist just "doesn't understand science" it sounds eerily similar to the Christian who tells the unbeliever they just "don't understand the bible." As I pointed out in my other response, this issue doesn't fit so easily into the fundamentalist or not category. It's completely unreasonable to ask people to lend any credence to something you can't define, don't have any evidence for and have no way of knowing in any way whether there is even a phenomena that may or may not exist. Calling someone who is reasonably skeptical of such a position a fundy just doesn't make sense. I've no doubt you too are skeptical of many things in your life. Being so does not in any way make you a fundamentalist. It probably saves you from losing money and sometimes even saves you your own life. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 @Vigile I personally find it hard to interface with your reality because it seems that you don't have any kind of working framework beyond what "a group of scientists" told you. I don't think it's practical to run one's life that way. I also don't think science is the only way one can know things. I trust my own logic and my own personal life experience for running my own life. I don't find the materialistic assumption logical at all. My mind is fundamentally not wired that way. Nor do I find god "out there" logical. Both views seem to be locked in this battle against one another as if they are the only two philosophical options. I think the problem for me is, I absolutely cannot run my life according to the materialist assumption without denying my entire experience and what I honestly think about reality. I didn't just pull my views out of my ass. I studied various religions, science (multiple disciplines), and my own personal experience of life. I can't abdicate my own reason to just nod and go along with the materialist assumption. And yet... I've been confronted by very dogmatic/fundamentalist materialists who use "science" as the hammer to beat me with, assuming I haven't "read enough science" or that "what I've read I didn't understand", which I find completely condescending and presumptive. This is no different than the way I've been treated by Christian fundamentalists. One group assumes I'm superstitious or stupid and the other assumes I've been deceived by an evil being. But it's the same thing to me. It's still ultimately disrespect for me as a thinking person who has come to my own conclusions about things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 The way I see it, it comes down to this: Everybody has an opinion about what makes a person dogmatic and/or fundamentatlist in their worldview. When a materialist acts like everybody who isn't a materialist just "doesn't understand science" it sounds eerily similar to the Christian who tells the unbeliever they just "don't understand the bible." As I pointed out in my other response, this issue doesn't fit so easily into the fundamentalist or not category. It's completely unreasonable to ask people to lend any credence to something you can't define, don't have any evidence for and have no way of knowing in any way whether there is even a phenomena that may or may not exist. Calling someone who is reasonably skeptical of such a position a fundy just doesn't make sense. I've no doubt you too are skeptical of many things in your life. Being so does not in any way make you a fundamentalist. It probably saves you from losing money and sometimes even saves you your own life. I've never asked anybody to "lend any credence" to my beliefs. I merely expect rational adults to admit they could be wrong. i.e. there could be a spiritual reality. I've given up "defining" my viewpoint to people who refuse to hear it because they can't HEAR it. It doesn't matter how I word it they hear something else other than what I say, often times something completely different. Just like my mind isn't wired to understand the materialist assumption as logical... materialists obviously are not wired to be able to even have a meaningful spiritual discussion because anything I say or any way I frame it is pointless because they can't hear it without hearing a bunch of other random nonsense that has nothing to do with my position. I also can't present my evidence because, while it is there... you won't HEAR it. It's pointless. It's like banging my head against a brick wall or talking to a fundie Christian. I believe my viewpoint is incredibly rational and is far less "extreme" than monotheism or materialism. But I could lay it all out for you and you still wouldn't hear me. I've had the discussion too many times before. It's like we live in separate worlds. I've tried having rational discussions with fundie Christians. They're from another planet. All words mean other things to them. Sometimes I feel the same is true with materialists. I think some people who skirt the edges and are more agnostic and not emotionally or intellectually committed to any one idea can have a discussion where they can hear each other. But I think most people can never hear each other. Their perceptions of the world are so different that sometimes I wonder if we are even perceiving the same world. Again, fundamentalism has nothing to do with skepticism. It's about refusing to admit or even momentarily consider that you might be wrong. You may not be like this, but I've met plenty of materialists who are. I admit I might be wrong with regards to materialism... though I don't think I am. It doesn't harm you to admit there "could be" a spiritual reality, you just don't believe there is evidence for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 From what I've seen over the past couple weeks, badpuppy is that you've got an agenda in playing "materialism" as a sort of religion of its own. You're constantly trying to level the field to make it as if it is no different to religious beliefs which I don't even know how to react to as that as it's really disingenuous. I seriously don't know how one could make such a claim. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 From what I've seen over the past couple weeks, badpuppy is that you've got an agenda in playing "materialism" as a sort of religion of its own. You're constantly trying to level the field to make it as if it is no different to religious beliefs which I don't even know how to react to as that as it's really disingenuous. I seriously don't know how one could make such a claim. I'm sorry that you feel an alternate viewpoint constitutes an "agenda". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 And I know you don't know how someone could make such a claim. It's like we're from different planets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Dave Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I don't see anyone who relies on science claiming that science has all the answers, which is what you appear to be suggesting. Clearly it doesn't. Yet, again, without it, all anyone is doing is taking a stab in the dark and guessing; or worse, holding out hope that what they believe can somehow be vindicated even though there is currently no reliable evidence supporting it. The probabilities of that working out are roughly nil to none. You've never met anyone who thinks that science proves there is no spiritual reality and that any belief in one is merely a "god of the gaps"? (basically filling in a "god" in the areas science just hasn't figured out yet?") Because to me that sounds very much like a faith statement. To me it looks like an reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Dave Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Back to the OP... think of how you were taught in Sunday School and in church. Fundies are trained to be gullible. They are taught to believe what an approved authority figure tells them and that questioning or doubting is bad, and they are taught to disregard everything coming from non-approved sources. So it's no surprise when some of the fall for the most ridiculous conspiracy theories. I do wonder how the coworker described in the OP explains why the northern hemisphere has summer while the southern hemisphere has winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I do wonder how the coworker described in the OP explains why the northern hemisphere has summer while the southern hemisphere has winter. That's just a lie told by the scientists and Obama to make us believe the Earth isn't flat like the Bible says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I also don't think science is the only way one can know things. I trust my own logic and my own personal life experience for running my own life. More power to you, but I personally think this is a terrible way to approach reality and is a surefire guaranteed way of letting in all kinds of crazy beliefs into one's head. I've simply responded because you are all over this board calling us materialists and fundamentalists. I've offered up a defense in favor of those of us who choose to live by known facts and leave guesswork to our whimsical sides, not our serious sides. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I don't see anyone who relies on science claiming that science has all the answers, which is what you appear to be suggesting. Clearly it doesn't. Yet, again, without it, all anyone is doing is taking a stab in the dark and guessing; or worse, holding out hope that what they believe can somehow be vindicated even though there is currently no reliable evidence supporting it. The probabilities of that working out are roughly nil to none. You've never met anyone who thinks that science proves there is no spiritual reality and that any belief in one is merely a "god of the gaps"? (basically filling in a "god" in the areas science just hasn't figured out yet?") Because to me that sounds very much like a faith statement. To me it looks like an reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence. What I'm coming to understand is everybody thinks their viewpoint is reasonable and there truly is no way to know who is right. It only seems logical to assume one is right when they can't fully comprehend just how logical and reasonable alternate views seem to the people who hold them. The only way around this realization is to assume the other person is irrational, delusional, stupid, or evil. Accepting they have the same ability to use logic, aren't demonstrably crazy, are intelligent, and have good intentions means we have to accept that we truly don't know much. The only things we can know are the things that seem to work for practical purposes. (i.e. a lot of science is very practical and demonstrable. But when we get to things like origin of life, meaning of life blah blah blah, there just isn't a way to "know" because it's not things that are repeatable in a lab.) There is something in people's mental wiring that just makes it impossible to hold views that go against how they see things. It's not a matter of sticking a bunch of facts in front of someone. It's also not a matter of education level or intelligence level. It's not a matter of some people being "too emotional" (I've seen some SUPER emotional materialists.) It seems that human nature is set up in such a way that we all are so different in our perceptions that we can never bridge the gaps to meet each other. Probably the only people who can are true agnostics who might have an ability to see the pros and cons of each viewpoint without getting attached in any way to any of them. I think it's a myth that any human being can be super rational all the time or even most of the time. I think very harmful religious beliefs (all the hell terror in the middle ages) created a situation where irrationality took over the balance SO strongly that people felt 100% Spock-like logic (not that that reference would make sense back then) was the only answer. The trouble is... that doesn't really work either for "ultimate truth". Nobody knows everything. Nobody knows what happens when you die. People "think" they know both on the religious and anti-religious side... but... nobody knows. Nobody knows anything. I can't conclude anything else because I see holes in everyone's arguments. Seeing the holes in everybody else's arguments... and others presumably seeing things in the same way, leads me to believe we don't have the capacity to be as objective as we need to be to know much beyond what is practical to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I also don't think science is the only way one can know things. I trust my own logic and my own personal life experience for running my own life. More power to you, but I personally think this is a terrible way to approach reality and is a surefire guaranteed way of letting in all kinds of crazy beliefs into one's head. I've simply responded because you are all over this board calling us materialists and fundamentalists. I've offered up a defense in favor of those of us who choose to live by known facts and leave guesswork to our whimsical sides, not our serious sides. But you don't live by "known facts". If materialism is true, then so is determinism which makes your identity an illusion and means you don't have free will. You don't make choices. you don't have your own thoughts. Etc. But nobody lives like they really believe in determinism. Also... abiogenesis has not been proven in a lab. You're living by conjecture just like everybody else. You think that science will fill in your gaps. Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but you have "faith" that it will. I understand why you need to believe as you do. You've made it clear in your posts that you need a solid, stable, world that is entirely predictable. And that's fine. I respect your right to think that way. But I'm not going to pretend I think you're somehow empirically more rational or intelligent than me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 But you don't live by "known facts". If materialism is true, then so is determinism which makes your identity an illusion and means you don't have free will. Nonsense. If I put olive oil, not gasoline in my car, I know for a fact my car won't run. If I use the wrong decimal point when making my calculations, the bridge I build will colapse. There is an objective reality and while we don't know everything there is to know about it, we do know quite a lot and while I agree perspective is an important nuance, it doesn't change that objective reality. but you have "faith" that it will. Again, nonsense. I'm fully aware what we know is limited. It's of no concern to me that we don't have a full understanding of the world we live in, life or the universe. I just don't want to make up shit or believe in shit other people made up. As a result, I, and you whether you like it or not, have no other choice than to just look at known facts and see where they lead while being fully committed to adjusting our understanding as new facts arrive or as new discoveries prove older discoveries wrong. Anything less is just wishful thinking. You've made it clear in your posts that you need a solid, stable, world that is entirely predictable. That's what you've read into my responses, but that in no way represents what I am or what I've written. I don't need a predictable world. I'm just being reasonable and arguing that you can just make guesses and expect those guesses to hit any targets given there are endless possibilities. The reality is, I just have a fairly broad understanding of the probabilities. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 We clearly can't communicate on this issue. You're assuming a bunch of things I'm not even saying, arguing things I'm not arguing and... meh It's just draining the fuck out of me and making me unhappy. I don't want to continue this discussion. I'm going to stop my "materialist rants" because they are pointless. All that happens is this: I'm just trying to understand why atheists think they are the kings of rationality when to me this is so obviously untrue. I should have stuck with my original instinct back when I said "nevermind" up thread. I couldn't resist the temptation to share my viewpoint though, because three different people replied to Conure's "worship toward science" line. And I thought they were just not seeing what we are seeing. Obviously there is NO way I can explain my viewpoint that is going to be accepted by the person who says: "There are no such people!" It wasn't a case of you guys just not understanding what she was saying and being able to get it if it was explained better. So I shouldn't have even made the attempt. Explaining better doesn't work. We are from two different worlds. Believe what you want. I have had to make peace with Christians thinking I am "led astray by the devil", I'll just have to make peace with dogmatic materialists (any materialist who thinks they can't be wrong about their worldview) thinking I'm less rational than them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I'm going to stop my "materialist rants" because they are pointless. Cool, we're on the same page. I never intended to change your mind. Just answers to charges that I felt were undeserved. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts