I Still Think I'm Right

[Guest end3]

The brain is a natural physical observable thing. Crap, observe it already.

[mymistake]

 

 

C, it comes down to put up or shut up, doesn't it? Science doesn't really know....and that's the problem. Least you could do is be intellectually honest.

 

 

  There is no cure for willful ignorance.

 

You are welcome to provide data to back up your assertions.

 

 

 

Every time I do you simply ignore it in favor of your beliefs.

[StillLooking]

 

 

 

 

Everybody,

 

I should say before I go any further that I'm not wandering off towards Pantheism or any other ism. Like I said, I'm serious, but I'm also having a wee bit of fun with this.

It helps me pick up on some of the nuances regarding science and debating. 

If I'm clogging up the thread unnecessarily, please forgive me. 

 

I was only joking when i said "going into pantheist territory." 

 

You're not clogging up anything. It's good to ask questions. 

 

You're still man dude.

 

The good news is that we're all getting an education from BAA, and it's free of charge. 

 

Thanks BAA.

 

 

And from StillLooking, Alien!

 

Kudos to her too.

 

I humbly apologise. 

 

Thank you StillLooking for educating me as well. 

 

You are welcome. 

Although it seems that I failed to get through end3. I hope at least I help some few members and lurkers who still have doubt about science.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I am advocating a more complete stance that science could achieve.

Science can't verify, quantify or examine in any way the "supernatural" concepts that people have imagined in so many various ways. When neuroscientists and other scientists investigate FOR DECADES ghosts, psychokinesis, clairvoyance or religious visions and ecstatic states and find that the cause of such perceived phenomena is the rather mundane effect of chemical and electrical states in the brain, True Believers say science isn't doing its job! Sorry, True Believers just don't like the answers. There is no ghost to examine, but we can know why you see him anyway.

 

C, it comes down to put up or shut up, doesn't it? Science doesn't really know....and that's the problem. Least you could do is be intellectually honest.

 

 

Science knows enough to threaten your faith and to threaten your urgent need for absolute certainty...and that's a problem for YOU, End.

 

You refuse to recognize science's historical successes and to give it due credit, because doing that increases it's threat level.

 

But by making that sweeping generalization (science doesn't really know) you try to defuse the threat it poses to you.

 

This is nothing more than a terror-management technique you've devised to tame science's threat to you.

 

As is 'subjectivizing' anything scientific you don't like or don't want to have authority over you.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Science doesn't really know WHAT? A way to prove someone's mental constructs are actually real?

Yes.

 

Edit: Are my constructs the same as yours chemically, blah blah, the same as everyone's, and the science behind that. Give me some of that certain data.

 

For example, what does "reasoning" look like from a physiological standpoint. What set of chemistry and electricity give us "reasoning".

 

 

Subjectivizing things doesn't work, End.

 

Clearly humans do communicate with each other, so your mantra (everything is subjective) cannot be true.

 

Each of us is not sealed within our own bubble of subjectivity.

 

You just don't want to give objectivity any power or authority over you.

 

Nor do you want to yield to any external standard, held to by other people.

 

You're doing this to prevent any possibility of your faith (and your desperate need for absolute certainty) being challenged and threatened.

[bornagainathiest]

Isn't it telling that we can agree subjectively what "reasoning" is but not scientifically. Is that not proof enough? True Non Believers just can't live with the uncertainty.

 

Actually, this non-believer can and does.

.

.

.

But it's you that are terrified of uncertainty.

.

.

.

We know this because you declared your very great emotional need for absolute certainty to us, not so long ago.

.

.

.

And once again (Isn't it telling...?) we see you using subjectivity to downgrade the threat science poses to your need for absolute certainty.

[bornagainathiest]

The brain is a natural physical observable thing. Crap, observe it already.

 

And science knows enough about the brain and it's workings to pose a clear and present danger to your faith and your emotional needs, End.

 

Acknowledging that science is meaningful, effective and successful would mean giving it too much power over you.

 

And that outcome has to be avoided at all costs, right?

[mymistake]

This is a perfect case study on why Christianity is anti-science.

 

Nice work explaining everything, BAA!   

[Guest end3]

 

The brain is a natural physical observable thing. Crap, observe it already.

 

And science knows enough about the brain and it's workings to pose a clear and present danger to your faith and your emotional needs, End.

 

Acknowledging that science is meaningful, effective and successful would mean giving it too much power over you.

 

And that outcome has to be avoided at all costs, right?

 

All of what you have written in the last several posts are false statements about me. I personally believe science has done near miracles. I do not harbor fear about certainty nor uncertainty.

 

What miffs me is you are a positivist that then extends that to places where it is patently untrue......and then have the audacity to blame others(me) for YOUR fears.

 

I have already acknowledged what science can't do NOW, but may have the potential to do in the future. But I shall not back down from asking the questions that potentially violate some idiotic protocol.

 

Blessings as always.

[Guest end3]

This is a perfect case study on why Christianity is anti-science.

 

Nice work explaining everything, BAA!

You're an idiot MM.

[Jeff]

Textbook

[Guest end3]

Textbook

I make a living by doing science Jeff. You? Why would you think I am textbook anti science?

[Guest end3]

Just saying, if each of you would wish to convict me of something, convict me with science, not subjectivity. Problem is, you can't do it, but claim you can.

[mymistake]

 

This is a perfect case study on why Christianity is anti-science.

 

Nice work explaining everything, BAA!

You're an idiot MM.

 

 

14 pages of you not being able to explain anything to anybody yet many other people explaining many things to you but you refusing to believe any of it.

 

How does this make me an idiot?

[mymistake]

Just saying, if each of you would wish to convict me of something, convict me with science, not subjectivity. Problem is, you can't do it, but claim you can.

 

 

You are not being convicted.  Others were trying to educate you.  Could you at least learn the difference between conviction and education?

[Jeff]

 

Textbook

I make a living by doing science Jeff. You? Why would you think I am textbook anti science?

I didn't say anything of the sort.

 

You are fitting perfectly into an image I have of Internet Christians.

[Jeff]

I like you but I don't get your reasoning most of the time. I should have just kept it to myself probably. You're already butting heads with enough people here

[mymistake]

I like you too, End3.  It's just frustrating to see you have a melt down every time some fact is in conflict with your religion.  The world is full of facts and you need to get over it.  You are not under attack just because you religion is wrong.  Nobody is convicting your or punishing you.  Relax.

[StillLooking]

Just saying, if each of you would wish to convict me of something, convict me with science, not subjectivity. Problem is, you can't do it, but claim you can.

 

 

 

Textbook

I make a living by doing science Jeff. You? Why would you think I am textbook anti science?

 

 

end3,

 

Since you keep touting your science credibility, I am going to challenge you here. What subject do you want to discuss? Your pick. ICP? Which ICP are you going to pick?

I am going to give a disclaimer first. I am going to use google heavily and analyze the results it returns. I am also going to be upfront with my motive. I want to probe how far your understanding in chemistry. Then, maybe just maybe, we can discuss your idea of feeling glowing Moses that you perceived via ICP.

 

Are you up to this challenge?

[StillLooking]

I like you but I don't get your reasoning most of the time. I should have just kept it to myself probably. You're already butting heads with enough people here

The way I see it you are (anybody is) qualified to discuss science as long as you keep being objective. What end3 posted to you "I make a living by doing science Jeff. You? Why would you think I am textbook anti science?"  was a logical fallacy called appeal to authority. Please don't be discouraged to discuss science. As of now the US population has a strong stigma that science is difficult, I don't want that stigma to go further.

[Guest end3]

 

Just saying, if each of you would wish to convict me of something, convict me with science, not subjectivity. Problem is, you can't do it, but claim you can.

 

 

 

Textbook

I make a living by doing science Jeff. You? Why would you think I am textbook anti science?

 

 

end3,

 

Since you keep touting your science credibility, I am going to challenge you here. What subject do you want to discuss? Your pick. ICP? Which ICP are you going to pick?

I am going to give a disclaimer first. I am going to use google heavily and analyze the results it returns. I am also going to be upfront with my motive. I want to probe how far your understanding in chemistry. Then, maybe just maybe, we can discuss your idea of feeling glowing Moses that you perceived via ICP.

 

Are you up to this challenge?

 

Supply the data that makes subjectivity objective. That SOLELY is my issue. Reductionism. Give me the mechanisms of the mind that make the definition of "reason" a certainty within the human physiology.

[StillLooking]

 

 

Just saying, if each of you would wish to convict me of something, convict me with science, not subjectivity. Problem is, you can't do it, but claim you can.

 

 

 

Textbook

I make a living by doing science Jeff. You? Why would you think I am textbook anti science?

 

 

end3,

 

Since you keep touting your science credibility, I am going to challenge you here. What subject do you want to discuss? Your pick. ICP? Which ICP are you going to pick?

I am going to give a disclaimer first. I am going to use google heavily and analyze the results it returns. I am also going to be upfront with my motive. I want to probe how far your understanding in chemistry. Then, maybe just maybe, we can discuss your idea of feeling glowing Moses that you perceived via ICP.

 

Are you up to this challenge?

 

Supply the data that makes subjectivity objective. That SOLELY is my issue. Reductionism. Give me the mechanisms of the mind that make the definition of "reason" a certainty within the human physiology.

 

Did you read my post? I said, let's discuss science. I don't say let's discuss what science is. So, my question stands. Are you up to this challenge?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Just saying, if each of you would wish to convict me of something, convict me with science, not subjectivity. Problem is, you can't do it, but claim you can.

 

 

 

Textbook

I make a living by doing science Jeff. You? Why would you think I am textbook anti science?

 

 

end3,

 

Since you keep touting your science credibility, I am going to challenge you here. What subject do you want to discuss? Your pick. ICP? Which ICP are you going to pick?

I am going to give a disclaimer first. I am going to use google heavily and analyze the results it returns. I am also going to be upfront with my motive. I want to probe how far your understanding in chemistry. Then, maybe just maybe, we can discuss your idea of feeling glowing Moses that you perceived via ICP.

 

Are you up to this challenge?

 

Supply the data that makes subjectivity objective. That SOLELY is my issue. Reductionism. Give me the mechanisms of the mind that make the definition of "reason" a certainty within the human physiology.

 

Did you read my post? I said, let's discuss science. I don't say let's discuss what science is. So, my question stands. Are you up to this challenge?

 

It's not science to study the physiology of the brain?

[StillLooking]

 

It's not science to study the physiology of the brain?

 

I was challenging your claim of being a science expert. That is what I am challenging you.

However, if you want to talk about human physiology, go ahead. First, what do you mean by "makes subjectivity objective"? I don't claim that. Subjective is subjective. Objective means dealing with facts and supported by facts. Subjective means not supported by facts. I never claim subjectivity will turn into objective. You did.

 

Now, can we talk about chemistry? What do you want to talk about? Organic chemistry? Analytical chemistry? Inorganic chemistry? Physical chemistry? It has been a while since I was in college but I think google can help me recall those subjects.

[Jeff]

 

I like you but I don't get your reasoning most of the time. I should have just kept it to myself probably. You're already butting heads with enough people here

The way I see it you are (anybody is) qualified to discuss science as long as you keep being objective. What end3 posted to you "I make a living by doing science Jeff. You? Why would you think I am textbook anti science?" was a logical fallacy called appeal to authority. Please don't be discouraged to discuss science. As of now the US population has a strong stigma that science is difficult, I don't want that stigma to go further.

Thanks but I don't care about discussing science really. My entire reason for reading this mindnumbing thread is to engage End from a different angle. I'm not here to argue with him but to encourage him. He's here on an atheist forum. He must have some doubts and questions about his beliefs because he's obviously not here to win souls.

End. I have seen you struggle in other threads and you are occasionally very honest in your responses and don't always insist on being in the right. I liked that.

I'm here I guess just to encourage End to step back from the argument for a minute and consider how his thinking may be flawed. For his sake not mine because I'm not in the argument. I care about End more than I care to prove him wrong (this time - I'll get you next thread) I guess. That's why this forum exists.

I think End is losing this argument but I don't care. When magical thinking goes away all this shit just fixes itself. And if End is happy and never changes, that's his prerogative.

Thanks for the encouragement though StillLooking. I'm not afraid of science but I'm better as a consumer than an explainer at this point. Only so many interests I can pursue at a time you know