Freethought & Rationalism Archive

balisongsong · 09-12-2002, 09:54 PM

Godless Dave-Im sorry but the qualitative aspects of our world are not subject to the scientific method.
Most of you are blinded by the dogma of scientism,which holds that that which cannot be verified doesnt exist or is non sense.
I dont think any argument that I could produce would convince you otherwise.

MadMordigan · 09-13-2002, 12:50 AM

Bullshit.

Day after day there are new studies linking physical effects in the brain with reported experiences of 'qualitative phenomena'. Experiences such as love, fear, madness, even religious extacy are being shown to be the results of concrete physical reactions within our brains.

The question that has to be asked is, when cognative science maps out the physical and materialist workings of our minds, where then will the supernatural run to hide?

Steven Carr · 09-13-2002, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadMordigan:
<strong>Bullshit.

Day after day there are new studies linking physical effects in the brain with reported experiences of 'qualitative phenomena'. Experiences such as love, fear, madness, even religious extacy are being shown to be the results of concrete physical reactions within our brains.

The question that has to be asked is, when cognative science maps out the physical and materialist workings of our minds, where then will the supernatural run to hide?</strong>

Theists are often anti-scientific and deny that psychology can be a science.

Balisongsong might say that he believes in such a thing as love without evidence, but if I were to take it into my head to say that he loved 6-year old boys, his libel lawyers would soon demand that I produce concrete evidence that would stand up in court, or withdraw this outrageous slur which has not one shred of evidence to back it up.

abe smith · 09-13-2002, 06:18 AM

BALISONGSONG: what king of junk thinking is ZISS? What is it your purpose to assert? If you don't know/ have sensory inputs to KNOW that "something" is THERE, then how the hell do you KNOW it's there? And since I just remembered the apposite citation, I'll quote you that PROTOTYPIC believer Thomas Aquinas who said (Fanfare & drums:...) NOTHING IS IN THE MIND THAT IS NOT FIRST IN THE SENSES. Now, B.S.S., you wanna take on St Thomas? Go.

Autonemesis · 09-13-2002, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by balisongsong:
Godless Dave-Im sorry but the qualitative aspects of our world are not subject to the scientific method.

So why are you expecting us to explain how the scientific method can address those aspects? I don't employ the scientific method in choosing a breakfast cereal or hairstyle, either.

Quote:

Most of you are blinded by the dogma of scientism,which holds that that which cannot be verified doesnt exist or is non sense.

And you are blinded by your religious dogmna, which holds that you are too stupid or sinful or unworthy to learn or know anything on your own, without help from your god.

Quote:

I dont think any argument that I could produce would convince you otherwise.

Head, meet brick wall.

galiel · 09-13-2002, 08:12 AM

Balisong, please define your terms. What is "scientism"?

What evidence can you provide to substantiate your definition of the "dogma of "scientism"?

If you are referring to science or the scietnific method, not only does it not lay claim to knowing everything, it does not even seek to know everything.

Science seeks to develope workable principles about universal phenomena. It is entirely pragmatic in nature, and has a well-ducmented history of developing consistent models of more and more phenomena within the scope of human experience.

Religion starts from the assumption that all is known, and then seeks to explain away contradiction between "revealed knowledge" and human experience.

If you erect a strawman, you will only be fighting yourself. Either you need to inform yourself better about what science really is (argument from ignorance), or you need to be more honest about your intent (argument from evangelism).

Either way, there is still no explaining Michael Jackson.

balisongsong · 09-13-2002, 09:04 AM

Galiel,I hope I address all your points,although it may be difficult as I dont have your post isnt visible after I go to "post reply".
Galiel,if you want a dictionary definition of scientism,get a dictionary. I can give you a general description . Scientism,not science Galiel, is the dogmatic belief that any claim not empirically verified or logically deduced is meaningless and nonsense.Galiel,it would also help if you famililarized yourself with the early 20th century philosophical school call 'logical positivism',which will clarify what scientism is,B. Russel,whom many atheists worship,was a logical positivist,a movement which is discredited in the late 20th century

Galiel,Im not against science,yes galiel Im familiar with the scientific method,Im against scientism of the secular web

Your definition of religion differs from mine,so we should clear that issue up some time also.
argumentation vs evangelsim?
I understand argumentation as effective reasoning which should be differentiated from the secular webs. evangelistic scientism.

balisongsong · 09-13-2002, 09:21 AM

Mad_After studying the physical effects on the brain of listening to a great work of music,are you going to call that,the physical effects on the brain of music,music?
No Mad,science only captures certain aspects of REALITY

Ought Naught · 09-13-2002, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by balisongsong:
<strong>Mad_After studying the physical effects on the brain of listening to a great work of music,are you going to call that,the physical effects on the brain of music,music?
No Mad,science only captures certain aspects of REALITY</strong>

If you have a point, then you are doing a marvelous job of obscuring it.

balisongsong · 09-13-2002, 12:03 PM

Are you trying to be obtuse?
Brain waves produced from listening to music are not music. Brain waves are observable but they are not the music,music can not be objectified,cannot be studied as an object can be studied but who would deny music exists. Music,like qualitative aspects of reality, exist but cant be emperically verified,which undercuts the dogma of scientism and also the view that "our natural world is all there is"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-12-2002, 09:54 PM	#21
balisongsong Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: phillipines Posts: 21	Godless Dave-Im sorry but the qualitative aspects of our world are not subject to the scientific method. Most of you are blinded by the dogma of scientism,which holds that that which cannot be verified doesnt exist or is non sense. I dont think any argument that I could produce would convince you otherwise.

09-13-2002, 12:50 AM	#22
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	Bullshit. Day after day there are new studies linking physical effects in the brain with reported experiences of 'qualitative phenomena'. Experiences such as love, fear, madness, even religious extacy are being shown to be the results of concrete physical reactions within our brains. The question that has to be asked is, when cognative science maps out the physical and materialist workings of our minds, where then will the supernatural run to hide?

09-13-2002, 06:18 AM	#24
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	BALISONGSONG: what king of junk thinking is ZISS? What is it your purpose to assert? If you don't know/ have sensory inputs to KNOW that "something" is THERE, then how the hell do you KNOW it's there? And since I just remembered the apposite citation, I'll quote you that PROTOTYPIC believer Thomas Aquinas who said (Fanfare & drums:...) NOTHING IS IN THE MIND THAT IS NOT FIRST IN THE SENSES. Now, B.S.S., you wanna take on St Thomas? Go.

09-13-2002, 08:12 AM	#26
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	Balisong, please define your terms. What is "scientism"? What evidence can you provide to substantiate your definition of the "dogma of "scientism"? If you are referring to science or the scietnific method, not only does it not lay claim to knowing everything, it does not even seek to know everything. Science seeks to develope workable principles about universal phenomena. It is entirely pragmatic in nature, and has a well-ducmented history of developing consistent models of more and more phenomena within the scope of human experience. Religion starts from the assumption that all is known, and then seeks to explain away contradiction between "revealed knowledge" and human experience. If you erect a strawman, you will only be fighting yourself. Either you need to inform yourself better about what science really is (argument from ignorance), or you need to be more honest about your intent (argument from evangelism). Either way, there is still no explaining Michael Jackson.

09-13-2002, 09:04 AM	#27
balisongsong Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: phillipines Posts: 21	Galiel,I hope I address all your points,although it may be difficult as I dont have your post isnt visible after I go to "post reply". Galiel,if you want a dictionary definition of scientism,get a dictionary. I can give you a general description . Scientism,not science Galiel, is the dogmatic belief that any claim not empirically verified or logically deduced is meaningless and nonsense.Galiel,it would also help if you famililarized yourself with the early 20th century philosophical school call 'logical positivism',which will clarify what scientism is,B. Russel,whom many atheists worship,was a logical positivist,a movement which is discredited in the late 20th century Galiel,Im not against science,yes galiel Im familiar with the scientific method,Im against scientism of the secular web Your definition of religion differs from mine,so we should clear that issue up some time also. argumentation vs evangelsim? I understand argumentation as effective reasoning which should be differentiated from the secular webs. evangelistic scientism.

09-13-2002, 09:21 AM	#28
balisongsong Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: phillipines Posts: 21	Mad_After studying the physical effects on the brain of listening to a great work of music,are you going to call that,the physical effects on the brain of music,music? No Mad,science only captures certain aspects of REALITY

09-13-2002, 12:03 PM	#30
balisongsong Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: phillipines Posts: 21	Are you trying to be obtuse? Brain waves produced from listening to music are not music. Brain waves are observable but they are not the music,music can not be objectified,cannot be studied as an object can be studied but who would deny music exists. Music,like qualitative aspects of reality, exist but cant be emperically verified,which undercuts the dogma of scientism and also the view that "our natural world is all there is"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.