Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
cynic said:
Einstein, Newton, Hawking just to name a few!

How many scientists do you know of that don't employ some level of mathematics, chemistry or physics in their scientific practices?

Any well known scientist can be seen to have invested belief in a body of scientific knowledge and/or practices. When utilising such knowledge, scientists are demonstrating a level of reverence for said knowledge and the scientific predecessors that contributed to its accumulation.



So now you're attempting to claim that the scientific community holds the monopoly on openmindedness!
Have you already forgotten the intense opposition to Einstein's theories of relativity?

Actually they are the same thing. Both are valid examples of faith. Just as a prayer may or may not be answered, one's expectations of a parent may or may not be fulfilled!


Certainly. However, this doesn't change the fact that scientists belief and behaviours in respect to science are recognisably synonymous with the behaviours of religious devotees.
Click to expand...


Lol, so now your trying to define the use of math and physics as worship. I have seen religious people try and twist things to fit their position but you are truly starting to take the cake here.

No the two faiths are different, 1 is a reasonable expectation based on evidence, and the other is belief without evidence.
 
Value Collector said:
Lol, so now your trying to define the use of math and physics as worship. I have seen religious people try and twist things to fit their position but you are truly starting to take the cake here.
Click to expand...
No trying required. Any practical application of any knowledge is recognisable as a display of reverence for such knowledge. Such reverence is compatible with the definition of worship.
Value Collector said:
No the two faiths are different, 1 is a reasonable expectation based on evidence, and the other is belief without evidence.
Click to expand...
Again, I believe that you are trying to create an artificial distinction between two types of faith and preferring the subset over the whole set.
Some people will only believe what they're programmed to believe, irrespective of the available body of evidence (or lack thereof). Many refer to such programming as indoctrination or perhaps "blind faith". An indoctrinated person will normally struggle to recognise as valid anything contrary to their programming irrespective of the amount of compelling evidence.

The definition of the word faith I offered was not only a reasonable general definition of the word, it was also appropriate for the purpose of this discourse.

The fact that some prefer to use the "blind faith" or "theistic faith" subsets in the formulation of their arguments is, to my understanding, simply testimony to the desire for avoidance of the truth. It could even be seen as a symptom of indoctrination.

The repeated denials of the religiosity of scientific practices, combined with repeated assertions of factual superiority over other belief systems, is typical of the jaundiced zealotry that I referred to in an earlier post.
 
cynic said:
No trying required. Any practical application of any knowledge is recognisable as a display of reverence for such knowledge. Such reverence is compatible with the definition of worship.

Again, I believe that you are trying to create an artificial distinction between two types of faith and preferring the subset over the whole set.
Some people will only believe what they're programmed to believe, irrespective of the available body of evidence (or lack thereof). Many refer to such programming as indoctrination or perhaps "blind faith". An indoctrinated person will normally struggle to recognise as valid anything contrary to their programming irrespective of the amount of compelling evidence.

The definition of the word faith I offered was not only a reasonable general definition of the word, it was also appropriate for the purpose of this discourse.

The fact that some prefer to use the "blind faith" or "theistic faith" subsets in the formulation of their arguments is, to my understanding, simply testimony to the desire for avoidance of the truth. It could even be seen as a symptom of indoctrination.

The repeated denials of the religiosity of scientific practices, combined with repeated assertions of factual superiority over other belief systems, is typical of the jaundiced zealotry that I referred to in an earlier post.
Click to expand...

Try using the word worship in a sentence to describe the work of hawking and see if it makes sense to people, i doubt you will find many people who would consider his work an act of worship, except for people like to who are trying to construct parallels that dont exist.

There are two different meanings for the word faith, thats why the dictionary lists two meanings,

Many words have multiple meanings, "gay" " theory" etc, completely different meanings, and it is dishonest to try and switch the meanings to try and create a straw man argument.
 
Value Collector said:
Try using the word worship in a sentence to describe the work of hawking and see if it makes sense to people, i doubt you will find many people who would consider his work an act of worship, except for people like to who are trying to construct parallels that dont exist.

There are two different meanings for the word faith, thats why the dictionary lists two meanings,

Many words have multiple meanings, "gay" " theory" etc, completely different meanings, and it is dishonest to try and switch the meanings to try and create a straw man argument.
Click to expand...

Throughout this discourse I have not distorted any English words (i.e. religion, faith and worship) beyond their literal definition and I object to any suggestion to the contrary.
Those choosing to limit such definitions to a theistic context have only themselves to blame when their arguments backfire!

Even if such words were to be limited to a theistic context, such limitation would not invalidate any of the parallels that I've highlighted!

By the way, thankyou for providing me yet another fine example of one of your purportedly "non-existent" parallels!

Can you see how resorting to accusations of "straw man argument" creation and dishonesty is comparable with an accusation of heresy?
 
How nice it is to see an intelligent catholic priest, Father George Coyne, discuss evolution and science in a very rational way, unlike some here who have never bothered to study the science and think evolution is a dirty word. Instead they try to defend completely untenable positions that normally are only held by extreme fundamentalists from the US bible belt. Right from the start Coyne correctly defines what "theory" is in the sense it is used in science and in particular when used as in the Theory of Evolution. He even mocks the young earth creationists constantly repeated mantra about evolution being "just a theory". Not that I agree with everything that he said, but watching this is an hour well spent.

I particularly like his description of those who have a literal acceptance of the Bible as simply revealing a very fundamental ignorance of what scripture was all about.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cynic said:
Throughout this discourse I have not distorted any English words (i.e. religion, faith and worship) beyond their literal definition and I object to any suggestion to the contrary.
Those choosing to limit such definitions to a theistic context have only themselves to blame when their arguments backfire!

Even if such words were to be limited to a theistic context, such limitation would not invalidate any of the parallels that I've highlighted!

By the way, thankyou for providing me yet another fine example of one of your purportedly "non-existent" parallels!

Can you see how resorting to accusations of "straw man argument" creation and dishonesty is comparable with an accusation of heresy?
Click to expand...

Hahaha, you seem to think words only have one meaning, and that when someone decides to use a word, that you get to decide what context is being used instead of them.

We were having a discussion on theism, so off course the context the word was being used in was a theistic context, trying to muddy the waters does not add to the conversation.

Its would be like us having a discussion about marriage equality, and me making a statement that " gay marriage should be allowed" you jumping in and saying " gay means happy, there is no law against happy marriage, what are you talking about" :banghead:

It is clear to everyone ( except maybe you ) that i would be using the word gay to to describe same sex marriage, and bringing up the happiness meaning which is almost obsolete is dishonest and useless.

You did the same thing, with faith, religion and worship.
 
Value Collector said:
... You did the same thing, with faith, religion and worship.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter!?

Some of us are here to have fun at the expense of others!!
After all, there are trolls and counter-trolls.

If you want to be another DUCK IN A SHOOTING GALLERY, then, ...

Ding, ding, ding!
 
Value Collector said:
Hahaha, you seem to think words only have one meaning, and that when someone decides to use a word, that you get to decide what context is being used instead of them.

We were having a discussion on theism, so off course the context the word was being used in was a theistic context, trying to muddy the waters does not add to the conversation.

Its would be like us having a discussion about marriage equality, and me making a statement that " gay marriage should be allowed" you jumping in and saying " gay means happy, there is no law against happy marriage, what are you talking about" :banghead:

It is clear to everyone ( except maybe you ) that i would be using the word gay to to describe same sex marriage, and bringing up the happiness meaning which is almost obsolete is dishonest and useless.

You did the same thing, with faith, religion and worship.
Click to expand...
Actually we weren't only discussing theistic religions! We were also discussing the religion of science!

I could just as easily have substituted terms such as "belief","system of belief" and "honour" throughout this discourse. However, the dictionary definitions of faith, religion and worship are able to be used in a wholistic context.
I've already given ample justification for my use of these words in a wholistic context, and yet, despite alerting you to the fact that the validity of the parallels described was never contingent on my choice of terminology, you continue to insist on arguing semantics rather than offering direct challenges to the actual issues I've raised!
 
burglar said:
Why does it matter!?

Some of us are here to have fun at the expense of others!!
After all, there are trolls and counter-trolls.

If you want to be another DUCK IN A SHOOTING GALLERY, then, ...

Ding, ding, ding!
Click to expand...
Guilty as charged, your worship!

or should I say your honour!
(Versatile as it is, I wouldn't want to be accused of twisting the English language now, would I?!)
 
cynic said:
Actually we weren't only discussing theistic religions! We were also discussing the religion of science! ...
Click to expand...

One of many definitions of Science:
how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding
Click to expand...

Science is not out to prove or disprove God!
Evolution was never about an alternative to creation.
Evolution may prove that there is no need of a God. (ONE DAY!)
But that is not the same thing!!

God and science are not miscible!
 
burglar said:
One of many definitions of Science:


Science is not out to prove or disprove God!
Evolution was never about an alternative to creation.
Evolution may prove that there is no need of a God. (ONE DAY!)
But that is not the same thing!!

God and science are not miscible!
Click to expand...

burglar, you are such a semanticist (if there is such a word!)

I believe that my comments in an earlier post to this thread gave fair account of how science can readily be recognised as the religion that it is!
The inclusion or exclusion of deities is immaterial to the general definition I offered (i.e. "any mode of faith and worship"). Again arguments about semantics are drawing attention away from my point about the observably synonymous behaviours of various religious practitioners (including practitioners of science).


cynic said:
According to my copy of "The Award Compact English Dictionary" (ISBN 0-86163-109-9):
"any mode of faith and worship"
is an acceptable definition of the word "religion".
Personally I believe that the expression "belief system" (or perhaps "system of belief") is sufficient and in accord with the original definition and intent of the word.
Your efforts to artificially limit the word to theistic claims is a departure from my understanding of scientific method.


See what I mean?! I did tell you that scientists were just like religious folk!

Had you not noticed that many scientists are doing the same thing with their (chosen) scientific doctrine?




Again, (according to my copy of the aforementioned dictionary):
"a taking of what another says or does as true and right"
is a fair definition of the word "faith".
It is also a very apt description of what many scientists do!
...
Click to expand...

P.S. Since we're so fascinated by semantics, my dictionary offers "to hold dear" as a definition of the word "worship".
 
cynic said:
burglar, you are such a semanticist (if there is such a word!) ...
Click to expand...

my dictionary gives cunning linguist. :p:


cynic said:
... my dictionary offers "to hold dear" as a definition of the word "worship".
Click to expand...

Dear cynic,

Oh dear, you've done it again. A word with two or more meanings!

Dear

1.
regarded with deep affection.
synonyms: ... worshipped;

2.
Brit.
expensive ...
Click to expand...
 
burglar said:
my dictionary gives cunning linguist. :p:




Dear cynic,

Oh dear, you've done it again. A word with two or more meanings!
Click to expand...

Expensive burglar,

The original and wholistic meaning of the word "worship" embraces both those definitions of "dear".
Expensive as in "worth ship" which can also be understood as synonymous with "held dear".
 
WHY THE ONE APPEALING PART OF CREATIONISM IS WRONG

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...e-appealing-part-of-creationism-is-wrong.html





Answers in Genesis: Plants Survived the Flood!

This one is a beaut. They say you can't argue with stupidity. This tautological reasoning can only come from Answers in Genesis. Of course anyone with a modicum of science knowledge knows that the reason we have the diversity and geographical spread of plants today is because there wasn't a global flood that lasted 11 months about 4,000 years ago. As is obvious to anyone who looks at that site, if the scientific evidence conflicts with the bible, ignore the evidence.

First, we know God’s Word is true and there was a global Flood. Knowing the Flood happened, and in light of the fact that we have plants today, the important question is: in what ways did the plants and seeds survive the Flood? The logical argument for the fact that plants survived the Flood is actually quite simple.

- The Bible states there was a worldwide Flood.
- We see plants today.
- Therefore plants survived the Flood.

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/aig-plants-survived-the-flood/
 
Top