My argument against materialism

Halfcentaur;6936965]
In a way that is precisely what you're doing actually. Rather than appreciate what science and the accumulated knowledge of humanity knows and can verify of the nigh infinite number of interrelated systems causes and effects in the universe and the systems of behavior that govern it all, you'd rather dismiss it as mundane and material and focus on what you'd rather pretend is better it seems.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me I am a big fan of science, however not having a formal education in science beyond A level, I am not well versed in the "jargon" of science. I have pointed out repeatedly that I see no them and us here, all is knowledge, some is scientifically testable some not.

Perhaps you and some of the other posters in this forum should stand back for a moment and look at your own attitude towards this issue, take a look in the mirror. You(not you personally) are the ones projecting this division and accusations that I have some problem with science. You are the ones stating that ideologies and philosophies that deal with issues science doesn't concern itself with is all nonsense and delusion. You are the ones who say it is pointless to speculate about the big questions of existence.

This is all projection and conflict, does it not occur to you that I am interested in discussing questions about reality and might have something to say.
Am I a delusional idiot? am I a bogey man?

You may claim you're not so uninformed, but your summations beg us to say otherwise. The fact that a person who claims to be open to such appreciation is not stricken with awe and wonder at what we do know (and can only hint at now through abstract symbolic concepts like math) is just dumb founding to me. You're stuck, believing it's limitation of some sort that prevents people from sharing in your pretend world of arbitrary intuitions. You seem like you think the world is all there to be understood based on how it seems to you, while sharing a world with people who don't see what you see. And based on your story about your amazing question for the scientist in school that left your classmates stunned in silence, you get off on thinking this way. The persecuted seer of truths, dismissed by the stuffy short sighted old materialists. And you're not even pulling off the noble part of the truth seeking victim all that well, with your patronizing post above and your delightful commentary on my post over possible scenarios in human evolution for example. :pTut-tut!:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got the "truth seeking victim" from, this could not be further from the truth. Really you and the other guys here don't get me atall.

You seem to have good intentions at the heart of it, and it's great you're asking questions at least I suppose. Hopefully you're young and hopefully you've got a lot more to learn about the finer points of the science you're so quick to dismiss as limited and drab in light of your special god and your spiritual truths
Click to expand...
.

Again I have dismissed nothing.
 
Last edited:
Pure Argent said:
Your two sentences are contradictory.
Click to expand...

The two sentences are in a way contradictory, especially to a word smith like yourself.

The meaning is quite simple though, I am of course by now refering to kind of verification acceptable on this forum.

Is the meaning still contradictory?
 
dafydd said:
Including the possibility that Hindu mythological cosmology is just a collection of old stories?
Click to expand...

No I have not dismissed that either, although I was refering to scientific thinking.

You are beginning to sound like a jumping record Dafydd:p
 
punshhh said:
The two sentences are in a way contradictory, especially to a word smith like yourself.

The meaning is quite simple though, I am of course by now refering to kind of verification acceptable on this forum.

Is the meaning still contradictory?
Click to expand...

Yes. There is only one definition of "verification".
 
Pure Argent said:
So you think that there is another definition of "verification"?
Click to expand...

No we're in agreement on that definition.

My point was that in a similar way to peer review, there is an equivalent survival of the fittest when it comes to what I will loosely call theism.
 
punshhh said:
No we're in agreement on that definition.
Click to expand...

So you know that philosophy and theology cannot verify many of their claims? Why did you say that they could?

My point was that in a similar way to peer review, there is an equivalent survival of the fittest when it comes to what I will loosely call theism.
Click to expand...

That's as may be, but their "peer review" can no more verify their "findings" than any other process they might use.
 
Pure Argent said:
So you know that philosophy and theology cannot verify many of their claims? Why did you say that they could?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have said that, as they are clearly dealing with unverifiable concepts.

That's as may be, but their "peer review" can no more verify their "findings" than any other process they might use.
Click to expand...

Apart from the formal theologies exercised by world religions, which are to a large extent historical traditions.

People who read these areas of thought and or practice a spiritual life, generally filter the material in person or in intimate groups.

Verification as we are using it here is irrelevant in this process.

Philosophy uses logic, I cannot speak for formal philosophy as it is not my discipline.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
I wouldn't have said that, as they are clearly dealing with unverifiable concepts.
Click to expand...

Except that you did.

QUESTION: How do theologists confirm their findings?
YOUR ANSWER: Through a process akin to peer review.

Hence my earlier statement that your two statements were contradictory. You begin by saying "They verify their findings through process X", and then immediately follow with "They cannot verify their findings".
 
punshhh said:
No I have not dismissed that either, although I was refering to scientific thinking.

You are beginning to sound like a jumping record Dafydd:p
Click to expand...

At least I have a record to play. What was your argument against materialism? I must have blinked and missed it.
 
Pure Argent said:
Except that you did.

QUESTION: How do theologists confirm their findings?
YOUR ANSWER: Through a process akin to peer review.

Hence my earlier statement that your two statements were contradictory. You begin by saying "They verify their findings through process X", and then immediately follow with "They cannot verify their findings".
Click to expand...
He'll have his own definition of the word contradictory.
 
punshhh said:
I didn't assume that you had not read much Hinduism either.
Click to expand...
You strongly implied that when you said "This is hinduism I suggest you take some time to read up on it..."

Whatever; unfortunately this seems to be going nowhere.
 
dlorde said:
You strongly implied that when you said "This is hinduism I suggest you take some time to read up on it..."

Whatever; unfortunately this seems to be going nowhere.
Click to expand...

I agree. These ancient Hindus knew the secrets of the universe but punshhh won't reveal his sources.
 
punshhh said:
I am not discussing science.
Click to expand...
You're discussing things explained by science, and ignoring, dismissing, or mangling beyond recognition the relevant science as you do so, in favour of, not to put too fine a point on it, ignorant obscurantist mystical crap.

I'd suggest that you try discussing science instead, because that's the only way you are ever going to get anywhere.

There are no special truths to be discovered in Hindu or Buddhist myth.

How did we reach the Moon, punshhh? How did we stop polio and smallpox? How do we communicate with each other on this forum?

I'll give you a hint: It didn't come from reading the Gitas or the Sutras.

Science is the only way we have to answer questions about the world that actually works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom