My argument against materialism

punshhh said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wrong. That which cannot be scientifically verified cannot ever be called knowledge.
 
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...

"akin" and "confirm" are the issue here I think. If you had used "verify" instead of confirm, my answer would have been quite different. By "akin" I am refering to a process where by the ideology is read discussed and is adopted or rejected on its own merits.

I may on occasion appear to be contradictory in what I write, however every word is carefully chosen and I am aware of the full range of implications of my usage of words as I write them.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Which one is the fittest Punshhh?
Click to expand...

Good question, lets cut to the heart of the matter.

Each seeker arrives at their own choice, through a process, which is more like seeing what fits for them.

For example the set of people who choose (or have a calling) to believe in "God". Is I suspect larger than the set of people who choose or have a calling to believe in Russels teapot.

I do not condone the practices of religious organisations in which they dictate "truth", or indoctrinate people. On analysis such behavior has its root in the manipulation of religious movements for the purpose of "political" power over populations of people.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thankyou for your links yesterday.

I already knew that and saw no explanation of what energy is.

I repeat (now I'm starting to sound like a jumping record), I am a big fan of science. This either or line you keep suggesting is not necessary, I don't buy it.
I understand that there are theists who do take this line, as I see it they are mistaken. This divide or gulf between science and religion which has developed in the west is another consequence of the manipulation of religious movements for "political" ends.

The true scientists and theologians through the ages have been repeatedly driven apart by this manipulation and the resultant them and us "secularism".
Have you ever heard of the phrase "divide and rule".
 
punshhh said:
Thankyou for your links yesterday.

I already knew that and saw no explanation of what energy is.

I repeat (now I'm starting to sound like a jumping record), I am a big fan of science. This either or line you keep suggesting is not necessary, I don't buy it.
I understand that there are theists who do take this line, as I see it they are mistaken. This divide or gulf between science and religion which has developed in the west is another consequence of the manipulation of religious movements for "political" ends.

The true scientists and theologians through the ages have been repeatedly driven apart by this manipulation and the resultant them and us "secularism".
Have you ever heard of the phrase "divide and rule".
Click to expand...

Who's doing this manipulation and "dividing and ruling".
 
laca said:
Wrong. That which cannot be scientifically verified cannot ever be called knowledge.
Click to expand...

There is knowledge relating to aspects of life in which science takes little interest or fails to provide much knowledge about. Are we all to wait in bated breath for science to provide the formula for a happy and contented life for example.
 
tsig said:
Who's doing this manipulation and "dividing and ruling".
Click to expand...

It was mainly historic in the founding and establishing of Roman catholicism, Brahmanism and the like.

The division was already long established for example when Newton and Darwin where tormented over the reception their work would be given by the religious establishment on publication.
 
punshhh said:
Thankyou for your links yesterday.

I already knew that and saw no explanation of what energy is.
Click to expand...
Try again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

I repeat (now I'm starting to sound like a jumping record), I am a big fan of science.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what you may or may not be a fan of.

The way you actually apply science is as if it were simply another of your storybooks. It's not. It's a method for determining whether statements about the world are true and useful. It's the only such method that works with any consistency.

This either or line you keep suggesting is not necessary, I don't buy it.
Click to expand...
That's your problem, and you'll have to deal with it. Science works. Religion doesn't.

I understand that there are theists who do take this line, as I see it they are mistaken. This divide or gulf between science and religion which has developed in the west is another consequence of the manipulation of religious movements for "political" ends.
Click to expand...
No. It's the same everywhere. Science is reality, religion is comforting lies.

The true scientists and theologians through the ages have been repeatedly driven apart by this manipulation and the resultant them and us "secularism".
Click to expand...
Of course.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "divide and rule".
Click to expand...
Divide and conquer. Yes. It is of course entirely irrelevant.

Science works.
 
Punshhh, I think the problem that you're having here is that you don't see the difference between how science affects others compared to religion.

With science, you have verifiable (and verified) truths which are mercilessly pruned of lies and nonsense every day. You have to accept these facts as facts (as you state you are willing to do) or simply deny science, which would be a stupid, ignorant and damaging idea. To deny science one must deny the truth of the universe, to deny what great leaps we've made in the past couple of hundred years since the scientific method first began really really being applied fully and to great effect once more.

Now, you're entirely at liberty to embrace science and hold a belief in god. Some may mock you, some will insist it's wrong, and others, myself included, will pretty much ignore it so long as you keep it to yourself, but it's what you choose to believe. It has no evidence, it has no testable truth to reveal, so for someone outside of religion, for a sceptic, it is essentially worthless to me, and is certainly worthless as a descriptor of the universe.

This is the conflict you cannot resolve. You can believe whatever you like about gods or fairies or unicorns, so fill your boots and carry on. What you cannot do, however, is try to state these things are absolutely true, because you have no real, objective way of knowing. You can believe any old pseudo-scientific, metaphysical claptrap you want to, but that doesn't make it true, and if it isn't testable and produces no results about how the world works like science does, we've got absolutely no reason to buy it.

We have to accept science because the results are there for us all to see. Some of it is tentative (technically all of it is if you want to be fully literal, but so much is just so well supported we might as well rubber stamp "Truth" over it) and some is still just theory and could be wrong, but that doesn't mean it's on the same level as chakras. No one has any evidence for chakras. You can't test for them, so we can't show that they exist, and you can't replicate them in other people so you can't get others to see for themselves. We only have sketchy and very limited anecdotal evidence to go on, and anecdotes are just not good enough.

You might argue that the evidence we have in science is perceived by humans and thus just as likely to be wrong, but this isn't the case because those experiments are reproducible and in order to be passed through peer review they are reproduced. They are done countless times and the same result is got each time. Over and over these things are done. Countless times, countless scientists in countless labs covering the same material over and over to make sure it absolutely works. That's what the rigour of science does, that's why we are confident in it's accuracy, and that's what your arguments cannot do and thus why we reject them. We ask for evidence, mathematics and experiments not out of peevishness or a desire t score points, but because that is the only way, the one single ONLY way we can test the veracity of any claim, and if it can't be tested, it may as well be false.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Punshhh, I think the problem that you're having here is that you don't see the difference between how science affects others compared to religion.

With science, you have verifiable (and verified) truths which are mercilessly pruned of lies and nonsense every day. You have to accept these facts as facts (as you state you are willing to do) or simply deny science, which would be a stupid, ignorant and damaging idea. To deny science one must deny the truth of the universe, to deny what great leaps we've made in the past couple of hundred years since the scientific method first began really really being applied fully and to great effect once more.

Now, you're entirely at liberty to embrace science and hold a belief in god. Some may mock you, some will insist it's wrong, and others, myself included, will pretty much ignore it so long as you keep it to yourself, but it's what you choose to believe. It has no evidence, it has no testable truth to reveal, so for someone outside of religion, for a sceptic, it is essentially worthless to me, and is certainly worthless as a descriptor of the universe.

This is the conflict you cannot resolve. You can believe whatever you like about gods or fairies or unicorns, so fill your boots and carry on. What you cannot do, however, is try to state these things are absolutely true, because you have no real, objective way of knowing. You can believe any old pseudo-scientific, metaphysical claptrap you want to, but that doesn't make it true, and if it isn't testable and produces no results about how the world works like science does, we've got absolutely no reason to buy it.

We have to accept science because the results are there for us all to see. Some of it is tentative (technically all of it is if you want to be fully literal, but so much is just so well supported we might as well rubber stamp "Truth" over it) and some is still just theory and could be wrong, but that doesn't mean it's on the same level as chakras. No one has any evidence for chakras. You can't test for them, so we can't show that they exist, and you can't replicate them in other people so you can't get others to see for themselves. We only have sketchy and very limited anecdotal evidence to go on, and anecdotes are just not good enough.

You might argue that the evidence we have in science is perceived by humans and thus just as likely to be wrong, but this isn't the case because those experiments are reproducible and in order to be passed through peer review they are reproduced. They are done countless times and the same result is got each time. Over and over these things are done. Countless times, countless scientists in countless labs covering the same material over and over to make sure it absolutely works. That's what the rigour of science does, that's why we are confident in it's accuracy, and that's what your arguments cannot do and thus why we reject them. We ask for evidence, mathematics and experiments not out of peevishness or a desire t score points, but because that is the only way, the one single ONLY way we can test the veracity of any claim, and if it can't be tested, it may as well be false.
Click to expand...

I am in agreement:)
 
punshhh said:
I am in agreement:)
Click to expand...

Then you accept that what you're pushing is indistinguishable in terms of how likely it is to be true from the idea that the universe is being dreamed by Cajjo the giant blue space weasel?
 
PixyMisa said:
Then why do you talk so much nonsense?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I saw no explanation of what energy is(is constituted of).

Do you remember my discussion with Robin about unbounded, well we have a similar problem here.

We have matter(x) and energy (y).

(y) can only de known to exist through being a part of or acting upon (x).

This may be fine, but a physicist on this forum told me the other day that everything is energy.

Please define(y) energy without using(x) matter?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Then you accept that what you're pushing is indistinguishable in terms of how likely it is to be true from the idea that the universe is being dreamed by Cajjo the giant blue space weasel?
Click to expand...

Please view my last two posts in thread;

"There is no evidence for God", I address this point there. Along with addressing it in my first post to you this morning, where I mentioned Russels tea pot.
 
punshhh said:
Unfortunately I saw no explanation of what energy is(is constituted of).

Do you remember my discussion with Robin about unbounded, well we have a similar problem here.
Click to expand...
We didn't have a problem there.

But your point below is better (and would be better yet if you just left all the x's and the y's out of it - they don't have any function):
We have matter(x) and energy (y).

(y) can only de known to exist through being a part of or acting upon (x).

This may be fine, but a physicist on this forum told me the other day that everything is energy.

Please define(y) energy without using(x) matter?
Click to expand...
I have been saying on this forum for years that we don't know what matter is or what energy is.

But the fact is that we don't and probably can't know what anything is.

If we had the answer to a question in the form "What is A?" then it might be something like "A is B". Then we would only have the further question "What is B?". And so ad infinitum. If there was ever a final answer then it would just be "it is what it is".

So we can't know what is - we can only know what happens. Asking what anything is is ultimately meaningless.

Science describes what happens.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
Through a process akin to peer review.

Such issues are by definition unverifiable, other than through personal experience.
Click to expand...

Except most of them don't record the results or use protocols and controls. So it is confirmation bias laden.

They could , and I have, but they don't.

It could just as accurate to have a system, of Power Rangers as the chakras.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom