kerpal32: BTw - you're obviously well versed in rhetoric and able to quote Dawkins, but have you read anything about science and the philosophy of science that wasn't from some atheist ideological perspective?

I'm betting not. You don't seem capable.

/$5 says you never read anything of Bohm's (probably never heard of him), or if you did, nothing beyond the the rote formulation of mathematical theory.

I have been grappling with the idea of not calling myself an atheist for some time now, due to my personal beliefs, which are undoubtedly spritual, but still probablity based.

My best friend is an Atheist, my other 3 closest friends have no doubt that god exsists and are devout christians.

kerpal32: BTw - you're obviously well versed in rhetoric and able to quote Dawkins, but have you read anything about science and the philosophy of science that wasn't from some atheist ideological perspective?

I'm betting not. You don't seem capable.

/$5 says you never read anything of Bohm's (probably never heard of him), or if you did, nothing beyond the the rote formulation of mathematical theory.

I have been to Dawkins site ONCE. I have not read his book, I skimmed through it and got the jist. It was nothing new to be honest.

guyinjeep16: Wave function, doesnt matter the distance, entanglement between the two determines the others fate, something to that effect...

great, you understand some of the rote aspects. But again, nothing about the Bohm (or others) and philosophy....

All you do is keep insisting anytime anyone points out the limits of science, logical positivism, the actual philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics and all those other aspects I noted that they MUST be imposing "theism" into science. You're like a modern day fundamentalist crying "witch!" Or "God of the Gaps!" rhetoric by "recently self aware talking meat" who are pushing their own agenda and can't admit atheism is just a philosophical position.

One of the things I object to is people with agendas presenting science to non-scientists in this manner as if we've reached some apex. When in reality, at some point we're likely to re-write a lot of what we think we "know" as predictive models of phenomenon, or find there's much more we didn't realize.

Because there's so much we don't know and understand. And being "super duper optimistic" that science will figure it out like replacing religion with science. But you haven't taken time to understand what science is, what the philosophy of science is from multiple views, and you certainly don't understand the philosophy of mathematics. And all those other things I pointed out to you. Even after spending months pointing it out to you and you now being able to play little semantic bullshiat games around it. You still don't get it. And abb3w even agreed, you didn't get it. I think you've just learned to parrot rhetoric.

I also question your motives. I've never once promoted theism. I've only defended it against people like you who seem to think atheism = science.

Back to Bohm and others....., what about competing theories, especially if you look at it without the emergence of time as a non-commutative space of infinite dimensions and how it affects nonlocality. What it time were a figment of your imagination....?

what if gravity were variable and shielded?

You haven't read Bohm and others on philosophy (and the philosophy of science), or you'd understand what I'm pointing out regarding nonlocality, non-commutative space and entanglement. What if it operates on a larger scale than quantum space or half a Planck length?

I have friends who are atheists. You've attacked me, said I don't know any atheists, said I promote theism in science, said I must be a creationist or ID'er, said I'm not a scientist, and all sorts of other rude bullshiat. And you wonder WHY I think you're an idiot with no farking clue about any of the things I outlined above? Hell, you're such a puss you couldn't even admit what you don't know or understand, even when abb3w said so in another thread just this evening. One in which your thuggy little clique pulled their usual bullshiat.

you're not worth the effort because you can't be honest with yourself, much less anyone else. And it shows.

Quick - scream witch! I mean theism!

The stream of human knowledge is impartially heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of this realm.
~Sir John Jeans

Go back to your little clique.

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: Wave function, doesnt matter the distance, entanglement between the two determines the others fate, something to that effect...

great, you understand some of the rote aspects. But again, nothing about the Bohm (or others) and philosophy....

All you do is keep insisting anytime anyone points out the limits of science, logical positivism, the actual philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics and all those other aspects I noted that they MUST be imposing "theism" into science. You're like a modern day fundamentalist crying "witch!" Or "God of the Gaps!" rhetoric by "recently self aware talking meat" who are pushing their own agenda and can't admit atheism is just a philosophical position.

One of the things I object to is people with agendas presenting science to non-scientists in this manner as if we've reached some apex. When in reality, at some point we're likely to re-write a lot of what we think we "know" as predictive models of phenomenon, or find there's much more we didn't realize.

Because there's so much we don't know and understand. And being "super duper optimistic" that science will figure it out like replacing religion with science. But you haven't taken time to understand what science is, what the philosophy of science is from multiple views, and you certainly don't understand the philosophy of mathematics. And all those other things I pointed out to you. Even after spending months pointing it out to you and you now being able to play little semantic bullshiat games around it. You still don't get it. And abb3w even agreed, you didn't get it. I think you've just learned to parrot rhetoric.

I also question your motives. I've never once promoted theism. I've only defended it against people like you who seem to think atheism = science.

Back to Bohm and others....., what about competing theories, especially if you look at it without the emergence of time as a non-commutative space of infinite dimensions and how it affects nonlocality. What it time were a figment of your imagination....?

what if gravity were variable and shielded?

You haven't read Bohm and others on philosophy (and the philosophy of science), or you'd understand what I'm pointing out regarding nonlocality, non-commutative space and entanglement. What if it operates on a larger scale than quantum space or half a Planck length?

I have friends who are atheists. You've attacked me, said I don't know any atheists, said I promote theism in science, said I must be a creationist or ID'er, said I'm not a scientist, and all sorts of other rude bullshiat. And you wonder WHY I think you're an idiot with no farking clue about any of the things I outlined above? Hell, you're such a puss you couldn't even admit what you don't know or understand, even when abb3w said so in another thread just this evening. One in which your thuggy little clique pulled their usual bullshiat.

you're not worth the effort because you can't be honest with yourself, much less anyone else. And it shows.

Quick - scream witch! I mean theism!

The stream of human knowledge is impartially heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of this realm.
~Sir John Jeans

Go back to your little clique.

What if blue were white, up was down?

What if , what if?

You deal in philosophy, which is fine.

I question what practical uses you do deal with. I deal with them in Meteorology and Aviation, and so far so good.

I start teaching a meteorology class this fall. Ill leave the philosophy of "what if" to you.

Keep me posted.

kerpal32: One of the things I object to is people with agendas presenting science to non-scientists in this manner as if we've reached some apex. When in reality, at some point we're likely to re-write a lot of what we think we "know" as predictive models of phenomenon, or find there's much more we didn't realize.

WOW !! -what insight! You mean science will continune to work as it always has?!?! Amazing!!! Thanks for enlightening us all!

Science will continue on as it always has, a self correcting always changing, study of the natural world.

Now what were you trying to really say here?

kerpal32: I also question your motives. I've never once promoted theism. I've only defended it against people like you who seem to think atheism = science.

Still stuck on this are ya?

Athiesm is simply point at which I try to start.
To start with nothing, and then learn without bias, is the way to truth. Atheism is simply starting with nothing.

You are suggesting I start with ... what exactly?

What view do you start your research with? From what viewpoint??

kerpal32: Hell, you're such a puss you couldn't even admit what you don't know or understand, even when abb3w said so in another thread just this evening. One in which your thuggy little clique pulled their usual bullshiat.

I dont know what others said, I do know that everything is not empirically testable. Never said that it was.
Try again.

kerpal32: The stream of human knowledge is impartially heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of this realm.
~Sir John Jeans

So what? What looks like the desing of a mind to one, looks like the working of the natural world to another.

My personal beliefs? I think that our thoughts as we have them shape and mold the universe, so in sense I agree with the quote you posted. They seem to be in line with universal laws of attraction.

But you know what? The universe doesnt care what I believe (I cant prove that it does anyway) so it has no place in science, and the quote and what I believe have no say scientifically.

guyinjeep16: kerpal32: The stream of human knowledge is impartially heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of this realm.
~Sir John Jeans

So what? What looks like the desing of a mind to one, looks like the working of the natural world to another.

My personal beliefs? I think that our thoughts as we have them shape and mold the universe, so in sense I agree with the quote you posted. They seem to be in line with universal laws of attraction.

But you know what? The universe doesnt care what I believe (I cant prove that it does anyway) so it has no place in science, and the quote and what I believe have no say scientifically.

I should clarify... I believe this to be true and believe that as we progress it will prove to be more and more true, that our thoughts shape and control the universe, and that everything is linked vibrationaly. Like atracts like, ect...

But there is a fine line of what we believe to be true and what is true.

I drunk what: I'd really like to hear more of your religious views and less of why atheists are such willfully stupid hypocrites



maddogdelta: That's why you need to hang out with pookas. They are much more pleasant.

Only to someone who has tried both being oh-so-clever and oh-so-pleasant and settled firmly on and mastered the latter. Whichever the mortal be inclined to, a pooka will strive its utmost to outdo.

kerpal32: I understand that
kerpal32: I could go into the specifics of why



I drunk what: but more to the point I presume your claim of common ancestry is more along the lines of saying that hummingbirds, whales, geckos, pineapples, mushrooms, virus, bacteria and humans all share the same ancestor? ...a rock cell.

FTFY. For "rock", you need to go back a bit further, and include "virus" and "crystal".

maddogdelta: I thought all fields of study were based on guesswork except for engineering.

Engineering has even more guesswork than Science.

maddogdelta: First, is a person who has a username of aaronra.

Cool; I was wondering who the hell aaronra was.

maddogdelta: You either read the items you were presented, or you did not.



I drunk what: /is anyone getting them?

Do you want to count those who consider you a joke?

kerpal32: I don't think you understand



kerpal32: it's the dumb, vicious social outcast looking for a sense of elitism and a self-rationalized moral imperative who are as easily indoctrinated as any "religious fundamentalist" that are just as much a concern as any "religious fundamentalist"

Not half the concern as warranted for those who don't give a damn about elitism or imperative, however.

I drunk what: I think absolute truth manifests itself in many forms. such as religion, science, etc...

Science isn't in the business of "absolute truth"; at best, Science wants "good enough for Engineering purposes".

kerpal32: . And abb3w even agreed, you didn't get it. I think you've just learned to parrot rhetoric.

Lamentably, I'll still agree with this assessment... although the ongoing ability to learn hasn't been ruled out.

guyinjeep16: I do know that everything is not empirically testable. Never said that it was.
guyinjeep16: I believe that all things can eventually be tested scientifically.

So, what other forms of scientific testing do you recognize that are not empirical?

guyinjeep16: more and more true

If you can handle set theory, I suggest you find a book which covers construction for Boolean lattices; Wikipedia has CliffNotes/SparkNotes grade coverage at best. TRUE is (as I understand) a lattice maximal element, so "more and more TRUE" is conceptually sloppy.

guyinjeep16: But there is a fine line of what we believe to be true and what is true.

No, it's far too fuzzy to be a "line". Although a topologist might be able to give a different interpretation and axiom schemata for "line" where "fuzzy" works....

cthellis: I drunk what: ninjakirby: Near as I can tell, he takes each religions claims, compares it to his religions claims the Bible which all "christians" claim to use as their history-constitution-rulebook and which IDW interprets however he feels like, and then uses the results as his rubric to decide which claims are valid conflict with his personal interpretation and are therefore "invalid."

If I'm reconstructing this correctly, I drunk what just admitted to using the Bible as his ruler to judge the validity of other religions?

Is that correct?

Near as I can tell, he takes each religions claims, compares it to the Bible which all "christians" claim to use as their history-constitution-rulebook and then uses the results to decide which claims are valid.

Cause if there has ever been a time for this, this is it: