Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 5:15:46 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Reason doesn't ignore human nature, it explains it and gives us an understanding of it.

In that case then, I do not exist? I am after all, a collection of particles interacting with one another - much the same as a star. It is impossible for the sun to have conciousness, ergo I also do not have conciousness, for if I have then the sun also does. I am the bizarre byproduct of an unusual collection of particles interacting unusually. This is what purer sciences indicate me to be, and thus there is no human nature except as the illusory byproduct of chemical reactions. Pure science has no time for anything more, and it does not say anything about human nature, rather it concludes the above.

Myth is as clear as mud.

How so? Myths speak of eternal truths about human nature and are as valid today as they ever were. True, we must have access to the language and culture in which they were conceived, but then again myths evolve (unlike scripture) to suit their time and place whilst retaining their inherent truths. This is why I asked about myth, rather than remaining stuck in the Judeo-Christian model. The devaluation of myth via preference for scripture is one of the crimes for which the Christian Church must be held accountable. Myths are only as clear as mud, if we choose to make them so - whether that be by religious suppression or over reliance on rationality. We are feeling humans, not rational computers. 01000111100001100001111 means nothing to us, but Star Wars as a modernised mythic form does.

e.g I don't know if you watched Newsnight yesterday. Celts have held onto the myth that Anglo-Saxons commited a genocide against them in the 5th century. Now some historians have noticed there are English place names in England from before the Roman occupation which has led some historians to believe Germanic tribes occupied England around the same time Celtic tribes moved up from Spain and occupied the Celtic fringes of Britain. So much for the clarity of myth. If these historians are right, Bodicea was not a Celt but a German!

It wouldnt surprise me; we Anglo Saxons are wonderful after all (though by scientific terms no different to any other collection of particles of course). But this is legend, not myth. Genocide does not exist either - the killing of one by another, or the killing of thousands by others is no such thing, since all that occurred was that one collection of particles collided with another collection, the result of which was that the second collection dispersed sufficiently for it to cease to survive as a collection of particles.



_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 161
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 5:40:36 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Meatcleaver you are playing the same record over and over, pointing out the weaknesses in the major religions and then leaping to the conclusion that God cannot exist. If you remember Aneurin Bevan he coined a phrase that is relevent to you...

You are undergoning an emotional spasm.   lol


Insults are the only thing religionists have to fall back on because they have run out of any rational defence for their views.


MC thats not an insult its just a "jokey" aside...and true.
You had a post banned quite recently which I suspect may have contained a response to the the point I made about it being possible to conclude that God has no interest in humans.
So there !

Realone's post above....brilliant. doesnt say much about the existence or other wise of GOD. though

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 162
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 5:56:42 AM   
Tikkiee


Posts: 1099
Joined: 4/6/2006
Status: offline 		~~ General reply ~~
 
Shucks, I was going to contribute, but seeing how this thread has turned into a religion vs science bash fest, I think I will just step back out quietly.
 
Ya'll have a nice day and play nice

_____________________________

~~@ cass @~~

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 163
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 6:10:47 AM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline 		"We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable."
- Richard Dawkins, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html

---

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
And I stand by my contention that objective reality exists, and is it not predicated on scientific knowledge, as you falsely asserted.


No, I didn't falsely assert anything of the kind. I made a misstatement - I wrote other than what I meant. What I meant was later restated in post #41 [ http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=750630 ] (and perhaps still stated too loosely for our purposes here):
"Science tells you how you know what you know." It's not the case that I disagree with what you have written above. To the contrary my point, however poorly stated, was that your point that "objective reality exists" is what is precisely true AND my own point that the idea of god brings nothing to the party.

In my misstatement I was trying to get across the ideas behind the philosophy of Epistemology. With processes and logic shockingly similar to what is normally brought to bear on matters scientific, the philosophy of Epistemology seeks to define how we know what we think we know.

The epistemological process is exactly how we know that there is an apple and only an apple on the table despite the delusional certainty of the Pastafarian Believer that there is also a plate of fettuccine alfredo - a delusion unconfirmed by any possible scientific evidence. Objective reality is the apple (agreed to by all); delusion is the fettuccine alfredo (perhaps agreed to by some few, but less than all). Consensus alone does not make the apple a part of objective reality, but certainly near universal consensus is implied and part of the "we" of "what we think we know." But this is no more than to admit that in objective reality there is the observer and that which is observed.

A more robust discussion of Epistemology would here be a huge digression, so I'll leave it there.



_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 164
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 6:23:01 AM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
In that case then, I do not exist? I am after all, a collection of particles interacting with one another - much the same as a star. It is impossible for the sun to have conciousness, ergo I also do not have conciousness, for if I have then the sun also does. I am the bizarre byproduct of an unusual collection of particles interacting unusually.


After seeing the above, it occurs to me that some might like to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

You aren't seeing the forest, LadyEllen, just the trees...

The particles in you result at a higher level in something we call a human being. A human being is not a star, although they may both have some of the same constituent particles. Whether you have consciousness is a matter of conjecture. We know you have a nervous system and appear to be self-aware. Although I think what you meant by consciousness was what many might also call a "mind" - which again is the subject of much conjecture. I don't personally see anything unusual in this arrangement.


_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 165
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 6:41:46 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

MC thats not an insult its just a "jokey" aside...and true.
You had a post banned quite recently which I suspect may have contained a response to the the point I made about it being possible to conclude that God has no interest in humans.
So there !



I've no idea if I had a post banned or not but maybe I have been hitting too many nerves but I don't recall insulting someone.

I didn't take it as insult, I was just a little frustrated.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 166
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 6:46:28 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Reason doesn't ignore human nature, it explains it and gives us an understanding of it.

In that case then, I do not exist? I am after all, a collection of particles interacting with one another - much the same as a star. It is impossible for the sun to have conciousness, ergo I also do not have conciousness, for if I have then the sun also does. I am the bizarre byproduct of an unusual collection of particles interacting unusually. This is what purer sciences indicate me to be, and thus there is no human nature except as the illusory byproduct of chemical reactions. Pure science has no time for anything more, and it does not say anything about human nature, rather it concludes the above.

Myth is as clear as mud.

How so? Myths speak of eternal truths about human nature and are as valid today as they ever were. True, we must have access to the language and culture in which they were conceived, but then again myths evolve (unlike scripture) to suit their time and place whilst retaining their inherent truths. This is why I asked about myth, rather than remaining stuck in the Judeo-Christian model. The devaluation of myth via preference for scripture is one of the crimes for which the Christian Church must be held accountable. Myths are only as clear as mud, if we choose to make them so - whether that be by religious suppression or over reliance on rationality. We are feeling humans, not rational computers. 01000111100001100001111 means nothing to us, but Star Wars as a modernised mythic form does.

e.g I don't know if you watched Newsnight yesterday. Celts have held onto the myth that Anglo-Saxons commited a genocide against them in the 5th century. Now some historians have noticed there are English place names in England from before the Roman occupation which has led some historians to believe Germanic tribes occupied England around the same time Celtic tribes moved up from Spain and occupied the Celtic fringes of Britain. So much for the clarity of myth. If these historians are right, Bodicea was not a Celt but a German!

It wouldnt surprise me; we Anglo Saxons are wonderful after all (though by scientific terms no different to any other collection of particles of course). But this is legend, not myth. Genocide does not exist either - the killing of one by another, or the killing of thousands by others is no such thing, since all that occurred was that one collection of particles collided with another collection, the result of which was that the second collection dispersed sufficiently for it to cease to survive as a collection of particles.



This is what I don't understand. You complain about science reducing everything to a collection of particles while religious people would have us reduced to a series of irrational beliefs consisting of something vaguely called a spirit that inhabits some vague notion of a place called spirituality that appears to adhere to no natural laws whatesoever. It sounds very much like nothing to me.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 167
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 6:59:14 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

The particles in you result at a higher level in something we call a human being. A human being is not a star, although they may both have some of the same constituent particles. Whether you have consciousness is a matter of conjecture. We know you have a nervous system and appear to be self-aware. Although I think what you meant by consciousness was what many might also call a "mind" - which again is the subject of much conjecture. I don't personally see anything unusual in this arrangement.



And there is a problem then. Less pure sciences (psychology, sociology), tell me that I do have a mind - but pure sciences (physics, chemistry) such as are being used here to demolish God, view that assertion as conjectural. If we dance on the tip of the razor, then all is explained by particle physics no different to any other particle physics (such as inside a star), and particles neither require a mind to make them interreact, and nor can they logically be held to produce conciousness, unless every interreaction of the same particles under lab conditions, also produces conciousness.

I just see this huge paradox here, that something which pure science views as conjectural at best, and in pure terms impossible, (the mind), is being used to communicate observations it could not possibly have observed, given its non existence in those terms, about the non existence of a being called God.

Now, the possible existence of my mind and its belief in something more than particle physics, does not prove that God exists of course. But, if my mind is purely an illusory byproduct of particle reactions, then all that it perceives must also be equally suspect - and that includes whatever science can show, for with whatever rationality, impartiality and objectivity it might attempt to be conducted, its conception in the mind, its execution by way of the mind and its observations and conclusions by way of the mind, are all built upon a non-rational, very partial and subjective illusion.

Science destroys itself in this way, and becomes only as reliable as any other conjuring of a mind which science says is an improbable entity; such as God, for instance. Millions worldwide claim to have had direct experience of God, just as millions worldwide have conducted at some stage in their lives, a chemistry experiment. The observations made of both are based on the workings of the mind, so why is it, given all of this, that only one observation is judged true, whilst the other is deemed ridiculous? Either the mind exists or it does not, and if science wishes to say that the mind is only viable when it disavows a belief in God, then that is a strange situation indeed, more akin to a religion than any form of science.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Chaingang)
Profile   Post #: 168
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 7:15:49 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

This is what I don't understand. You complain about science reducing everything to a collection of particles while religious people would have us reduced to a series of irrational beliefs consisting of something vaguely called a spirit that inhabits some vague notion of a place called spirituality that appears to adhere to no natural laws whatesoever. It sounds very much like nothing to me.


This is the problem you have MC; you are trapped into a very small box regarding what religion is. Something which I've been trying to demonstrate in reverse with my reductionism regarding science, but no one seems to have picked up on it! Reductionism in both science and religion might lead to a detail of one aspect which otherwise is insignificant, but trying to draw conclusions from a such view which are applicable to every situation usually ends up with ridiculous models that simply do not reflect the greater whole.

You see, I agree with you about much of what is peddled as religion in our culture; its rubbish, based on irrational beliefs deriving from what was once knowledge but has since been seen as false. But the rubbish does not devalue the whole, just as anthropology was not rubbished by its nazi interpretation. Where what passes as religion in our culture fails, is in its ridiculous adherence to and support for what is outdated, redundant and demonstrably false, because it depends on immutable scripture.

My religion is nothing of the sort you see. My religion (better said, spiritual tradition) is one which always has, does and always will evolve, without any need to rely on anything other than what is useful, needful and true according to real world conditions, rather than harking back to stuff that is now useless, pointless and followed because of ancient diktat. My religion has no problem with science - our cosmology happens to be closer to what science says than the Judeo-Christian model to start with, but then our science is part of our religion, because our religion is not a go to church Sunday affair, it encompasses everything, and is not only capable of change but does change according to the world around it - all whilst preserving what has always been important.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 169
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 7:17:18 AM   
Tikkiee


Posts: 1099
Joined: 4/6/2006
Status: offline 		You know, if you really want to get technical about this we can.
 
 
Science is nothing more than a system used to acquire knowledge; since the existence of a supreme being is subjective; science neither proves nor disproves the existence of one.
 
 

_____________________________

~~@ cass @~~

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 170
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 7:33:36 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tikkiee

Science is nothing more than a system used to acquire knowledge; since the existence of a supreme being is subjective; science neither proves nor disproves the existence of one. 
  


Pink elephants with bananas up their arses are also subjective and there existence can't be proved or disproved either.

I also walk on water and can turn water into wine and bring the dead back to life but only when no one is looking and I object to being studied when I'm doing it. 

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Tikkiee)
Profile   Post #: 171
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 7:41:09 AM   
Tikkiee


Posts: 1099
Joined: 4/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Pink elephants with bananas up their arses are also subjective and there existence can't be proved or disproved either.

I also walk on water and can turn water into wine and bring the dead back to life but only when no one is looking and I object to being studied when I'm doing it. 

LOL don't even try it with me...I am in much too ugly a mood
 
However, if you would truly like to discuss the THEORIES that abound both in science and in theology, I am more than willing to do so. Email me, I am sure that you are capable of rational debate and thought

_____________________________

~~@ cass @~~

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 172
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 7:43:41 AM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Meatcleaver you are playing the same record over and over, pointing out the weaknesses in the major religions and then leaping to the conclusion that God cannot exist. If you remember Aneurin Bevan he coined a phrase that is relevent to you...

You are undergoning an emotional spasm.   lol


And your own, you can't prove He ain't so He is and rationalists have no souls merry-go-round, is that fresh out of the box, seeks? You can do better!

Well... maybe not.

Z.


_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 173
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 7:53:33 AM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline 		LadyEllen:

That's the god of the gaps again, in my view. You are saying that whatever is not understood is where god, or spirituality, or consciousness resides. Conversely, you are demanding that science produce a complete, nearly infinite explanation for all things right now. In epistemological terms, that's the argument of regress.

As a skeptic, I prefer to remain more certain of what I don't know than what I do know. I have no immediate need for all of the answers.

The problem with an idea like the god Odin, as aesthetically pleasing as it may be, is that it is literally plucked from the air. Nothing supports this notion of a god Odin except human beings wishing it to be so. But wishing it does not make it so.

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

or

If wishes were eight-legged horses, then Odin might ride.


_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 174
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 7:56:54 AM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tikkiee

However, if you would truly like to discuss the THEORIES that abound both in science and in theology, I am more than willing to do so. Email me, I am sure that you are capable of rational debate and thought


Don't be coy. If  you've got the goods then spill 'em right here, by all means. We've been waiting nine pages for it.


Z.


_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to Tikkiee)
Profile   Post #: 175
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 8:23:43 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL LadyEllen
Now, the possible existence of my mind and its belief in something more than particle physics, does not prove that God exists of course. But, if my mind is purely an illusory byproduct of particle reactions, then all that it perceives must also be equally suspect - and that includes whatever science can show, for with whatever rationality, impartiality and objectivity it might attempt to be conducted, its conception in the mind, its execution by way of the mind and its observations and conclusions by way of the mind, are all built upon a non-rational, very partial and subjective illusion.


LadyE you are a clever little trucker, you have skewered the scientific rationalists, and they still cant see it !!! 

(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 176
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 8:56:16 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

LadyEllen:

That's the god of the gaps again, in my view. You are saying that whatever is not understood is where god, or spirituality, or consciousness resides. Conversely, you are demanding that science produce a complete, nearly infinite explanation for all things right now. In epistemological terms, that's the argument of regress.

As a skeptic, I prefer to remain more certain of what I don't know than what I do know. I have no immediate need for all of the answers.

The problem with an idea like the god Odin, as aesthetically pleasing as it may be, is that it is literally plucked from the air. Nothing supports this notion of a god Odin except human beings wishing it to be so. But wishing it does not make it so.

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

or

If wishes were eight-legged horses, then Odin might ride.



Not at all Chaingang; I was pointing out the irrationality of believing anything which the illusory concept of "mind" might indicate to be the case. The instrument itself has no rational explanation and ergo in scientific terms is unproven, and yet it is being used to establish rationality above spirituality, when each must be equally flawed, if one of them is, because the means of their arising is baseless in the first place. Science and religion are equally ridiculous in these terms, and are different conjurings of the same bogus "mind" - making it more than ridiculous to ascertain that one conjuring is true and the other false.

As for Odin; he is as real as anything else which a mind might conceive using the above reasoning. Anything else as in literally anything else.

Conversely of course, the mind might well be real and able to discern observations as true to objectively as is possible. This must then validate all observations, and just because some have observed one thing, and others have not, it does not mean that the thing has no proof. Does Mumbai exist? I have only others' words to say so as I have never been in a place called Mumbai, yet I have no reason to doubt those who have witnessed that city. Just as I have never seen a nuclear reaction and have only others' words to go by, and just the same have no reason to doubt what I'm told. No one can prove that Mumbai exists without showing me it, and no one can prove that nuclear reactions are real without showing me it - without such witness, it is all words and nothing more. Just like my words as to my witness of what you might term God; unless you witness too, you have to make your own decision whether to believe me or not. Consensus either way though, doesnt make it so.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Chaingang)
Profile   Post #: 177
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 8:58:04 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

quote:

ORIGINAL LadyEllen
Now, the possible existence of my mind and its belief in something more than particle physics, does not prove that God exists of course. But, if my mind is purely an illusory byproduct of particle reactions, then all that it perceives must also be equally suspect - and that includes whatever science can show, for with whatever rationality, impartiality and objectivity it might attempt to be conducted, its conception in the mind, its execution by way of the mind and its observations and conclusions by way of the mind, are all built upon a non-rational, very partial and subjective illusion.


LadyE you are a clever little trucker, you have skewered the scientific rationalists, and they still cant see it !!! 



I know.....! Arent I naughty!? LOL!

edited to add - but I dont see this as a battle to be won/lost. The only victory here is in each side seeing that neither is the be all and end all.

E

< Message edited by LadyEllen -- 1/4/2007 9:03:07 AM >

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 178
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 11:22:57 AM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline 		Nope, not skewered - that's god of the gaps all over again. As I said.

I believe in nervous systems that eat, drink, expel waste, and observe things. I can't explain what brings them to life or what causes them to die beyond certain habits common to the species. But just because I don't have an end to end explanation for the advent of human beings doesn't mean that god exists in the gaps of my knowledge - that would violate the observed rule of parsimony.

And interestingly, god has never appeared anywhere in observed phenomena as the explanation as to the why the sky is blue or the earth is round. No evidence leads in that direction. That's why it is parsimonious to assume that the hypothetical god explanation will never lead anywhere - it never has before.

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 179
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 11:33:15 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Ok, I read the article on Epistemology.  First thing I noticed is that there is no consensus, and several competing schools of thought.  I assume you are picking one variety of it and putting faith in it(which ain't science).  Interstingly also, much of the work of Epistemology comes from the Hindu and Bhuddist religoius traditions, they call it Pramana.  With out faith in un proven beliefs we can't know anything according to some of the schools. 
But back to our earlier point, we do not have to understand the science of fire to make fire.  If you think that rubbing sticks together angers the faires in the wood, so they get hot and make fire, you still have a fire.  Your second point is as wrong as your first one,""Science tells you how you know what you know.",  simply is not true.  You can pretend that it is for you, but there is no science that says one branch of Epitemology is true and the others are not.  You choose the one you like for you own personal reasons and decide its true.  Thats not science, its faith. 

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.110