Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yep. Like I said, for example:Grumblenuts said:Yeah, sounds good and fancy. But no, at root "science" is just another word for "study."
which is "the study of the nature of God and religious belief."
Jay Gould was brilliant and famous. Dictionaries generally supply good definitions. Then again, from long experience I know what I'm talking about. "Science" is (functionally) just another word for "study."Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues.
Science is the body of accrued knowledge based upon observation, hypothesis, and experimentation to develop empirical data that is always subject to the accrual of additional empirical data.Grumblenuts said:"Science" is just another word for "study."
Okay, one last attempt. First, I already clarified my meaning by adding the caveat "functionally." Also, there are both the noun and verb forms of "study" to consider. Picking one's preferred published definition of "science" is just deliberately missing the point. Neither "science" nor "religion" function as "an approach." Scientific method is an approach. To any extent "One can study either, both, or neither" study (verb form) remains the functional point, whereas epistemology (noun) is the specific form or method of study that contrasts the two or not as the case may be. But don't believe me. I'm just tellin' ya after mulling it all over for fifty some years.Science is the body of accrued knowledge based upon observation, hypothesis, and experimentation to develop empirical data that is always subject to the accrual of additional empirical data.Grumblenuts said:"Science" is just another word for "study."
Religion is dogmatic and approaches reality quite differently.
One can study either, both, or neither.
Millions have spent thousands of years pondering over such imponderables.Grumblenuts said:Okay, one last attempt. First, I already clarified my meaning by adding the caveat "functionally." Also, there are both the noun and verb forms of "study" to consider. Picking one's preferred published definition of "science" is just deliberately missing the point. Neither "science" nor "religion" function as "an approach." Scientific method is an approach. To any extent "One can study either, both, or neither" study (verb form) remains the functional point, whereas epistemology (noun) is the specific form or method of study that contrasts the two or not as the case may be. But don't believe me. I'm just tellin' ya after mulling it all over for fifty some years.
Saying that religion is unnecessary seems to defy the scientific principle of natural selection. According to the principles of natural selection if religion offered no functional advantage whatsoever (i.e. it was unnecessary) it would have died out long ago like our vestigial tail.Yeah, saying "it's the method that matters" is not some hifalutin "imponderable" but whatever. Enjoy your dancing upon pins.
eta: I object to misguidedly ceding ground to religion. Regardless of what some idiots may or may not have said in the past, science ("the study of") is ubiquitous. Religious scholars "study" stuff like the Bible. Science and religion completely overlap. If there's any point to atheism it's that religion is utterly fabricated, manipulative, and unnecessary. One can study ethics just fine without genuflecting toward some religious book, place, or symbol.
Saying that religion is unnecessary seems to defy the scientific principle of natural selection. According to the principles of natural selection if religion offered no functional advantage whatsoever (i.e. it was unnecessary) it would have died out long ago like our vestigial tail.Yeah, saying "it's the method that matters" is not some hifalutin "imponderable" but whatever. Enjoy your dancing upon pins.
eta: I object to misguidedly ceding ground to religion. Regardless of what some idiots may or may not have said in the past, science ("the study of") is ubiquitous. Religious scholars "study" stuff like the Bible. Science and religion completely overlap. If there's any point to atheism it's that religion is utterly fabricated, manipulative, and unnecessary. One can study ethics just fine without genuflecting toward some religious book, place, or symbol.
Don't you love science?
I believe William James said it best...Saying that religion is unnecessary seems to defy the scientific principle of natural selection. According to the principles of natural selection if religion offered no functional advantage whatsoever (i.e. it was unnecessary) it would have died out long ago like our vestigial tail.Yeah, saying "it's the method that matters" is not some hifalutin "imponderable" but whatever. Enjoy your dancing upon pins.
eta: I object to misguidedly ceding ground to religion. Regardless of what some idiots may or may not have said in the past, science ("the study of") is ubiquitous. Religious scholars "study" stuff like the Bible. Science and religion completely overlap. If there's any point to atheism it's that religion is utterly fabricated, manipulative, and unnecessary. One can study ethics just fine without genuflecting toward some religious book, place, or symbol.
Don't you love science?
Yep, I agree with you.
Even the religious rules that seem outdated today once were a huge step forward for mankind.
I also think religion still today can be a huge benefit for the world, if professed in a manner that does not contradict reason or science. Which requires acknowledging that a given religion's spiritual truths are eternal, yet the materialistic rules and explanations giving in its scriptures are not supposed to be interpreted literally.
.Millions have spent thousands of years pondering over such imponderables.Grumblenuts said:Okay, one last attempt. First, I already clarified my meaning by adding the caveat "functionally." Also, there are both the noun and verb forms of "study" to consider. Picking one's preferred published definition of "science" is just deliberately missing the point. Neither "science" nor "religion" function as "an approach." Scientific method is an approach. To any extent "One can study either, both, or neither" study (verb form) remains the functional point, whereas epistemology (noun) is the specific form or method of study that contrasts the two or not as the case may be. But don't believe me. I'm just tellin' ya after mulling it all over for fifty some years.
Semantics aside, conflating science and religion serves no legitimate purpose. The disparate disciplines are “non-overlapping magisteria.”
Musing as to whether there are many god, just one god, or no gods, and deciding upon what are the natures of the gods, if any, is a matter that is not amenable to the accrual and interpretation of empirical data, the realm of science.
If one is concerned with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, he will not find the answer with an electron microscope.
.Musing as to whether there are many god, just one god, or no gods, and deciding upon what are the natures of the gods, if any, is a matter that is not amenable to the accrual and interpretation of empirical data, the realm of science.
.So even Darwin would have to admit that religion has a functional advantage over materialism.
Does God exist?
Yes and no.
God is not constrained by existence one way or the other.
No one can impose existence upon God, or deprive God of it.
God is none, or one, or many.
Or all simultaneously.
Or not.
That is what it means to be God.
If you insist God exists, God does not exist.
If you insist God does not exist, God exists.
God does that to remind you that you are not God.
It takes one to know one.
It's way above your pay grade.
"DO I BELIEVE HUMANS EXIST?WHAT ARE THEY FOR?"there's no yes and no about it--no one can prove he exists = no god...and, please, don't anyone say that stupid shit ''you can't prove he doesn't exist'''Does God exist?
Yes and no.
God is not constrained by existence one way or the other.
No one can impose existence upon God, or deprive God of it.
God is none, or one, or many.
Or all simultaneously.
Or not.
That is what it means to be God.
If you insist God exists, God does not exist.
If you insist God does not exist, God exists.
God does that to remind you that you are not God.
It takes one to know one.
It's way above your pay grade.
"DO I BELIEVE HUMANS EXIST?WHAT ARE THEY FOR?"
I say we have a showdown like Elijah did against the prophets of Ba’al.
People who believe in humankind on one side and those who believe in God on the other side. Put two alters up with a lamb. Then ask a group of humans to consume the sacrifice and then have the other side ask God to consume the sacrifice.
Then we will know once and for all. Do humans exist or does God exist? We can’t have it both ways.
I've never heard such rubbish. That exercise is establishing anything but how loopy you are.
And you knew who you were then..That’s how it was done in the Old Testament and it worked good.
.And you knew who you were then..That’s how it was done in the Old Testament and it worked good.
And you knew who you were then..
.Then we will know once and for all. Do humans exist or does God exist? We can’t have it both ways.
What are you smoking??Does God exist?
Yes and no.
God is not constrained by existence one way or the other.
No one can impose existence upon God, or deprive God of it.
God is none, or one, or many.
Or all simultaneously.
Or not.
That is what it means to be God.
If you insist God exists, God does not exist.
If you insist God does not exist, God exists.
God does that to remind you that you are not God.
It takes one to know one.
It's way above your pay grade.
"DO I BELIEVE HUMANS EXIST?WHAT ARE THEY FOR?"
.If you're alluding to one's rot potentially fertilizing coming generations, potentially even generations of one's own family, then sure and of course. Far less likely with the popularity of cremation these days. Otherwise, no. I was reminded of Edith's screeching in the "All in the Family" theme song is all. Way to take all the fun out of it, thanks.
.Way to take all the fun out of it, thanks.