Religious affiliation of American scientists

[Dutch Uncle]

I just think there must be atheist books and podcasts out there that convinced garden variety atheists that all knowledge comes from scientific experiments.

To some very significant extent, science is built on philosophy, assumption, inference.

Science is based on the assumption and philosophical inference that nature is completely rationally intelligible.

Until the 1920s, a widespread scientific idea was that the universe was static and I unchanging. That was a philosophical preference, not a scientific discovery.

Until 1905 science had for centuries held the scientific idea that time and space were uniform. That was philosophy.

The multiverse is a philosophical preference that began to emerge when scientists began to realize in the 1990s that the universe is finely tuned on the edge of a razor. There is no data or experiments corroborating the multiverse.

First, garden variety atheists aren't militant atheists; they are dispassionate believers in fact. Militant atheists are overly-emotional and immature people as this thread proves.

Agreed, philosophy, and even religion, is a starting point. Most scientific advancements in ancient times were supported by religions to seek things like proving the existence of God/gods and predicting the future. An example is the Islamic Golden Age.

Scientific advances start with philosophy, but end with provable fact. Having a flawed hypothesis is one thing, but misinterpreting the data, such as the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System, can lead to further misunderstandings. Still, as history proves, better tools and continued research eventually find the truth.

Conversely, the militant atheists simply want to bitch and complain about the errors and not the eventual truisms. Sad.

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) played a major role in interpreting the works of Aristotle, whose ideas came to dominate the non-religious thought of the Christian and Muslim worlds. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, translation of philosophical texts from Arabic to Latin in Western Europe "led to the transformation of almost all philosophical disciplines in the medieval Latin world".[69] The influence of Islamic philosophers in Europe was particularly strong in natural philosophy, psychology and metaphysics, though it also influenced the study of logic and ethics.[69]

 

[Dutch Uncle]

...Do you have an aversion to openly admitting you were wrong? ....

It's a common militant atheist fault. Like MAGAts, they only see what they want to see.

 

[domer76]

Thanks once again for tacitly admitting that there are many famous scientific ideas out there that are not testable and repeatable - the very criteria you claimed was the only things allowed in science.

Do you have an aversion to openly admitting you were wrong? Or do I have to keep pointing out you are tacitly confessing you are in error?
[/

Thanks once again for tacitly admitting that there are many famous scientific ideas out there that are not testable and repeatable - the very criteria you claimed was the only things allowed in science.

Do you have an aversion to openly admitting you were wrong? Or do I have to keep pointing out you are tacitly confessing you are in error?

I’ve addressed both of you morons about twisting my words to make a claim that I never did. I’m on the verge of making you both invisible if it doesn’t cease.

Try to inform yourself of what an acceptable scientific experiment is vs some god of the gaps thing you two shitweasels are attempting to fill.

 

[domer76]

QED on an angry, emotional reaction and refusal to discuss the subject like an adult. Sad, but I expected nothing less of you, domer76. You've obviously been traumatized in the past on this subject. In other topics, you can be cool, calm and collected. On the subject of anyone disagreeing with your atheist beliefs, you become unhinged, angry and abusive. Did you have an abusive, overly religious family? Was your daddy an alcoholic Catholic who beat you and your mother?

Then what happened? A tragic erotic asphyxiation accident damaged your brain?

You don’t have a college degree, do you, Dutch? You’ve also never taken a single class in psychology or psychiatry, have you? You have no background in the sciences, do you?

It shows.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You don’t have a college degree, do you, Dutch? You’ve also never taken a single class in psychology or psychiatry, have you? You have no background in the sciences, do you?

It shows.

You're free to lie about me, insult me and dodge questions, domer76. It adds weight to my assessment of your personality. Specifically, your anger issues and continued preference of emotion over logic.

I understand why you don't want to discuss the trauma that causes you to hate Christianity and anyone who doesn't hate it like you do. I do, however, recommend that you seek help. A men's group is good. You can even go to an AA meeting. You don't have to be an alcoholic to attend, but I suspect that might be one of your problems. Just the gathering of others to share your pain would be helpful for you to recover from your trauma.

 

[domer76]

You're free to lie about me, insult me and dodge questions, domer76. It adds weight to my assessment of your personality. Specifically, your anger issues and continued preference of emotion over logic.

I understand why you don't want to discuss the trauma that causes you to hate Christianity and anyone who doesn't hate it like you do. I do, however, recommend that you seek help. A men's group is good. You can even go to an AA meeting. You don't have to be an alcoholic to attend, but I suspect that might be one of your problems. Just the gathering of others to share your pain would be helpful for you to recover from your trauma.

Unlike your twisting of my words, those were questions.

You don’t possess a college degree, do you?
You don’t have any background in the sciences, do you?
You’ve never taken a single class in psychology or psychiatry, have you?

 

[gmark77]

Unfortunately, there is a lot of willful ignorance about science out there in the world.

Don't worry Cy. Even YOU can understand science. Just take some classes.

It's never to late to learn, Cy!

 

[gmark77]

Do you have an aversion to openly admitting you were wrong?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Unlike your twisting of my words, those were questions.

You don’t possess a college degree, do you?
You don’t have any background in the sciences, do you?
You’ve never taken a single class in psychology or psychiatry, have you?

You're free lie about your intent and your insults. I expect it from you whenever the discussion is about God, religion, Christianity, etc. It's a kneejerk reaction from you just like a doctor's tap to your knee.

First, the answer to all of those questions is already on this forum. Second, just like I don't debate minors and liars, I also don't answer questions from disingenuous people who constantly refuse to answer my questions even though I've previously answered theirs in good faith.

 

[domer76]

You're free lie about your intent and your insults. I expect it from you whenever the discussion is about God, religion, Christianity, etc. It's a kneejerk reaction from you just like a doctor's tap to your knee.

First, the answer to all of those questions is already on this forum. Second, just like I don't debate minors and liars, I also don't answer questions from disingenuous people who constantly refuse to answer my questions even though I've previously answered theirs in good faith.

You don’t possess a college degree, do you?
You don’t have any background in the sciences, do you?
You’ve never taken a single class in psychology or psychiatry, have you?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Don't worry Cy. Even YOU can understand science. Just take some classes.

It's never to late to learn, Cy!

 

[Cypress]

It's never to late to learn, Cy!

You don’t have a college degree, do you, Dutch?

It shows.

The scientific ideas of string theory and the multiverse are untestable in any conventional scientific science.

The atheists on this thread hollered at me that anything that isn't repeatable and testable is not allowed in the field of science.

The atheists were clearly wrong, since I gave numerous examples of scientific ideas and inferences that are not testable.

The only conclusion now is that atheists do not have the capacity or integrity to admit they were wrong.

 

[Cypress]

It's a common militant atheist fault. Like MAGAts, they only see what they want to see.

I think it's a common and misleading talking point to claim that anything that isn't reproducible and testable is not allowed in the field of science. I don't think the claim is made with malicious intent.

Not being able to admit an error is unfortunately common on message boards, especially among MAGAs and anyone who has dogmatic and immobile beliefs on certain topics.

 

[Cypress]

First, garden variety atheists aren't militant atheists; they are dispassionate believers in fact. Militant atheists are overly-emotional and immature people as this thread proves.

Agreed, philosophy, and even religion, is a starting point. Most scientific advancements in ancient times were supported by religions to seek things like proving the existence of God/gods and predicting the future. An example is the Islamic Golden Age.

Scientific advances start with philosophy, but end with provable fact. Having a flawed hypothesis is one thing, but misinterpreting the data, such as the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System, can lead to further misunderstandings. Still, as history proves, better tools and continued research eventually find the truth.

Conversely, the militant atheists simply want to bitch and complain about the errors and not the eventual truisms. Sad.

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) played a major role in interpreting the works of Aristotle, whose ideas came to dominate the non-religious thought of the Christian and Muslim worlds. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, translation of philosophical texts from Arabic to Latin in Western Europe "led to the transformation of almost all philosophical disciplines in the medieval Latin world".[69] The influence of Islamic philosophers in Europe was particularly strong in natural philosophy, psychology and metaphysics, though it also influenced the study of logic and ethics.[69]

That's true that militancy in both atheist belief and in religious belief inevitably leads to closed minds. Good point on the Golden Age.

I don't see how you could have a field of investigation like science without untestable scientific ideas, guesses, and inferences.

The two leading explanations for quantum mechanics - the Copenhagen interpretation, and the Many Worlds hypothesis - are basically philosophical interpretations.

I think you learn as much from getting things wrong, as you do from getting things right. The scientific ideas that we eventually decided were wrong usually taught us something.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think it's a common and misleading talking point to claim that anything that isn't reproducible and testable is not allowed in the field of science. I don't think the claim is made with malicious intent.

Not being able to admit an error is unfortunately common on message boards, especially among MAGAs and anyone who has dogmatic and immobile beliefs on certain topics.

Militant atheists tend to put emotion over logic. It fascinates me. Such a mentality is common among the teenage, angst-ridden anarchist atheist grouping, but in adult males over 35? Fascinating!

One comparative analysis is ego vs self-confidence. Trump has a big ego but weak self-confidence. Differentiating the different personalities on JPP by just these two traits interests me. Regardless of political or religious ideology, identifying where members fall in the four groups below allows a quick seperation of bulbous blowhards and people who can stand up to disagreement.

 

[Cypress]

Militant atheists tend to put emotion over logic. It fascinates me. Such a mentality is common among the teenage, angst-ridden anarchist atheist grouping, but in adult males over 35? Fascinating!

One comparative analysis is ego vs self-confidence. Trump has a big ego but weak self-confidence. Differentiating the different personalities on JPP by just these two traits interests me. Regardless of political or religious ideology, identifying where members fall in the four groups below allows a quick seperation of bulbous blowhards and people who can stand up to disagreement.

I think that graph could be tweaked a little, because there is a shade of distinction between strong confidence, and weak confidence.

Overconfidence in scientific knowledge sometimes is fake confidence.

The Many Worlds hypothesis of quantum mechanics is not testable, but this scientific idea was arrived at by inference. It simply says you have to take the Schroedingdr equation seriously and at face value, and the logical consequences flow from there.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think that graph could be tweaked a little, because there is a shade of distinction between strong confidence, and weak confidence.

Overconfidence in scientific knowledge sometimes is fake confidence.

The Many Worlds hypothesis of quantum mechanics

It's a starting point. Just because a person has a strong ego and strong confidence doesn't mean they are correct. What it does help with is to weed out those with strong confidence but weak egos. The blowhards, the braggarts and other annoying pieces of shit that pump themselves up full of hot air like a kid's bounce house.

Should I name some names of people like this on JPP? In Congress? In the WH? LOL

Conversely, a person who has weak confidence but is often correct can be identified and encouraged to have more confidence in their choices. This will allow their ego to grow stronger too.

 

[Cypress]

It's a starting point. Just because a person has a strong ego and strong confidence doesn't mean they are correct. What it does help with is to weed out those with strong confidence but weak egos. The blowhards, the braggarts and other annoying pieces of shit that pump themselves up full of hot air like a kid's bounce house.

Should I name some names of people like this on JPP? In Congress? In the WH? LOL

Conversely, a person who has weak confidence but is often correct can be identified and encouraged to have more confidence in their choices. This will allow their ego to grow stronger too.

I meant to write fake confidence, rather than weak confidence.

That poster Into the night pretends to be an expert on every topic under the sun, no matter how esoteric.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I meant to write fake confidence, rather than weak confidence.

That poster Into the night pretends to be an expert on every topic under the sun, no matter how esoteric.

IMO, fake confidence = weak confidence. They compensate by being a blowhard who brags about their wealth, their job, their car, their house, etc.

Sybil is weak, agreed, but he also has severe mental issues. I suspect schizophrenia and do not believe a word his says.
Others, like Perry and Spaz, are mentally deficient but not necessarily mentally ill.

 

[Cypress]

IMO, fake confidence = weak confidence. They compensate by being a blowhard who brags about their wealth, their job, their car, their house, etc.

Sybil is weak, agreed, but he also has severe mental issues. I suspect schizophrenia and do not believe a word his says.
Others, like Perry and Spaz, are mentally deficient but not necessarily mentally ill.

Sybil needs to be the subject of a clinical study, lol

Message boards breed this weird tenor that makes simple statements like the following almost impossible for many people to write:

"I was wrong"
"I don't know"

I think there is a Master's degree thesis in sociology lurking there.