Because science knows EVERYTHING..

They go together.

I'd be lying if I said it didn't.

If you have ever experienced the loss of a loved one then in that moment of complete loss ask yourself a question. Is the entirety of that person simply bones, flesh and a brain? If you answer yes then you've successfully eliminated everything that is sacred.

 

why must things be sacred? you still have the person's memories. it seems like you're asserting that god and an afterlife MUST exist because you think otherwise wouldn't be as cool. that's not very good reasoning. I'd say rather than looking to your own idealistic views and wants, look at reason and logic.

 

Logic and reason cannot see beyond our own experiences and senses.


Its funny how most of the scientifically thinking ppl never actually experienced any of the stuff they belief in. Read something in a book seemed logical must be true. But really these sorta ppl back in the day would of excepted that the world is flat or the sun revolves around the earth.


Am not saying that science is wrong or that personal experiences are true reflection of reality. Am just saying that the general understanding of this universe is a work in progress so don't make ur mind up on how the final product will look like.

 

Scientists are not the sort of people who would believe that the geocentric theory is true, they are the sort of people who point out that it is false.

 

We don't communicate well with each other do we


I was just pointing out eg a random modern human who thinks that he has logic and reason behind him/her can be just as guilty as theist in having faith and nothing ells over certain matters. I mean take a random person and he most likely will belief that atoms exist but has he ever seen one with hes own eyes has he ever devised an experiment to study it, the answer most likely no. So why does he belief in an atom because every one around him agrees that they exist and he read about it in a book or something, it all makes sense.


So if u would take all the atheists of the world and put there birth time back in time most of them would except god because every one around them would agree that he exist and they have a nice book to read about all of that BS, it all makes sense.


Now true scientist are the ones who think outside the box the ones who don't draw the line of certainty over what can and cannot exist.

 

Nooballot, your last two posts say different things. First you said that scientifically minded people would believe that the geocentric theory was true, or that they would accept the truth of other things based on common consensus. Then you said that average people who think that they have reason would believe things based on consensus rather than evidence. Average people and scientifically minded people are two different things.

You are completely right about what you called in your latest post a "random modern human who thinks he has logic and reason behind him." But you are wrong about scientifically minded people. If someone accepts things based on consensus then to me they do not qualify as scientifically minded.

It was just funny to me that you chose the geocentric theory as an example, because it is a perfect example of how scientists think differently than the average people. Average people believed geocentrism, scientists disproved it. The heliocentric model of the solar system will never be replaced.

Again, I am not really disagreeing with your point about "random modern humans" but I disagree with your use of the phrase "scientifically minded people."

 

Average people and scientifically minded people are like minded people in the respect that all are computational thinkers. They differ in metric standards, however they remain equal in their propensity to be deceived.

 

Dope, your first sentence doesn't say much. The human brain is a computational system and the human mind is the information processing activity of that system so all people are like minded in terms of possessing the same evolved computational system.

The difference is how people use that system. People are not equal in their propensity to be deceived. Ignorant people are much more easy to deceive than knowledgeable ones. It would be much easier to deceive an average person about a topic then it would be to deceive an expert about that topic.

 

Hmm I thought average person in this day of age is a scientifically thinking human. I mean most went to school and learned the basics of science, so when an average human of 2010 looks at the world it sees trough the eyes of science but in the past it was trough the eyes of religion. U know when we look at the world we understand automatically what we see in the frame of reference of the way we were taught to see it but the commonly excepted teachings of science or the public are not always right after all collectively we are all still learning.


So anyone claiming that god,consciousness after death...and so on do not exist based on the common understanding of reality to date (science) would be making the same mistake as the religious ppl of the past did and that is believing in the commonly excepted view of reality and then cementing it so that new discovery's are made impossible excluding ourselves from all the possible clues to solve these mystery's that bug us all which may lead humankind as a whole to never understand the true nature of reality.

 

I think that the vast majority of people alive today are not scientifically minded in the least bit. Most people probably cannot define science or outline the scientific method and why it must be the way it is to achieve the goals that people use it to achieve.

Most people cannot properly evaluate scientific data, and even after extensive training most people never grasp what science is and how it is used.

We posses brains that are designed for ancestral ways of life in the Pleistocene, and the type of brain that is optimized for ancestral life is not the type of brain that is optimized for science, which is why even with training many people do not understand the scientific method, and even when they do understand some of it they often fail to utilize it in day to day life.

Throughout my academic studies in behavioral science at a state university
I was shocked at how few of the students around me could define science or explain the scientific method. And these are students of science, not just people on the street. Very few people learn to think scientifically.

 

By saying it didn't say much, do you mean I didn't use enough words, because you just repeated what I said. Or did it need to be said twice in order to have sufficient meaning?

It actually depends on the topic, and whether your practice is to be vigilant regarding that particular subject. How many times do we see scientists disgraced by personal delusions, exposed by their peers. How many are prone to jealousy in love or unfairness in business. Deceit is of an emotional nature, not an analytic one.

 

Very funny dope, no I did not mean to say that you didn't use enough words. I was wondering if you meant to say that my distinction between average thought and scientific thought was demonstrated to be a false distinction by the fact that "Average people and scientifically minded people are like minded...in...that all are computational thinkers." By addressing that sentence the way I did I meant to deny the importance of similarity between thinkers in making the claims I have been making. I don't know why I chose such a clumsy way of making that point to begin with. But your reply was quite humorous and I enjoyed it.

And you are certainly correct, in regard to deceit it does depend on the topic. I never claimed that it didn't, in fact I thought I implicitly asserted that it did by using the phrase 'expert on that topic'.