The Problem with Science as a Substitute

[Thalassamania]

You posted:

An agnostic, dyslexic insomniac stayed up all night wondering if there is a dog.

And I indicated that we'd allready heard it (back in August of 2006):

We covered that one in the last thread many moons ago.

then you start talking trash:

But you don't seem to have learned. You keep using words that do not stand for any clearly defined notions (never mind personal attacks and intentional misunderstandings).

and I call:

Such as?

and you keep talking trash:

"God", "spirituality" etc.
And, with all due respect, I fail to see how your proven ability to reproduce and educate (brainwash?) your offspring contribute to your qualifications to have a discussion, less so make a point.

God is irrelevant except to those interested in ancient myths (or who still believe ancient myths) and the last time I heard the word spirituality used, some fool was trying to talk to the dead.

If you doubt my qualifications for this discussion, just stick around, we'll take it easy on the greenhorn.

Yes you are a greenhorn, at this point you've made what, not even ten posts?

I apologize for the very late response. I only have time to visit SB about twice a month.

This: is wise. It shows a profound understanding of (applied) psychology.

It has however, absolutely nothing to do with neither actual science nor religion. Religion and in particular Christianity claims to have a purpose/meaning beyond being useful to humans. Therefore fundamentalists/fanatics are the only consequent religious people (Remember Abraham sacrificing his son?) while all others claiming to be religious do not believe in Dog but use religion for their purposes. However noble these purposes might be, the non-fanatic religious are simply hypocrites.

Again, I do not have the possibility to explain the above statements and it is up to you to either think hard and understand or else skim and misinterpret. But I assure you: There is no wrong. It is as clear as 1+1 to me.

I agree, the fundamentalists/fanatics are the ones out to drive us back into the dark ages and all others claiming to be religious just give them cover.

I just read through it again and noticed that Thalassamania called me a "greenhorn". That was not wise at all. Even assuming I was a baby or a typing monkey, the wrinkles on your face or your aging brain are not arguments in a discussion. I know that you are intelligent enough and understood I that was right but chose to do away with it by being (at best) condescending or insulting. So: Grow up old man!

Again, like it or not, you are a greenhorn, it is an accurate description, not a mindless slur. Where I come from we respect our elders, especially those of note and accomplishment ... the wrinkles are hard earned grasshopper, it's both the years and the mileage.

greenhorn (noun)
One who is just starting to learn or do something
[Middle English greene horn, horn of a newly slaughtered animal : grene, green; see green + horn, horn; see horn.]

The point being that you were (are) too green to know that that you were repeating an already posted joke and haven't figured out how to search yet. You're not alone, we were all like that at some point.

 

[nereas]

I apologize for the very late response. I only have time to visit SB about twice a month.

This: is wise. It shows a profound understanding of (applied) psychology.

It has however, absolutely nothing to do with neither actual science nor religion. Religion and in particular Christianity claims to have a purpose/meaning beyond being useful to humans. Therefore fundamentalists/fanatics are the only consequent religious people (Remember Abraham sacrificing his son?) while all others claiming to be religious do not believe in Dog but use religion for their purposes. However noble these purposes might be, the non-fanatic religious are simply hypocrites.

Again, I do not have the possibility to explain the above statements and it is up to you to either think hard and understand or else skim and misinterpret. But I assure you: There is no wrong. It is as clear as 1+1 to me.

A fascinating perspective.

One person's fanatic is indeed another person's saint. It is all in the point of view of the observer.

But more significantly, the words that come out of a person tell more about the person himself.

Your words are the words of a true philosopher. We don't get too many of those here on Scubaboard.

 

[nereas]

You posted:

And I indicated that we'd allready heard it (back in August of 2006):

then you start talking trash:

and I call:

and you keep talking trash:


Yes you are a greenhorn, at this point you've made what, not even ten posts?

I agree, the fundamentalists/fanatics are the ones out to drive us back into the dark ages and all others claiming to be religious just give them cover.
Again, like it or not, you are a greenhorn, it is an accurate description, not a mindless slur.

greenhorn (noun)
One who is just starting to learn or do something
[Middle English greene horn, horn of a newly slaughtered animal : grene, green; see green + horn, horn; see horn.]

The point being that you were (are) too green to know that that you were repeating an already posted joke and haven't figured out how to search yet. You're not alone, we were all like that at some point.

Thal, I am surprised that meeting an equally smart, if not smarter, person on Scubaboard makes you ill at ease? Could it be that you have met your match?

This Israeli intellectual seems quite bright, and appears to know a lot more about philosophy than anyone else so far.

Have you instead gotten too accustomed to the ordinary drivel that congregate here, and display their own lack of basic education? And then wallowing in their mire, you have become one of them and started calling others names? Others who actually deserve your respect and honor?

 

[Thalassamania]

Could be, but I fail to detect anything wise that he has said that would not be self serving of me to note. What is it that you find so inciteful? The old joke, or his failure to search to see it had been posted before, or the rehashing of Sam Harris?

 

[nereas]

So which one do you turn to for "when?".

None of them is very good at telling us "when".

Science currently uses a form of carbon dating that assumes radiation is constant. This major assumption is so fraught with uncertainty that the best carbon dating can only tell us relative order of occurrences, and certainly not when. Even so, the science world ignors the implications of the flawed assumption, and for political reasons uses this dating method as an absolute.

You should have learned that in college in chemistry, however if you missed that, and high school taught you something else, then sorry about that. Life is not always fair. Especially to atheists embracing science as their own religion.

History tells us only approximately when Moses wrote the Old Testament Hebrew Bible, circa 1400 to 1200 B.C.E., and also that Christ was born sometime around 10 B.C.E. to 5 B.C.E. by reference to the reign of King Herod the Great in the eastern Roman Empire. Our calendars are not much more precise than this.

History, as anthropological science, is only as reliable as its sources. And Herodotus, our most ancient historical source, at 450 B.C.E., collected all the information available to him in his day, giving us only some vague idea that the Trojan War occurred around 1250 B.C.E. as well.

So Moses and Herodotus are our best and only ancient sources regarding "when."

Neither of these 3 (science, Moses, or Herodotus) is very reliable about "when," however, due to the shortcomings of our own modern Gregorian (a Roman Catholic pope) calendar.

Sorry if that breaks your heart. Unfortunately you simply need to learn to live with uncertainty in this life on this planet. Even if you are dealing with science, history, philosophy, or religion.

 

[nereas]

Could be, but I fail to detect anything wise that he has said that would not be self serving of me to note. What is it that you find so inciteful? The old joke, or his failure to search to see it had been posted before, or the rehashing of Sam Harris?

And maybe you rubbed him wrong a little too?

I think you are both quite bright, and would both actually enjoy each other's conversations.

 

[Thalassamania]

Perhaps, but I suspect that he (or she) is a bit too thinned-skinned for our usual banter. Unusual in an Israeli, eh wot?

 

[nereas]

Perhaps, but I suspect that he (or she) is a bit too thinned-skinned for our usual banter. Unusual in an Israeli, eh wot?

The Israelis that I know are very bright and also sensitive.

They do not react well to being insulted. I guess, after 2500 years of persecutions, first by Assyrians, then Babylonians, then Greeks, then Romans, then Europeans, then the Nazis, then Arabs, and now Palestinians, they have finally decided to draw a line in the sand.

I don't blame them.

I actually hope someday the Israelis and Palestinians will make peace. But if you ask either one, they would each tell you it's not likely.

Sic semper politics, a yet completely different topic from science, philosophy, or religion. Politics is all about appeasing your constituent masses, the only major flaw of popular democracy. That is because emotional arguments work best with masses within democracy, and emotional arguments have nothing to do with science, philosophy, nor pure religion.

When the ancient Greek Kleisthenes invented democracy in 510 B.C.E., he never intended for it to spread to the entire world. He only had Athens in mind.

 

[Thalassamania]

The Israelis that I know are very bright and also sensitive.

I don't like to stereotype, but most of the Israelis I know are rather thick skinned.

 

[nereas]

I don't like to stereotype, but most of the Israelis I know are rather thick skinned.

A "stereotype" would be "all X are Y."

Within any society, you will find A, B, C, ... etc.

It just seems that with Israelis they are mostly all extremely bright people. They must have a really good education system over there. Similar to the Swiss and the Japanese, who themselves also all seem extremely bright.

Otherwise bright people without recourse to much education do not seem bright. Take a look at many of the banal emotional comments here on Scubaboard. It seems that in most cases, dull people either relish being perceived as dull, or else they cannot tell the difference.

The philosophical question related to education is "should someone get an education or rather work construction?" A lot of people choose to work construction instead.

For those who do go to college, the philosophical question becomes "is it better to study science or rather get drunk and smoke dope?" Most of them seem to choose the latter. Then after they have fried their own brains, they forget what the lecture in chemistry on carbon dating said.