Belief Versus The Scientific Method

Belief vs the scientific method?

As in compare and contrast for efficacy?

Isn't that like comparing a Dick and Jane reader with the Feynman lectures?

The difference in efficacy has been established and recognized for quite some time, now. I'm afraid it's well past time to think anyone here could effectively challenge the conclusion already reached that science is the superior ontology.

So, what is the purpose of this thread?

I'm a bit mad at Percy for placing this in the Science Forums as it insists that your evidence-based approach win by default.

I don't think it would make a difference what forum this was in. It wouldn't change my approach to your arguments and you shouldn't change yours because of it either.

There are some things, however, for which no objective evidence is possible.

Yes, there are, like garden fairies, YHWH, the luminiferous aether.

...but evidently since we are stuck in a Science Forum, my assertions, experiences, beliefs and interpretations will get shot down without an argument.

It won't make any difference, Phat. Wrong is just wrong no matter what forum it's in.

forgive my carnal nature in cussing you out...

No need. We're good.

...but it is far from conclusive that belief is dead.

So very true, which is a situation I hope changes this next century.

Either that or 50% of the population is delusional. And you lefties have no basis for insisting that it is not you as well.

You can say we are all delusional, Phat. Question is whether we live a good, humane, let's help people live better kinda delusion or the bad, inhumane, let's kill people kinda delusion. Your kind doesn't fair very well.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I plan on fully explaining my thought process even though it may fall short of scientific critically thinking standards.

Yes, please do. Just understand that you are not doing so in a vacuum. You will be challenged, drawn out, drawn down, drawn and quartered, eviscerated, hanged and harrassed and verbally pilloried.

Do you really want to do this? As you have observed, you've already lost.

Since Genesis 7:21

Phat, the party affiliation of the author is not the point. The quote about Waterloo is just wrong. Way wrong.

Not only is anglagard right about all the direct physical evidence at the site but there were news columns and direct reports with identified writers all contemporary with the events sent throughout the world by the dozens for months. The evidence of the event is legion.

Your gospels weren't given any thought until a century after the supposed events then written by nobody knows who. If you want to compare efficacy of each claim then the number and conduct of stories of Waterloo leave no doubt that the battle actually occurred with the outcome that is now, this day, in our history books, while your gospels are considered historically suspect at best.

So I guess its easy to give "Fate" a free pass.

We don't really have much choice. This universe would just as soon kill us as stare at us for 4 billion years. Fate walks her own path and ignores god just like she ignores everyone and everything else.

Since when is little science monkey AZ justified at being angry with the Creator?

Since about 10th grade. And not angry with but more of an ignoring of thing.

Could it be that you simply chafe at His wanton authority and power ...

Naw, He doesn't have any so that's not an issue.

...hippies and liberals are enamored over Spinozas polite god.

What's so enamoring about Spinoza's god is that he wasn't real. He didn't exist. In his place Brother Baruch put the majesty of the secular universe.

We are trying to nail down your assertions that "science rules" and that we could even define anything superior to an actual living objective.

Science rules when there are options, splits in the path, where one path is determined by science and the other(s) contrary to science. The science path is, de facto, the only path actually realistically open. Science rules.

Your objective appears to be to "use" (utilize) science on a daily basis and as a lifestyle to determine reality and the best course of action.

I am an acolyte, not a priest. My duties do not require I submit all emotion and action to deep scientific analysis.

I still order in pizza when I want. When my brain gets that urge.

Actually it's more of me following the executive decision to order in pizza emanating from my subconscious mind which went through a complex interplay of neuronic stimulation methodologies before issuing the decision to the consciousness for specific action.

But just because I know this doesn't diminish my enjoyment (another set of complex neuronic stimulations) of eating the pizza and sipping a nice cabernet.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Sounds like you are "worshiping" or acknowledging the creation (physical matter) more than you are the Creator(real or imagined)

On that level you might consider it's kinda hard not to believe in something that is physically, demonstrably, real. You may call it worship, I'll call it sanity.

Your creator, on the other hand, not so much. Again, sanity.

Oedipus Complex writ large?

Cute, but, no. Can't be angry at a god that isn't there and I was quite happy, as I recall I was ecstatic, that this whole god thing was fake and I could ignore it all.

AZ writes: Naw, He doesn't have any so that's not an issue. At least not in your mind. You wanna be the Boss there!

Ooo, if only it were real. It'd be a freakin disaster but still if there could be gods and I could be boss! Hallelujah!

The majesty of the secular universe! The majesty of Creation over a Creator. Do I see a pattern here?

I sure hope so.

Care to join us?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Everyone else is giving you so much grief I just don’t feel right piling on, but, this is part of the fun in this place so here goes.

Ever stop to consider that the “drop everything and follow me” directive, in every parable where it shows up, is spiritual? Maybe what your Jesus was at was he wanted others to discard their old concepts of gods, discard their old beliefs and their old morals and take on his instead?

The stories may actually say drop everything, walk away from your old life and its possessions (beliefs?), go beg a pair of sandals and a bowl, meet me out back and walk your life’s path with me … but, is that what he was actually asking for?

Feel free to challenge, scoff, and trash this.

I will, or rather, I have, but I'll wait till our next Sundae Service to post it.

Thank you for providing this week's topic.

Why not just keep it to yourself?

I would suspect because he's having fun, kinda like the rest of us.

They've been at this, I read, some 17 years? Now that's a lot of fun.

Congratulations on the anniversary, guys.

And, thanx, nwr, for letting me springboard this off your post.

And in the one religion where Jesus is considered divine I cannot get anyone to explain how it is possible for Jesus to be divine and the belief to be monotheistic.

Here you go, jar, try this.

Father, the infinite strawberry. Son, the strawberry purée. The holy spirit, strawberry jam.

In the beginning there was god the strawberry. When man was created god the strawberry cooked himself up into a jam that humans would know the spirit of strawberry.

Things were a bit rough as god the jam spread himself around the garden a bit but a few places like squash, cantaloupe and ginger, didn’t like the taste so god the strawberry went over and stomped hard on Sodom, Canaan, Gomorrah, and a few other places. At one point he was so pissed that god the strawberry flooded the whole damn garden. Had to replant and start again.

That didn’t seem to help much with all the other veggies in the garden so god the strawberry decided to take a big handful of himself, smear in some jam and set out to jawbone the rest of the garden into submission. Didn’t work. What got back was a loose purée. And god the strawberry had to take the purée back into himself because … well … it was him.

So there you have it. One (mono) strawberry with three forms. Strawberry the Father, Jam the Spirit and what was left of god when humans got done with him, the purée.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Oh, jar, I was hoping you would more than smile. A guffaw would have been good. Especially on the purée parts. I'll try harder next time.

Fauci has the support of the world immunology community. The only detractors are the small vocal insurgents from the right.

As PaulK said this article does not highlight any dispute in science. It is a political hatchet job.