Wow. Apparently believing philosophy is important for science makes me a liar !
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ScienceHookme/posts/AuM75BcPVTQ
And I see he's a vocal atheist. I'd like to say I'm shocked, but that would make me a liar.
Saturday, 26 September 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I told him I have one, but I don't think he believes me. But this is someone who apparently doesn't understand the scientific method but is absolutely convinced that they do, so my contradictory description must be wrong and ergo I am not a scientist.
ReplyDeleteA pretty strong one, I should say.
ReplyDeleteAlso a case of, "I'm gong to respond to your carefully-worded response with short, ego-boosting insults". Not sure what the term for that is...
I don't have much problem with vocal atheists. I do find his arguing technique surprisingly bad. You were right about his casual dismissal of anything he disagrees with. I tend to find that atheism usually comes from looking at arguments and coming to conclusions. That's something he isn't doing very well.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am not much a fan of religion, I try not to insult people for having their beliefs. You can say, "I think you're wrong" without saying (or implying) "I think you're an idiot."
Rhys Taylor "Jerk" is the traditional term.
ReplyDeleteAnd now that I read through that thread, I need a shower and kitten pics. Abuse of the scientific method makes me queasy.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor
ReplyDeleteAlso a case of, "I'm gong to respond to your carefully-worded response with short, ego-boosting insults". Not sure what the term for that is...
I think the term is "being an ass." ;)
(oops, Lilith von Fraumench beat me to it.)
Oh I just read the whole post. I remember seeing this same post in my feed and dismissing it as a miss-attribution. But now I see it's actually a dishonest-to-goodness quote mine. That's pretty special.
ReplyDeleteHey I know that guy, constantly tries to piss off people with different religious views.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if this would convince him ?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iau.org/administration/membership/individual/17044/
Actually I don't, I'm pretty sure nothing would.
Rhys Taylor He'd reply that having a job as a scientist doesn't guarantee you're a real scientist. He might even go as far as to claim you must suck at your job. Because your understanding of science's relationship to the world and to human beings, is different from his. And his is superior because Richard Dawkins and his ilk told him so.
ReplyDeleteClosing one's mind from a possibility based on personal experience alone is not a good quality to have in a scientist, or in a human being in general, but that doesn't stop minds from closing.
Does it defy logic if atheism reveals a capacity to spawn bigoted proselytes comparable to the worst that theism can produce?
ReplyDeleteBoris Borcic I figure it's either the human condition--which is really a non-answer, I realize--or there's something to this "cultural Christianity" thing, including the tendency to amplify us-versus-them thinking, to view oneself as morally superior, and to treat dissent as apostasy.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a Christian myself, but not a complete idiot, when confronted by unscientific morons of this sort, I quietly whisper to these people, "You know, God speaks another language to mankind. It's mathematics, haha!" This does not earn me many friends, but I do think there's a note of truth in it.
ReplyDeleteSome people remember that "just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right" but conveniently forget that "just because you're offensive doesn't mean you're right".
ReplyDeleteMy views on this sort of extreme, entitled atheism are described in exhausting detail here :
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/01/the-unthinking-atheist.html
The root of the problem is probably people mistaking their opinions for facts.
In particular, such tend to mistake for facts their opinions of what your opinions are.
ReplyDeleteLilith von Fraumench A reference I use to (try to) convey what you say to theists, that's less effective with atheists, is the following interpretation ingredient for the last verse of Rev 13 in the context of the chapter:
ReplyDelete666?
-- 666 ~ .666 ~ 2/3 ~ 1-1/3
~ tertium non datur
~ the excluded middle
~ either with us, or against us!
An exclusive feature of it, is that its repelling of the excluded middle allows it to defuse recusal on the basis of competing interpretations of the same bit.