"God is on the ropes: The brilliant new science "

Now you, DasM? Could we stop it now with the :p shit, please? What is that anyway? Sticking out your tongue or something? It's gotta be one of the cheesiest things ever.

I'm looking at you, Types with Fingers. Just stop. It makes me nauseous.
 
Saiko said:
rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif


I posted that as a stellar example of the utter crap that is generated both by some materialist scientists but moreso by those materialist "journalists"/writers who gushingly write about whatever they consider "science."
Click to expand...

Salon has a real anti-progressive orthodox stance on science it seems. They are hyper critical of all things regarding 'spiritual'. Not a very objective mouthpiece...
 
Types With Fingers said:
If I didn't know any better, I'd say the writer of this article doesn't care very much for Christians or creationists. Oh, and apparently nihilism is wondrous and satisfying. Hey guys, you feeling wondrous and satisfied? I'm feeling wondrous and satisfied, let me me ask this carbon atom if it's feeling wondrous and satisfied. Hello carbon atom, are you feeling wondrous and satisfied? Oh, its not saying anything, but no worries, one day it'll become part of a physical being with a brain-generated consciousness, and then it can tell me how wondrous and satisfied it's feeling! And then it will die, and rot in the ground, and not exist again ever, and everything will be black and silent and alone forever.

On a lighthearted note, how about those wacky creationists, huh? What crazy antics will they come up with next, hyuck-yuck-yuck?
Click to expand...

Well he does write for Salon...lol. Seems to be the culture over there...
 
Types With Fingers said:
By the way, were you guys aware of this "new science" already? Because I thought science already knows everything we need to know. And what's with this, "right or wrong, it's worth an investigation" crap? I mean, this England guy is, like, an actual scientist, and this theory is, you know, saying that we came from a completely physical and biological process with no need for anything supernatural, so there's no need to invesrigate because of course it's right! Duh! Why say scientists are ignorant? Dawkins, Randi, Coyne, Myers, etc., they're not ignorant! They know what's nonsense and what's science, that's why Shermer already declared that whatever we don't yet know, it will have a purely naturalistic explanation and not include what we call today the supernatural, because there's no such thing! So how can this be a radical, epochal scientific advance? I mean, if science doesn't know everything we need to know, then that means... it doesn't know everything we need to know! That's like a paradigm shift! Better go destroy this guy's Wikipedia page.

And don't tell me the Christian Right is terrified, show me! Let me read about the choir directors jumping off ledges, parishioners robbing collection plates, and pastors reading The God Delusion with pistols shakily held in their mouths! You call this journalism?! And a Bruno reference? So you watched Cosmos, who didn't? That's not news! My mother could write a better article! Wait, she's Christian, so that means she can't think... my bad!
Click to expand...

Damn, I'm a Christian too...I mostly just chuckled at this article and how it was so obscenely off-base...they guy does not do a very good job of masking his hatred and discontent.
 
BotchCat said:
Salon has a real anti-progressive orthodox stance on science it seems. They are hyper critical of all things regarding 'spiritual'. Not a very objective mouthpiece...
Click to expand...
Okay. I'll accept that info. I don't think of Salon as a science or knowledge portal. Which goes back to my point that mainstream writing on science and knowledge often spares no silliness in evangelizing the status-quo. It's also interesting that politically progressive sites often tend to be scientifically conservative. I suppose that view has its roots in reaction against religious fundamentalism. And there was a point where the approaches that gave rise to the current Holy Temple were radical, expanding and free-thinking. The same is true of most religions and philosophies.
 
Saiko said:
Okay. I'll accept that info. I don't think of Salon as a science or knowledge portal. Which goes back to my point that mainstream writing on science and knowledge often spares no silliness in evangelizing the status-quo. It's also interesting that politically progressive sites often tend to be scientifically conservative. I suppose that view has its roots in reaction against religious fundamentalism. And there was a point where the approaches that gave rise to the current Holy Temple were radical, expanding and free-thinking. The same is true of most religions and philosophies.
Click to expand...

Right on. I generally dismiss stories that come across my feed from Salon.com, which I see no different than theblaze.com. Our media had become so factional...it honestly makes me want to leave social media behind altogether.

I use to link share and try to get people to consider different perspectives...do not have the patients for that anymore.
 
BotchCat said:
Right on. I generally dismiss stories that come across my feed from Salon.com, which I see no different than theblaze.com. Our media had become so factional...it honestly makes me want to leave social media behind altogether.

I use to link share and try to get people to consider different perspectives...do not have the patients for that anymore.
Click to expand...
:D IMO Salon isn't at the level of bias of The Blaze. Still yes factionalism is rampant in the mainstream media. As it seems to be in a lot of sociopolitical discourse.
 
Arouet said:
Right, it's not necessary to exclude one. The soft atheist position is lack of belief in a deity. The skeptical position is to withhold belief in a deity absent sufficient reliable evidence of the existence of one.
Click to expand...
What is the definition of "a deity?" Does "intelligence" in nature count?

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Red
BotchCat said:
Damn, I'm a Christian too...I mostly just chuckled at this article and how it was so obscenely off-base...they guy does not do a very good job of masking his hatred and discontent.
Click to expand...

Have you checked out Rupert Sheldrake's podcast? He's got a great episode of how materialist atheists unwittingly replaced God with Reason, as opposed to eliminating God entirely. Of course, he talks about it so slowly and calmly you have to force your ears toto keep focus.
 
Types With Fingers said:
Have you checked out Rupert Sheldrake's podcast? He's got a great episode of how materialist atheists unwittingly replaced God with Reason, as opposed to eliminating God entirely. Of course, he talks about it so slowly and calmly you have to force your ears toto keep focus.
Click to expand...

The Science Set Free podcast with Mark Vernon? I've listened to them all. Super boring.
 
Arouet said:
I don't think many would argue that the multiverse is only a hypothesis at this stage.
Click to expand...
Thankfully the number of people that know something means nothing. The multiverse is. That's a fundamental and foundational actuality. Does it exist in a way that will allow the gathering of solid standard-type data and/or the development of tech to move between universes? That I don't know.
 
Saiko said:
Thankfully the number of people that know something means nothing. The multiverse is. That's a fundamental and foundational actuality. Does it exist in a way that will allow the gathering of solid standard-type data and/or the development of tech to move between universes? That I don't know.
Click to expand...

An unfounded opinion stated as if it were the absolute truth. Such certainty is amazing. How could you possibly really know this? Evidence and arguments (sufficient to overcome all the arguments against it) please.
 
nbtruthman said:
An unfounded opinion stated as if it were the absolute truth. Such certainty is amazing. How could you possibly really know this? Evidence and arguments (sufficient to overcome all the arguments against it) please.
Click to expand...

lol.
- It is an actuality. It is another actuality that I'm not expecting you, or any specific person, to know that. Some do. Many don't. Nor do I expect anyone to accept it because I or others share that info.
- How could I possibly know that there's a tree with a hawk nest in it one hundred yards from here?

"Evidence and arguments (sufficient to overcome all the arguments against it) please"
:) You don't get it at all do you? Okay. Let's - for a moment - play within the sandbox you like - aka materialist and/or reductionist "science." Even within that sandbox there are no arguments against a multiverse that hold water. There are however some valid arguments against arguments that purport to prove the existence of the multiverse.

The thing is that reality is not - and cannot be - held within, constrained by or accurately known from within your familiar sandbox.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top