# Scientism



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

"Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know" ~Betrand Russell

How many here believe this quote to be true?

Just post "yes" or "no". I'll have a follow up question after a few people have voted.


----------



## jmharris23 (May 22, 2013)

No


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> "Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know" ~Betrand Russell
> 
> How many here believe this quote to be true?
> 
> Just post "yes" or "no". I'll have a follow up question after a few people have voted.



I think you missed all of the quote that comes before that.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2013)

"While it is true that science cannot decide questions of value, that is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know." ~Betrand Russell


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> "whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know" ~betrand russell
> 
> how many here believe this quote to be true?
> 
> Just post "yes" or "no". I'll have a follow up question after a few people have voted.



"no"


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (May 22, 2013)

"No"


----------



## hummdaddy (May 22, 2013)

noNo No:


----------



## JB0704 (May 22, 2013)

No.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 22, 2013)

No.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 22, 2013)

No.


----------



## Robert Tuck (May 23, 2013)

No.


----------



## stringmusic (May 23, 2013)

Ok, so I was expecting a "no" from believers.


For the non believers who answered the same, why is the statement untrue? Coming from what seems like strict "scientism" guys in here, I was expecting a couple of "yes" answers.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 23, 2013)

What kind of scientific methods would you use to obtain knowledge your wife doesn't love you any more?


----------



## David Parker (May 23, 2013)

I'll go with yes.


----------



## stringmusic (May 23, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, so I was expecting a "no" from believers.
> 
> 
> For the non believers who answered the same, why is the statement untrue? Coming from what seems like strict "scientism" guys in here, I was expecting a couple of "yes" answers.





David Parker said:


> I'll go with yes.



How did you apply the scientific method to the assertion to find out if it was true?


----------



## ted_BSR (May 23, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> What kind of scientific methods would you use to obtain knowledge your wife doesn't love you any more?



Following the scientific method, I would have to test the hypothesis (Does my wife still love me?).
The results of the experiments would either support or refute the hypothesis.

Is she nice to me?
Is there intimacy?
Does she value my opinion?
Does she value my company?
Does she speak well of me to others?
Does she trust me?
Does she lie to me?

There is always the chance that she is a complete liar, and this is one of the flaws of science in this scenario. However, humans are much weaker than we give them credit for. The truth is usually apparent.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (May 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, so I was expecting a "no" from believers.
> 
> 
> For the non believers who answered the same, why is the statement untrue? Coming from what seems like strict "scientism" guys in here, I was expecting a couple of "yes" answers.




Because human feelings and emotions are not things that can be quantified scientifically.  I know "Johnny Smith" is a jerk in my mind, but my definition isn't perhaps what "Johnny Smith" would use to define themselves, or another what another person would use to define "Johnny Smith".  My definition is based on my experiences with "Johnny Smith" and my personal beliefs on how people should behave.

If you wish to say that your cat (Mr. Whiskers) is the center of the universe, that all of the stars and moons and whatnot revolve around him, then I can show you scientific evidence to the contrary, no matter how cute he might be.

Now if you decide to worship said cat as an all powerful deity, and amass ten million Facebook fans for him, erect buildings to facilitate  his worship, and send missionaries out into the world to educate the unlighted savages of the world about the wonders of Mr. Whiskers, then I can't argue with it.  It's your beliefs against mine.

Twelve people might even be followers of Mr. Whiskers, posting many tales (and perhaps video) of Mr. Whiskers to Facebook and other places on the interwebs. Does Mr. Whiskers exist? Of course he does. Did he eradicate the vermin from your home? Did he vomit a hairball upon the sacred carpet? Sure. Did he come to Athens on a gameday, tailgate his tail off and feed 98,000 fans on three hotdogs and a pack of stale buns? Probably not. Unless he had help from the downtown sausage guy with the comeback sauce.

Mr. Whiskers lives a fruitful life, and has a great impact on a great many people.  Unfortunately, being feral, he is caught by the authorities and imprisoned.  The authorities allow him time to be adopted, but ultimately wash their hands of him and put him to death.  He is entombed and all are appropriately sad.

The corrupt county government or a landowner realizes that having Mr. Whiskers in a location where all can make pilgrimages and those types of things is seriously going to cramp their plan to erect some condos on the site.  They remove Mr. Whiskers' earthly remains to a new, undisclosed site.

Mr. Whiskers' followers discover the empty tomb whilst on a mission to leave catnip, cans of tuna, and other appropriate remembrances.  Where is Mr. Whiskers? Oh my!

Mr. Whiskers shows himself to a few followers... or does he?  Maybe Mr. Whiskers' followers realize they have a good thing going and post a few more Facebook posts.  

I'm agnostic.  The bible is a decent history book, though revised to suit the times at many points through the ages.  All scientific evidence points to the fact that a man named Jesus existed in history, amassed many followers, and changed the course of the world.  

The miracles? Yeah, not so much, for me anyway.  But that's where emotions and belief take over.  I can't anymore disprove the divine origins of Jesus than believers can prove it, it's up to each person to decide what they believe.

I can prove to you that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit because it's a measurement that can be repeated in a lab.  It's a fact, a law of science.

I can't tell you how you feel when UGA loses a football game, because it's a emotion that can't be measured.  It depends on your life up to this point and your experiences.

The scientific vs faith argument is unanswerable.  The historical framework of the story of Jesus is fairly sound.  The miracles? Not so much.  

You can't argue against faith - it's what people believe in their hearts, and they just won't hear anything else.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 24, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Because human feelings and emotions are not things that can be quantified scientifically. .


So Sociology, Psychiatry and Psychology are not sciences?


----------



## drippin' rock (May 24, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So Sociology, Psychiatry and Psychology are not sciences?



They are practices.   You can come up with stereotypical behavioral types, but not everyone will always fit into those types.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 24, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> They are practices.   You can come up with stereotypical behavioral types, but not everyone will always fit into those types.


So in other words, Science isn't exact.


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Because human feelings and emotions are not things that can be quantified scientifically.  I know "Johnny Smith" is a jerk in my mind, but my definition isn't perhaps what "Johnny Smith" would use to define themselves, or another what another person would use to define "Johnny Smith".  My definition is based on my experiences with "Johnny Smith" and my personal beliefs on how people should behave.
> 
> If you wish to say that your cat (Mr. Whiskers) is the center of the universe, that all of the stars and moons and whatnot revolve around him, then I can show you scientific evidence to the contrary, no matter how cute he might be.
> 
> ...



^


----------



## JB0704 (May 24, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Because human feelings and emotions are not things that can be quantified scientifically.  I know "Johnny Smith" is a jerk in my mind, but my definition isn't perhaps what "Johnny Smith" would use to define themselves, or another what another person would use to define "Johnny Smith".  My definition is based on my experiences with "Johnny Smith" and my personal beliefs on how people should behave.
> 
> If you wish to say that your cat (Mr. Whiskers) is the center of the universe, that all of the stars and moons and whatnot revolve around him, then I can show you scientific evidence to the contrary, no matter how cute he might be.
> 
> ...



I'm a Christian (must clarify first), but that ^^^^ is a fantastic post.

I take no issue with any of it, though I see it all differently, and I appreciate your inserting this:



> ..... and changed the course of the world.



It's good to know an agnostic can recognize the impact the man had, even if we disagree on the nature of the man.


----------



## Four (May 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> "Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know" ~Betrand Russell
> 
> How many here believe this quote to be true?
> 
> Just post "yes" or "no". I'll have a follow up question after a few people have voted.



I think I could answer yes, or no and argue it pretty well depending on how i play with the semantics.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> It's good to know an agnostic can recognize the impact the man had, even if we disagree on the nature of the man.



Is that arguable? Is that not a fact?


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 24, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> I can prove to you that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit because it's a measurement that can be repeated in a lab.  It's a fact, a law of science.



Kind of... but I can prove to you that it freezes at other temps too. Or that it boils at other temps than 212*.


----------



## stringmusic (May 24, 2013)

Four said:


> I think I could answer yes, or no and argue it pretty well depending on how i play with the semantics.



If you answer "yes", how do you conclude that the statement itself is true?


----------



## Four (May 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If you answer "yes", how do you conclude that the statement itself is true?



Seems fairly straightforward... Why don't we start with knowledge that you believe to be obtainable, but not obtainable by the scientific method. 

Lets leave spiritual stuff out, if that's OK.. because of course i dont see that as knowledge.


----------



## stringmusic (May 24, 2013)

Four said:


> Seems fairly straightforward...


That doesn't make it a conclusion by scientific method.



> Why don't we start with knowledge that you believe to be obtainable, but not obtainable by the scientific method.
> 
> Lets leave spiritual stuff out, if that's OK.. because of course i dont see that as knowledge.



I think knowledge can be gained through philosophy. Also logic can be a way to gain knowledge.


----------



## JB0704 (May 24, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Is that arguable? Is that not a fact?



Some begin with "he didn't exist."


----------



## Four (May 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I think knowledge can be gained through philosophy. Also logic can be a way to gain knowledge.



I would say those are scientific methods.. Logic has to reflect reality. Anything gained from philosophy that doesn't reflect reality and isn't testable isn't knowledge.


----------



## JB0704 (May 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I think knowledge can be gained through philosophy. Also logic can be a way to gain knowledge.



Agreed.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 24, 2013)

Four said:


> I think I could answer yes, or no and argue it pretty well depending on how i play with the semantics.



I'm gonna make this comment then step aside and let you guys have at it.  Once you start "playing with semantics" anything is arguable, because it allows you the change the meaning or intent of the original assertion.  The original assertion disappears and most often a straw man appears in his place.


----------



## JB0704 (May 24, 2013)

Four said:


> Logic has to reflect reality.



Unless reality isn't limited to what we currently can know.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Some begin with "he didn't exist."



He may not have existed as a person.. Probably, but maybe not... Either way, there is the name Jesus and the stories of Jesus that unarguably exist and have changed the course of the world.


----------



## stringmusic (May 24, 2013)

Four said:


> I would say those are scientific methods.. Logic has to reflect reality. Anything gained from philosophy that doesn't reflect reality and isn't testable isn't knowledge.



So, how would you use the scientific method to find out the statement in the OP is true?

How would you use the scientific method to find out why Aunt Sally baked a cake.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 24, 2013)

Four said:


> I would say those are scientific methods.. Logic has to reflect reality. Anything gained from philosophy that doesn't reflect reality and isn't testable isn't knowledge.


Man Made Global warming is born of a flawed theory, has failed many tests miserably, and yet many cling to it as the gospel. Does this mean it is the new religion? or just another ruse by a group of wingnut scientist and flim flam men looking to make a profit from a modern day version of snake oil?


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Man Made Global warming is born of a flawed theory, has failed many tests miserably, and yet many cling to it as the gospel. Does this mean it is the new religion? or just another ruse by a group of wingnut scientist and flim flam men looking to make a profit from a modern day version of snake oil?



By that description it sounds like a new religion to me .


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 24, 2013)

Very similar.. There's some how and why for you.... Just because it was 2000 years ago doesn't mean that there was no how and why, just not one that is as easy to identify.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (May 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I'm a Christian (must clarify first), but that ^^^^ is a fantastic post.
> 
> I take no issue with any of it, though I see it all differently, and I appreciate your inserting this:
> 
> ...





			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> ^



Thanks.  



			
				stringmusic said:
			
		

> How would you use the scientific method to find out why Aunt Sally baked a cake.



Mr. Whiskers came to me in a dream and said that Aunt Sally bought that cake at Ingles.


----------



## David Parker (May 27, 2013)

I chalk up 99% of what happens in life to the Butterfly Effect.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 27, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Because human feelings and emotions are not things that can be quantified scientifically.  I know "Johnny Smith" is a jerk in my mind, but my definition isn't perhaps what "Johnny Smith" would use to define themselves, or another what another person would use to define "Johnny Smith".  My definition is based on my experiences with "Johnny Smith" and my personal beliefs on how people should behave.
> 
> If you wish to say that your cat (Mr. Whiskers) is the center of the universe, that all of the stars and moons and whatnot revolve around him, then I can show you scientific evidence to the contrary, no matter how cute he might be.
> 
> ...




Brother if you are trying to make an analogy, at least make an accurate one.  This one is full of straw men and falsities.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (May 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Brother if you are trying to make an analogy, at least make an accurate one.  This one is full of straw men and falsities.



 No No:  Then so is the bible...


----------



## Four (May 28, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So, how would you use the scientific method to find out the statement in the OP is true?
> 
> How would you use the scientific method to find out why Aunt Sally baked a cake.



Ask aunt sally, ask her family, etc.

Also, the quote says scientific methods, not the scientific method.




Miguel Cervantes said:


> Man Made Global warming is born of a flawed theory, has failed many tests miserably, and yet many cling to it as the gospel. Does this mean it is the new religion? or just another ruse by a group of wingnut scientist and flim flam men looking to make a profit from a modern day version of snake oil?



Sounds like you've got a bone to pick somewhere, but this post has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 28, 2013)

four said:


> but this post has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


rong!!!


----------



## stringmusic (May 28, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Mr. Whiskers came to me in a dream and said that Aunt Sally bought that cake at Ingles.


Soooo, that makes the answer to the question in the OP "no"?



Four said:


> Ask aunt sally, ask her family, etc.


If she just tells you the answer, then you didn't gain that knowledge through the scientific method.



> Also, the quote says scientific methods, not the scientific method.



I thought there was only one scientific method. The way I understand it, some have slight variations to that method, but there is only one method as a whole. I've been wrong one time before though.


----------



## Four (May 28, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If she just tells you the answer, then you didn't gain that knowledge through the scientific method.



Why not? Its just doing research, finding evidence, testing it, using it to make predictions. Its not always the mysterious laboratory type thing. Much of the softer sciences HAVE to do things like this.




stringmusic said:


> I thought there was only one scientific method. The way I understand it, some have slight variations to that method, but there is only one method as a whole. I've been wrong one time before though.



I assumed saying "using scientific methods" was somewhat informal. Doesn't really matter.


----------



## stringmusic (May 28, 2013)

Four said:


> Why not?


I don't believe science can answer questions of "why", but only "how". There wouldn't be such a thing a philosophy if science could answer "why" questions.



> Its just doing research, finding evidence, testing it, using it to make predictions. Its not always the mysterious laboratory type thing.


How would you go about testing the answer to a "why" question? Is there a way to test and find out that aunt Sally made the cake for little Johnny's birthday?



> Much of the softer sciences HAVE to do things like this.


Yes, it could be argued that science, at it's core, is based off knowledge that cannot be gained through the scientific method, because language itself is not scientific.


----------



## Four (May 28, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't believe science can answer questions of "why", but only "how". There wouldn't be such a thing a philosophy if science could answer "why" questions.



I could imagine a study to the effect of finding out why people enjoy sports or some such. Definitely the social/soft sciences.



stringmusic said:


> How would you go about testing the answer to a "why" question? Is there a way to test and find out that aunt Sally made the cake for little Johnny's birthday?



We could look for cultural reasons, look for the root of the cultural habit of cooking a cake, maybe that spawned off from pie after there was a fruit shortage or some such? Could go further back and look for the roots of birthday celebrations. After that we could look into why his aunt made the cake instead of his mother, or another relative. Of the set of relative alive, who could potentially make the cake itself?



stringmusic said:


> Yes, it could be argued that science, at it's core, is based off knowledge that cannot be gained through the scientific method, because language itself is not scientific.



What? Not even science is science? Language isn't scientific? I think we just aren't using the same definition of the word. 

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.


----------



## stringmusic (May 28, 2013)

Four said:


> I could imagine a study to the effect of finding out why people enjoy sports or some such. Definitely the social/soft sciences.


We could definitely come to great conclusions by doing this, but we could never come to definite conclusions, because the answers would all be relative. It would just be averages of answers that scientists couldn't prove true or false. 




> We could look for cultural reasons, look for the root of the cultural habit of cooking a cake, maybe that spawned off from pie after there was a fruit shortage or some such?


This would just boil down to a best guess based on the evidence, the conclusion(guess) may or may not be the correct answer. I don't think that really gets us anywhere.



> What? Not even science is science? Language isn't scientific? I think we just aren't using the same definition of the word.
> 
> Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.



LOL, science is science. 

The language used that science is based off of is not knowledge that was gained through the scientific method. Words are not a physical entity that can be tested or dissected.


----------



## stringmusic (May 28, 2013)

How would we scientifically come to the conclusion that a painting is a work of art or the end result of a sugar rush by a child with a paintbrush?


----------



## JB0704 (May 28, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How would we scientifically come to the conclusion that a painting is a work of art or the end result of a sugar rush by a child with a paintbrush?



I think everything people do is considered art these days.


----------



## Four (May 28, 2013)

Either you're putting forth red herrings, or we have  a basic semantics misunderstanding.

I'll take some blame for it taking so long for me to define my terms. 

*Knowledge* - Knowledge is a familiarity with someone or something, which can include facts, information, descriptions, or skills acquired through experience or education. It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); it can be more or less formal or systematic.

*Science* - Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

*Know* - Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information. Have knowledge or information concerning.

Disclosure - Science and knowledge I just grabbed from wikipedia. Know just showed up as soon as i searched google. They all seemed like the definitions that I was working with.

If there are any other terms that you think we might not be using consistently, let me know, or just define them. If you disagree with the definitions i put forward we can talk about that.


----------



## stringmusic (May 28, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I think everything people do is considered art these days.


 We can't hurwt peoples lil feewings you know.


Four said:


> Either you're putting forth red herrings, or we have  a basic semantics misunderstanding.
> 
> I'll take some blame for it taking so long for me to define my terms.
> 
> ...



I can't say I disagree with those definitions.

Here is the basic premise of what I'm trying to convey...

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-language/difference-between-philosophy-and-science/



> Without a doubt, there is a definite distinction between philosophy and science. The problem is – because of their interrelatedness, the two may be somewhat confusing for many, most especially that there are many arguments between them. There’s absolutely no philosophy-proof science because many sciences depend on philosophy and vice versa.
> 
> Figuratively speaking, science is best likened to the human mind while philosophy is to the human heart. Science, in general, seeks to understand natural phenomena. It is more concerned on empirical evidences and testable hypotheses. By “empirical,” it means “that which can be observed or experimented on.” By contrast, philosophy is vaguer. Defining it in one concrete sentence may not define it entirely. However, broadly speaking, philosophy is a school of thought that utilizes reasoning to uncover issues concerning metaphysics, logic, epistemology, language, ethics, aesthetics, and other disciplines.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dominic (May 28, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How would we scientifically come to the conclusion that a painting is a work of art or the end result of a sugar rush by a child with a paintbrush?



Scientifically, it's decided by what we have been conditioned to believe is art verses what we have been conditioned to believe is not art. While we do have a certain natural inclination for aesthetic beauty, maybe look at how the Golden Ratio appears in nature and how man unknowingly used it in the design of the Pyramids, Roman Architecture, and Amish design, what makes art "art" is in our conditioning which can be shown scientifically.


----------



## Robert Tuck (May 29, 2013)

I've enjoyed the posts. In recent times I've noticed some are quick to jump to a very strict, physically testable, empirical data only, convention of knowledge in an effort to easily remove God from the picture. As the original post and point makes clear, this line of thinking is a philosophical concept of knowledge, not a physically testable scientific truth. Therefore it is in fact a self-refuting concept of knowledge. I suppose, since it moves God out of the picture, people are willing to adhere to a self-refuting concept of knowledge.

The TV series The Big Bang Theory has within it a satire on this very line of thinking. To Sheldon, a theoretical physicist, knowledge is only found through the scientific method. The "soft sciences" are looked down upon as "largely hokum". 

It's entertaining to hear top scientists like Stephen Hawking say things like "philosophy is dead", because that is indeed a philosophical position on the condition of philosophy. Hawking makes a philosophical statement while declaring philosophy to be dead.  As Stringmusic just posted, there's a balance between science and philosophy.


----------



## stringmusic (May 29, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> I've enjoyed the posts. In recent times I've noticed some are quick to jump to a very strict, physically testable, empirical data only, convention of knowledge in an effort to easily remove God from the picture. As the original post and point makes clear, this line of thinking is a philosophical concept of knowledge, not a physically testable scientific truth. Therefore it is in fact a self-refuting concept of knowledge. I suppose, since it moves God out of the picture, people are willing to adhere to a self-refuting concept of knowledge.
> 
> The TV series The Big Bang Theory has within it a satire on this very line of thinking. To Sheldon, a theoretical physicist, knowledge is only found through the scientific method. The "soft sciences" are looked down upon as "largely hokum".
> 
> It's entertaining to hear top scientists like Stephen Hawking say things like "philosophy is dead", because that is indeed a philosophical position on the condition of philosophy. Hawking makes a philosophical statement while declaring philosophy to be dead.  As Stringmusic just posted, there's a balance between science and philosophy.



Love the Big Bang Theory TV show!

BTW, this post is spot on.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 30, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> No No:  Then so is the bible...



What do you premise that assertion on?  There is myriad of historical and archeological evidence to back up a much of what is in the Bible.


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What do you premise that assertion on?  There is myriad of historical and archeological evidence to back up a much of what is in the Bible.



No one argues some of the people and some of the places. It is the events that are embellished and leave not a trace of evidence.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No one argues some of the people and some of the places. It is the events that are embellished and leave not a trace of evidence.



Well I think there is enough historical evidence on Jesus's miracles which backs his claim of divinity.  Additionally there is overwhelming evidence to back the resurrection which also backs up his divinity.


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well I think there is enough historical evidence on Jesus's miracles which backs his claim of divinity.  Additionally there is overwhelming evidence to back the resurrection which also backs up his divinity.



Ok, where?
If the Bible is your source then you are back to square one. If the Bible IS the best source why does it fail worldwide? Why do it's believers differ on what is real/truthful and evidence?
You are confusing what works for you with what is considered evidence that would hold up in a court of law.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (May 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What do you premise that assertion on?  There is myriad of historical and archeological evidence to back up a much of what is in the Bible.




I agree with that, read what I wrote earlier.  I agree with it up to the point where things just don't mesh with the known laws of nature and science.

On the subject of "miracles", it's going to take more than two thousand year old stories written by those with a vested interest in me believing same stories to make me believe.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 6, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> I agree with that, read what I wrote earlier.  I agree with it up to the point where things just don't mesh with the known laws of nature and science.
> 
> On the subject of "miracles", it's going to take more than two thousand year old stories written by those with a vested interest in me believing same stories to make me believe.



Tell me how the apostles had a vested interest in anyone believing what they recorded outside of the fact they didn't want to see us spend eternity separated from God.
They certainly didn't do it for the money. They were stoned, beaten, imprisoned, tortured and eventually killed for their beliefs.  

Regarding your statement pertaining to miracles and 2000 year old stories, undoubtedly you are unaware of how well regarded the Bible is as an accurate historical record, particularly the New Testament.  Maybe you should investigate that a little more. Additionally it seems that perhaps you are uninformed as to the miracles also.  How else do you logically and reasonably explain the reaction
of the witnesses.

All that being said, if you insist on an outside source for the miracles there is a hostile source in the Jewish Talmud where Jesus is described as a sorcerer.  The Jews did not deny his miracles, but attributed them to Satans power.  This even corroborates what is documented in Matthew 12:24
“When the Pharisees heard this, they said, “The man drives out demons only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.”


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ok, where?
> If the Bible is your source then you are back to square one. If the Bible IS the best source why does it fail worldwide? Why do it's believers differ on what is real/truthful and evidence?
> You are confusing what works for you with what is considered evidence that would hold up in a court of law.



Tell you what bullet, why don't you try doing some legitimate research into the historical accuracy of the bible.  Read up on it, both pro and con arguments.  When you're done we can have an intelligent conversation, but I'm not going to bother debating with someone who makes such illogical categorical denunciations as you did in your first sentence.  It just highlights that you don't know what you're talking about, because an informed Atheist wouldn't make such a frankly ignorant assertion.
As far as your question regarding the Bible failing worldwide.....again, jeez.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jun 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Tell me how the apostles had a vested interest in anyone believing what they recorded outside of the fact they didn't want to see us spend eternity separated from God.
> They certainly didn't do it for the money. They were stoned, beaten, imprisoned, tortured and eventually killed for their beliefs.
> 
> Regarding your statement pertaining to miracles and 2000 year old stories, undoubtedly you are unaware of how well regarded the Bible is as an accurate historical record, particularly the New Testament.  Maybe you should investigate that a little more. Additionally it seems that perhaps you are uninformed as to the miracles also.  How else do you logically and reasonably explain the reaction
> ...



For one, go back and actually read my posts. I did say that I think the Bible is a mostly accurate history book.

Oh, I see you're using yet another history book (religion) to corroborate the miracles, except that they were attributed to Satan.  Wow, checkmate, I suppose.

 So, I guess, in a way, you worship Satan?

As for me and my house, we will serve Mr. Whiskers...


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Tell me how the apostles had a vested interest in anyone believing what they recorded outside of the fact they didn't want to see us spend eternity separated from God.
> They certainly didn't do it for the money. *They were stoned, beaten, imprisoned, tortured and eventually killed for their beliefs.*
> 
> Regarding your statement pertaining to miracles and 2000 year old stories, undoubtedly you are unaware of how well regarded the Bible is as an accurate historical record, particularly the New Testament.  Maybe you should investigate that a little more. Additionally it seems that perhaps you are uninformed as to the miracles also.  How else do you logically and reasonably explain the reaction
> ...



SFD, Please tell us which of the disciples were actually "stoned, beaten, imprisoned, tortured and eventually killed for their beliefs." And by all means post a source for this information.

I don't think you are aware of how inaccurate the Bible is as Historical record. Some people and some places...yes. Able to back up the miracles.....no way. There is no backing up the reactions of witnesses, there were no interviews. The information is at best hearsay.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 6, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> For one, go back and actually read my posts. I did say that I think the Bible is a mostly accurate history book.
> 
> Oh, I see you're using yet another history book (religion) to corroborate the miracles, except that they were attributed to Satan.  Wow, checkmate, I suppose.


 
Let me get this straight.  You accept the validity of the Bible historically, but not supernaturally, despite the fact that both types of accounts share common authorships.  You attempt to reconcile this by suggesting the these very authors, although historically trustworthy,  had some type of "vested interest" that when it came to recording supernatural events, caused them to cast aside all their forementioned integrity.  

Again I suggest that they did in fact witness these supernatural events, and were unwilling jeopardize their integrity to the point of holding these events to be true to the point of death is a more reasonable explanation.  

I was very interested in what your response would be to the externally hostile, yet contemporary corroborating source since it was you who demanded one.  I find your response very telling.  Instead of acknowledging the source and objectively discussing the historical light it cast on the subject and it's ramifications, you cast it aside as essentially false or irrelevant based on it being "religious".
Let me be blunt.  It appears you have no desire for a serious discussion that goes any deeper than your talking points.  The good news is you have plenty of company here.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Let me get this straight.  You accept the validity of the Bible historically, but not supernaturally, despite the fact that both types of accounts share common authorships.  You attempt to reconcile this by suggesting the these very authors, although historically trustworthy,  had some type of "vested interest" that when it came to recording supernatural events, caused them to cast aside all their forementioned integrity.
> 
> Again I suggest that they did in fact witness these supernatural events, and were unwilling jeopardize their integrity to the point of holding these events to be true to the point of death is a more reasonable explanation.
> 
> ...



.............now back to the Apostles being stoned, beaten, imprisoned, tortured and eventually killed for their beliefs.

I am very interested in the specifics.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Tell you what bullet, why don't you try doing some legitimate research into the historical accuracy of the bible.  Read up on it, both pro and con arguments.  When you're done we can have an intelligent conversation, but I'm not going to bother debating with someone who makes such illogical categorical denunciations as you did in your first sentence.  It just highlights that you don't know what you're talking about, because an informed Atheist wouldn't make such a frankly ignorant assertion.
> As far as your question regarding the Bible failing worldwide.....again, jeez.



Don't know how I missed this, must have been when I was doing some legitimate research on those poor martyred apostles.....
But anyway, you seem to not want to talk to, debate, discuss, etc, anything with anyone on here as soon as you paint yourself in a corner. You rattle off one of your self-back-patting rants spouting off about what you think instead of what you know I and others do. You talk a good game but do not back it up. Your very quick to end conversations that do not suit you.
I made the statements I made because I have and continue to research the Bible constantly and legitimately.
Based off of your comment of "They(apostles) were stoned, beaten, imprisoned, tortured and eventually killed for their beliefs." I am confident that your research consists of whatever rolls off your tongue and not from any sort of legitimate research. I am going from memory but I think the Bible lists the demise of TWO apostles. Where did you get your information about the others that allows you to make such a statement?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 7, 2013)

GOOGLE + "how the apostles died" = 

http://www.theexaminer.org/volume7/number3/apostle.htm

http://www.gotquestions.org/apostles-die.html

http://poptop.hypermart.net/howdied.html

Tuff stuff.  Took all of 3 seconds.  Keep researching that historical accuracy of Bible topic and let me know if you need help locating any sources.  Me and GOOGLE are tight I tell you!  Tight!


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jun 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Let me get this straight.  You accept the validity of the Bible historically, but not supernaturally, despite the fact that both types of accounts share common authorships.  You attempt to reconcile this by suggesting the these very authors, although historically trustworthy,  had some type of "vested interest" that when it came to recording supernatural events, caused them to cast aside all their forementioned integrity.
> 
> Again I suggest that they did in fact witness these supernatural events, and were unwilling jeopardize their integrity to the point of holding these events to be true to the point of death is a more reasonable explanation.
> 
> ...



Actually, you just accurately described yourself.  And same as the rest, all your answers come around to the bible or "faith".  That's not a good enough answer for me.

Are you willing to say that you may be wrong? I am...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 7, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Actually, you just accurately described yourself.  And same as the rest, all your answers come around to the bible or "faith".  That's not a good enough answer for me.
> 
> Are you willing to say that you may be wrong? I am...



Funny I don't get that from you.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jun 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Funny I don't get that from you.



Eh, you don't know me that well.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> GOOGLE + "how the apostles died" =
> 
> http://www.theexaminer.org/volume7/number3/apostle.htm
> 
> ...



Google ! WOW! Who Knew! I really appreciate the Google tip SFD. 
3 seconds, dude you were right... (BTW, those links you provided may have forgot to include their sources....except for the one that used Fox's book from the 1500's)
I am a little confused though, Google has this too:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2007/06/how-did-the-apostles-die-2/

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apostles.html

http://packham.n4m.org/martyrs.htm

http://jcreigh.blogspot.com/2008/08/were-jesuss-apostles-martyred.html

Oh no, while I was on that Google site thing I wanted to cross reference just how accurate this Google information is so I did some Google-Research and found a few more things to be 1,000,000% accurate according to your standards of evidence.
For instance:

http://paranormal.about.com/od/bigfootsasquatch/a/Sasquatch-Best-Evidence.htm

Hey here is one that ties in with your "Eyewitnesses so it's gotta be true" stance.
http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/finding-bigfoot/lists/bigfoot-evidence.htm

YOW! Thanks Google!
http://leprechaunevidence.blogspot.com/

In this one there is a reference to a book written in 1530(about the same time Fox wrote about the martyred apostles) so we know it has GOT to be true also.
http://johnkettler.com/unicorns-evidence-they-really-existed/

Google says Zeus was real:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090202175200.htm

SFD, I went on and on and on and on....I cannot thank you enough for sharing YOUR method of finding historical accuracy. I don't know how I could ever repay you for sharing that with me. GOOGLE!


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> "Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know" ~Betrand Russell
> 
> How many here believe this quote to be true?
> 
> Just post "yes" or "no". I'll have a follow up question after a few people have voted.



Based on my internalization of "know" then yes.

This is the definition of "know" that I am applying here:


> 2
> 
> a : to be aware of the *truth or factuality* of : be convinced or certain of



Truth and factuality. Facts and truths can be proven through replication and demonstration. 

Now, as to the "soft sciences" there is proof of chemical changes associated with individuals who are "stimulated" in a certain manner. We don't have the _Big Book of Brain Laws_, yet; but we do have the _Big Book of Brain Theory_. That's how we get SSRIs, and some of the other drugs that alter chemical balances within the brain to produce a counter-effect to depression. 

So, why did Aunt Sally, I believe her name was, bake that cake? 

It could be because her pleasure center was stimulated at the thought of doing that thing for that other person, and was anticipating future stimulation upon that person's receipt of the cake and witnessing their reaction. 

Now, that used to be a philosophical question, which is why, I personally believe, that Hawking said that philosophy is dead. It's hyperbolic. Philosophy obviously isn't dead, but it is in a transformative state, given that we now understand the brain through MRI observations and chemical signatures. In other words, we would use philosophy to explain that which we can't understand or observe at this time, while science is used to explain that which we do. 

It's all part of the evolution of human understanding and based on best fit models, which is all that science is concerned with. If observations corroborate the model then someone else tests it, until enough people corroborate it to become law. In this manner, gravity was once a hypothesis, then it was a theory, then it was a principle, then it was a law. If someone comes along and beats the model then they study the model AND the experiment used to beat it. Maybe the experiment was flawed, maybe the model is. Either way it is examined and either reconfirmed, or altered to fit the observations. Some of our best discoveries were accidents, or 
"failures" of experiments. 

Hawking had a great segment about this on the "Luminiferous Ether" that was theorized to allow light to travel in space, since our only other observable waves required a media to make a transit. It was proven to be wrong, which proved to scientists that light is a wave that can travel through "nothing". 

Now, as to the convincing part. That's subjective and regardless of the actual validity of the information being presented. Facts are facts, regardless of belief in them.


----------

