tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post7938949487650900498..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-15179422652471015382016-09-24T11:09:10.386-07:002016-09-24T11:09:10.386-07:00Have you ever heard the term "figure of speec...Have you ever heard the term "figure of speech"?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-63289108046832432542016-09-23T23:12:17.141-07:002016-09-23T23:12:17.141-07:00" But any theory can be disproved by showing ..." But any theory can be disproved by showing a case where it fails."<br />But showing that case is itself not absolute. Absolute is a very strong word that I reserve for a very few things based on my own self awareness.<br /><br />A theory can be scientifically disproved with a scientifically demonstrated counter example. That is not, however, an absolute disproof, because science is inherently provisional.<br /><br />"science has shown to be absolutely false"<br />Science does not show things to be absolutely false. Science shows things to be scientifically false.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-82382969495237225222016-09-23T22:30:11.041-07:002016-09-23T22:30:11.041-07:00Science doesn't do absolute proof.
- I never c...<i>Science doesn't do absolute proof.</i><br />- I never claimed that it does. But proving something and disproving something are two different things. In many cases, it may be impossible to prove a proposition, but disproving it requires only one example that doesn't bear it out. Scientific theories are always considered to be tentative, which means that they are not proven. But any theory can be disproved by showing a case where it fails. This is the nature of science. So, too, with religious explanations of nature, many of which have been shown to be false.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-48135292447752274902016-09-23T16:35:54.552-07:002016-09-23T16:35:54.552-07:00"all kinds of things that science has shown t..."all kinds of things that science has shown to be absolutely false."<br />Science doesn't do absolute proof. On the speculation of an omnipotent being Ptolemy might have had it fundamentally correct, we are standing still and the universe is spinning around us, driven with ease by the hand of infinite power. Of course, there is no positive evidence for any such thing, and all our science converges on the modern scientific model of the universe, but I think the word "absolute" is too strong if we are going to get into a non-overlapping magesteria discussion.<br /><br />"what reason do we have to think that it comes from God,"<br />On an absence of absolute or objective morality the answer is "none". Unfortunately, humans have a pervasive craving for an absolute reference of right and wrong. There is the sense that our innate sense of ought must have some root in an objectively true set of moral propositions, owing to the commonality of our sensibilities.<br /><br />Many atheists trap themselves logically by asserting an absolute or objective morality, which on atheism is an irrational assertion (one of the few things William Lane Craig is correct about).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-84406528214137901912016-09-20T19:32:31.916-07:002016-09-20T19:32:31.916-07:00Superstition and Religion flow from the same well...<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition#Superstition_and_religion" rel="nofollow">Superstition and Religion</a> flow from the same wellspring of the human imagination- mythology:<br /><br />"As discussed above, there is little distinction between superstition and religion. What is fully accepted as genuine religious statement may be seen as poor superstition by those who do not share the same faith. Since there are no generally agreed proper or accepted religious standards among people of different cultural backgrounds, the very notion of what is a superstitious behavior is relative to local culture. In this sense, Christian theology will interpret African cults as pure superstition while an evangelical Christian will see as meaningless the Catholic ritual of crossing oneself (the Sign of the cross) when going by a church. With the development of folklore studies in the late 18th century, use of the derogatory term superstition was sometimes replaced by the neutral term "folk belief", an attempt to go over local cultural biases. Both terms remain in use; thus, describing a practice such as the crossing fingers to nullify a promise as "folk belief" implies a neutral description from the perspective of ethnology or folklore studies, while calling the same thing a "superstition" implies its rejection as irrational."<br /><br />Succinctly and most eruditely explained here:<br /><br />"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. " Dan Barker, former evangelist.<br /><br />Slowly but perceptively, the reality of the flaw that is religion is sinking in.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.com