The more absurd the belief, the more zealous the believer

[Zinjifar]

Again, what else is there ?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Zinj

 

[Pepin]

There are other tests, spirtual tests that are based on results only manifested in the physical.

At AOLA, someone was being tested to cause life, a postulate. I became aware of it the evening before. The next day being aware of the spirit thinking of me, I approached and I heard the one next to him say " Is this your postulate?
I told him I was aware of what he was doing and I approve that we may both be acknowledged and both win.

The scientific method, particularly it's rigorous methods of testing (which can occasionally be cheated) is specifically designed to get the emotions of the tester and testee OUT of the equation. That's what pseudosciences (like scientology) don't do and that's why they are FAIL.

Humans can ONLY be tested physically. That includes talking to them and measuring them. Can you please explain what else there is ? Clearly ?

Whey I use the word "Crazy", I use it in the sense that someone can be crazed while in love, crazed by religion or crazed by a celebrity. What I do believe is that these people can lead pretty normal lives anyway and function in society just fine.

It's like the compliment: "Man you're crazy !", which I've been subjected to several times.

Insane is a medical problem. Crazy is a personal problem that people chose as they wish.

 

[alexm]

NOT a good post Alex, even though you spend a good effort on it.

It's real simple: If your religion violates the laws of science (classical physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc)

THEN IT IS FALSE ! IT IS CRAZY, PERIOD.

Try hard all you want to prove your delusions, but it's much simpler than you think. All so-called sacred texts are wrong and crazy.

If those texts can be so wrong about basic science, why should your trust them as a way to guide your life ?

Here's my standard bet to you:

Give me ANY of the famous sacred texts: Torah, New Testament, Koran, Book of Mormon, (and I'll throw in Dianetics) and I will bet you (honor bet) that I will find NONSENSE in ANY random page you pick.

On the other hand, we'll go to a science book store and I dare you to find A SINGLE error (without using Google), in ANY PAGE in ANY BOOK in that store. (some may have an errata sheet included. That won't count for the bet)

Good luck, and remember why you got into scientology in the first place.

PS: I do agree about how leftist the Unitarian churches are and I see that also at CFI West (skeptics) in Hollywood. Shermer's Skeptics Society on the other hand is not liberal, but libertarian. As far as Buddhism, my two friends are great, but I find them very gullible about all kinds of stuff. Some Mormon engineers I worked with in Utah are the smartest people I ever worked with. Religiosity is UNRELATED to intelligence. It's all about cognitive dissonance and the smartest ones can hold that barrier better than the dumb ones.

Well you did not actually address any my post. You just spent an essay length reinforcing your own beliefs and insluting me for being differant. Since I do not need to do that against you I will simply say that we will agree to disagree.

It is amazing how materialistic view of science has become many peoples religion but it is scary especially when absolutes are involved. Remember that science has been wrong time and time again. Remember Eugenics? As for the bookstore, it depends which one you are talking about and which book doesn't it?

And by the way, I am probably just as critical as you are regarding sacred texts, as are many religious people I know however that's another entire arguement that you did not set aside from your original post. You are going off here and starting another arguement without addressing anything from my original one.

That's the problem with fundamentalism atheistic or religious. When you think you are right you shut off your mind to everyone elses opinion and insult others for having a lower intelligence. Nothing can be further from the truth.

 

[alexm]

Alexm -- I liked it too. You weren't wrong at all; you were cautioning people to look at the way things are, instead of how you want them to be. The world would be a much better place if people made a habit of doing that. Blind adherence to one viewpoint is not helpful no matter which side you are on.

Well done!
TL

I prefer people who are specific when taking about a subject. When someone talks about Christianity, there are just way too many churches and denominations around. Like I said are we taking about the homophobic ones or the gay friendly ones? The chauvanistic or the feminist? The conservative or the liberal? You have to get specific otherwise it sounds like nonsence.

 

[AnonOrange]

It is amazing how materialistic view of science has become many peoples religion but it is scary especially when absolutes are involved. Remember that science has been wrong time and time again. Remember Eugenics? As for the bookstore, it depends which one you are talking about and which book doesn't it?

And by the way, I am probably just as critical as you are regarding sacred texts, as are many religious people I know however that's another entire arguement that you did not set aside from your original post. You are going off here and starting another arguement without addressing anything from my original one.

That's the problem with fundamentalism atheistic or religious. When you think you are right you shut off your mind to everyone elses opinion and insult others for having a lower intelligence. Nothing can be further from the truth.

I totally addressed you original argument, from a scientific perspective ! Show me the goods if you want me to accept any of it. I'm open minded to the religious experience, bring it on in concrete terms that can be measured, verified, reproduced and accepted by a consensus of scientists !

Why do you call that fundamentalism ? Show me ! The religionists refuse to look.

As far as which book to use in my bet, I said it is YOUR choice, ANY book in a scientific bookstore (UCLA book store for examples). ANY BOOK, ANY PAGE, try to find a mistake without cheating.

I will take the top 5 sacred texts and I will find NONSENSE on ANY page.

Let's continue to disagree, shall we ?

 

[Dulloldfart]

That flew over my head.

I'm talking about easily seen errors. Math mistakes, obviously impossible stuff, etc.

"Obviously" impossible stuff depends on one's viewpoint. The Harvey/Galen paraphrase is from a famous quotation involving how the blood moves around the body, the idea being it is safer to side with conservative opinion even though one believes it to be wrong.

But I understand what you mean here.

Paul

 

[Zinjifar]

One man's 'obvious' is another man's 'incredible'.

Zinj

 

[Alanzo]

AO - Would you consider Jane Goodall a credible scientist?

 

[AnonOrange]

AO - Would you consider Jane Goodall a credible scientist?

Her politics influenced her science. That happens a lot in environmentalism.

What ever she got wrong will be corrected eventually. She did some pretty amazing discoveries like, for the first time observing the use of tools and chimps eating meat. (I'm saying this from memory, please correct me if you wish).

You see, the thing about science is not the INDIVIDUALS that matter, but that their record is open to criticism and corrected continually with better facts observed to match the theories..

Freud was mostly wrong. We now know that. It's been corrected and will continue to be corrected and improved.

It's very important not to have heros in science. Religion ONLY has heros and their texts are immutable. That's why it's fail.

Religion STAYS wrong. It can't correct.


PS: I wrote a South Park script that I personally gave to Trey Parker and Matt stone, when I met them two years ago in Vegas. It includes Pen Jillette, Jane Goodall and others.

 

[Alanzo]

Her politics influenced her science. That happens a lot in environmentalism.

What ever she got wrong will be corrected eventually. She did some pretty amazing discoveries like, for the first time observing the use of tools and chimps eating meat. (I'm saying this from memory, please correct me if you wish).

You see, the thing about science is not the INDIVIDUALS that matter, but that their record is open to criticism and corrected continually with better facts observed to match the theories..

Freud was mostly wrong. We now know that. It's been corrected and will continue to be corrected and improved.

It's very important not to have heros in science. Religion ONLY has heros and their texts are immutable. That's why it's fail.

Religion STAYS wrong. It can't correct.


PS: I wrote a South Park script that I personally gave to Trey Parker and Matt stone, when I met them two years ago in Vegas. It includes Pen Jillette, Jane Goodall and others.

Because this interview is very interesting.

I see traits in you as a fervent Scientist that were the same in me as a fervent Scientologist.

It's probably less embarrassing to be a fervent scientist, but no more correct.

There is a tendency in the fervent to seek simple answers that explain EVERYTHING. It's easier that way - your thinking is done for you. No more nagging doubts, there's a security in knowing you know the WAY, and the ONLY WAY.

Science is strictly limited to what can be tested. Everything else remains uncomfortably untouched by science

There are things in the human experience that science can not test. Those things, no matter how hard you try, will never be touched by science. And you will have to think about them on your own. I know, it's uncomfortable and it can be scary even.

Take it from me, an ex-fervent Scientologist.

Did you skip over my post again? The one before this Jane Goodall one?

 

[AnonOrange]

1. Love

2. A Sense of Belonging

See number 1 and 2 above?

Do you agree that these things are not consistent with the laws of science, but that they are part of being human??



What if your religion teaches you to love people better and more fully, and gives you a sense of belonging - even if it teaches these things through Virgin births and magical thinking?

Is it really inherently false or "crazy"?

PERIOD?

I had not seen you post at all since it was on the previous page.

"Love" and a "sense of belonging" are ABSOLUTELY consistent with the laws of Science, specifically evolutionary psychology and adding the science of consciousness. (see Helen Fisher and Daniel Dennet respectively, among others)

You can measure love -- with a blood test.

Sacred texts do have some good parts in them, but just like you would reject a physics text that had glaring errors on the first page, I am highly skeptical of their advice. For example Jesus said "Turn the other cheek". That's very nice, but not real good advice. Go try that in Lagos on a late evening.

 

[Zinjifar]

The problem with AO's simplistic promotion of Scientism, which he unfortunately mistakes for Science is that it falsely reinforces the silly beliefs of Scientologists, of which ESMB has many

It'd be about like a 'Psychologist' coming on and offering free lobotomies and ECT and plenty of drugs to all.

Zinj

 

[Alanzo]

"You can measure love -- with a blood test."...

If you believe that, then I've got a volcano to sell you. It comes with its own evil galactic overlord.

You see, 75 MILLUION years ago....

 

[AnonOrange]

I guess you want to end this thread ?

That's OK, I think of another topic.

BTW, my friend (Brian Dunning, Skeptoid) wants to do a series on he web. Any suggestions for topics ? I suggested he go with conspiracies.

 

[AnonOrange]

If you believe that, then I've got a volcano to sell you. It comes with its own evil galactic overlord.

You see, 75 MILLUION years ago....

Ever head of hormones, endorphines, etc. ?

 

[Alanzo]

I guess you want to end this thread ?

That's OK, I think of another topic.

BTW, my friend (Brian Dunning, Skeptoid) wants to do a series on he web. Any suggestions for topics ? I suggested he go with conspiracies.

I didn't say I wanted to end the thread. You've just said some very oversimplified things, while ignoring other things.

The idea that love can be tested with a blood test is completely IRRATIONAL.

See?

See how far oversimplified, fervent belief in ANYTHING can go?

Religion has a place in human society.

So does science.

Neither can overtake the other, and we would not want that - even if they could.

 

[Dulloldfart]

BTW, my friend (Brian Dunning, Skeptoid) wants to do a series on he web. Any suggestions for topics ? I suggested he go with conspiracies.

Yeah, great idea. Have him show how the official explanation for 9/11 holds up.

Paul

 

[Zinjifar]

I guess you want to end this thread ?

That's OK, I think of another topic.

BTW, my friend (Brian Dunning, Skeptoid) wants to do a series on he web. Any suggestions for topics ? I suggested he go with conspiracies.

I didn't see anybody say that; in fact, you've performed a useful service in disproving your own proposition:

"The more absurd the belief, the more zealous the believer"

'Scientism' is more silly and simplistic than 'absurd', yet your zeal is equal to that of any flat-earther or Scientologist I could think of. So, hypothesis disproven.

But, what does that have to do with your penchant for 'name-dropping'?

Zinj

 

[Alanzo]

Ever head of hormones, endorphines, etc. ?

Yes. Show the exact scientific correlation between hormones, endorphines, etc and "love" - in all its many varieties in human experience.

Right here. Right now.

Start.

 

[AnonOrange]

But, what does that have to do with your penchant for 'name-dropping'?
Zinj

Brian is my friend and I see him monthly and we e-mail regularly. Note that I don't drop names of anybody else except people in the skeptical movement that I meet, which I've been a member of for 25 years. I see these people regularly.

Back to the thread:

"Explaining religion: What's love got to do with it?"

A suggested article was posted on a skeptics facebook:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/04/65732229/1

The study of religion is now a biological / anthropological/ evolutionary science.

"Eventually, they'll use computer simulations to look at how religions transform over time, drawing from a global sample of 165 language groups that will allow them to codify 650 rituals. Says Whitehouse:
We are a long way from explaining religion but these are baby steps to a body of knowledge."