Decided to post once more, simply because Kathy raises a good point.

Originally Posted by knguyens2

You said earlier, "The sheer hubris of this generation makes me sick." Yet you call people filth.

These are not conflicting things...

It's good to value our own personal opinions on things. YOU too have your own opinion and clearly you are not happy that someone is criticizing it. People just have to learn to accept that there can be more than one view on things, and learn how to respect others. Open discussions, like this one, allows us to broaden our knowledge and maybe learn a thing or two. However, if you don't learn anything, then respect.

I'm neither happy not unhappy that someone is criticizing my opinion. Notice that nowhere have I mentioned my specific perspective on science vs. religion...however perhaps my M.Sc would suggest what side of the fence I'm on. My specific perspective on life and existence has not been attacked in any way.

I've simply responded in kind to being called a fool. But I truly did not come to change anyone's mind, and from this point out anyone is free to think what they wish.

My final point - I'm not suggesting you place no value in your opinions. I'm merely saying you shouldn't place them so high above the realm of falsifiability that they can never be challenged (and you call yourself a scientist?), by immediately dismissing anyone who disagrees as "foolish" simply of the basis of:

If you really believe that someone can put together a convincing case for religion against science, then you are more foolish than your run-on posts suggest.

I believe someone exists who can argue for religion, and science, better than anyone in this topic. Anyone here would be defeated in a debate. I merely suggest you think carefully about what 'winning a debate' actually means, and what an 'open discussion' also means.

"If you honestly believe that someone can put together a convincing case against string theory, then you're an idiot." <- No longer falsifiable in your mind (which at the end of the day, is all you have jurisdiction over). If this mentality spread to say, the entire scientific community, then that's a dangerous thought.

Originally Posted by Incognitus

The sheer hubris of this generation makes me sick. To think we place so much value on our own personal opinions on the matter.

However the universe came to be, however we exist, have consciousness and so forth (insert other "big questions"), it did not depend on your beliefs, or lack-there-of. Don't be foolish enough to think you have all the answers. It's a product of us being told time and time again that we're the 'smartest' generation, however we lack many of the basic skills a typical person had in the 1800s, and any person from there would think we're quite stupid for not knowing them.

There's no such thing as "more correct" or "less correct." The only thing I'm confident of, is that every single person currently on this planet, fails to have all the answers. As you go through life and experience it for yourself, draw your own conclusions and so forth, keep that simple fact in mind.

Well, speaking of relevance, I'm going to have to clarify some of your misconceptions.
First of all, there is such thing as "more correct" or "less correct". Life is on a continuous spectrum. If you think of life as a strictly dichotomous and discrete thing, then you're absolutely mistaken. If things were either 100% correct or 100% incorrect, then, science wouldn't exist at all. Science relies on the fact that it is progressing in a self-correcting way, and that's the only reason we can expand our knowledge.

You are right, however, in that nobody has an answer to all questions. If we had all the answers, then there will be a single theory that explains absolutely everything about the world. And this is the exact reason why we can only be either 'more correct' or 'less correct'.

As you have mentioned, 'experience' is what makes us improve. Science is based on such empiricism, and religion is not. That's why I keep arguing that we can only improve through scientific practice.

Originally Posted by Incognitus

These are not conflicting things...

They are not conflicting, but I do see a connection. Correct me if I'm wrong, hubris is extreme pride or arrogance (according to Wiki). My vocab is very limited, had to look this up. In order for you to react so strongly towards someone, you must have strong beliefs on your own opinions. How else would it elicit such a strong reaction... to call someone filth. That is degrading to that person, and you are placing yourself high above them (with your hubris).

Originally Posted by Incognitus

My final point - I'm not suggesting you place no value in your opinions. I'm merely saying you shouldn't place them so high above the realm of falsifiability that they can never be challenged (and you call yourself a scientist?), by immediately dismissing anyone who disagrees as "foolish" simply of the basis of: ..

I strongly believe in my opinions. It's part of who I am. It's confidence in yourself. That does not mean I am not open to challenges. I listen to what people have to say, and compare it to my own. In the end, I choose to modify what I believe in or stick with what I already believe in. By considering what other people are saying, that is not dismissing. But I do understand, there are some people who are so stubborn and narrow minded that they would not even give a thought to someone else's opinions. And this is why we have conflict in this world.

Originally Posted by Incognitus

Whether someone can convince you (specifically) is a different thing from convincing the masses, or other people listening on. Silver tongues, and access to information can be a dangerous thing. That and the false belief that an Ad Hominem represents a valid argument. It's much easier to dismiss someone as a fool after all, than it is to actually listen and invalidate an argument. However once again, fool or not, that wouldn't discredit a person's words.

You're convinced beyond all redemption that you're correct. While I'm not saying you're incorrect, I am completely justified in identifying your arrogance. Particularly when you speak of those who are religious attacking atheists (I believe it was you who said that), when your very thread serves simply as an attack on the religious. That which I've quoted serves as proof.

Don't take someone who disagrees with you so lightly (do I even disagree with you?) - you don't know what I believe in, but you've made it quite clear what you believe in. Someday that may cause problems for you. But not today, I've spoken my piece, and my intention was never to open anyone's eyes. Filth like you isn't worth my time.

In case you didnt catch it, that was made as a sarcastic/mocking comment basically taking what i had quoted and turning it around on the person. that was for my own shits and giggles.
And i like the little subtle threat in there as well.
I am convinced that i am correct because there is researched evidence supporting scientific theories of how the world was created. Im sorry but there is no evidence AT ALL supporting a existential being such as God, Ganesh, etc.
Finally, you are posting in MY thread quite a fair amount, spending your time to do so, on a piece of filth that i quote "isnt worth (your) time." keep not wasting you time by being above all others in this thread with your posts

Originally Posted by Incognitus

Decided to post once more, simply because Kathy raises a good point.



These are not conflicting things...



I'm neither happy not unhappy that someone is criticizing my opinion. Notice that nowhere have I mentioned my specific perspective on science vs. religion...however perhaps my M.Sc would suggest what side of the fence I'm on. My specific perspective on life and existence has not been attacked in any way.

I've simply responded in kind to being called a fool. But I truly did not come to change anyone's mind, and from this point out anyone is free to think what they wish.

My final point - I'm not suggesting you place no value in your opinions. I'm merely saying you shouldn't place them so high above the realm of falsifiability that they can never be challenged (and you call yourself a scientist?), by immediately dismissing anyone who disagrees as "foolish" simply of the basis of:



I believe someone exists who can argue for religion, and science, better than anyone in this topic. Anyone here would be defeated in a debate. I merely suggest you think carefully about what 'winning a debate' actually means, and what an 'open discussion' also means.

"If you honestly believe that someone can put together a convincing case against string theory, then you're an idiot." <- No longer falsifiable in your mind (which at the end of the day, is all you have jurisdiction over). If this mentality spread to say, the entire scientific community, then that's a dangerous thought.

When did i ever call myself a scientist? believing in science does not make you a scientist... or maybe you thought that believing in science made you a Scientologist? im sorry, im responding to your disrespectful comments of calling me filth with a condescending remark of my own.

You all making a real difference here. Really.

Get your fedoras out and embrace the euphoria.

I will continue watching, eating popcorn. Anyone care to join me? *omnom*

Originally Posted by Afzal

You all making a real difference here. Really.

More of a difference than every highschool bitch who wrote KONY 2012 on fbook thinking that they were putting an end to him