Ignorant from the start

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Ignorant from the start

Post #1

Post by Tart »

As quoted in another thread
"So this tendency that believers have to look towards the past as a time of knowledge and informed wisdom, is actually an ignorant position."

This is talking about looking at our past for knowledge... Like looking at a source from 2000+ years ago... Saying we would be ignorant to do such things...

Actually this conversation was specifically about Aristotle... For Aristotle was perhaps the first of the scientists, and Aristotle put forth scientific arguments for the existence of God... In his Book "Physics" (where the word comes from), Aristotle tells us that "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world"

Just the same as Newton... "Don't doubt the creator, because it is inconceivable that accidents alone could be the controller of this universe."~Newton


These are scientifically based arguments, and reasoning, that God exists. And they are saying that the orderliness of nature is dependent on a God... That without God there is no reason that science, and the order in nature, should exist...


Its just ironic that atheists have these kind of quotes (like the one above)... They say, why would anyone look at our past for knowledge? That they were just ignorant back then, and conclude that they have no merit...

But the scientific method itself is based upon past experiments, and inductive reasoning. The only way the scientific method can make sense out of the order in nature, is if the past will be like the future. If the experiments we did yesterday can be done today and tomorrow, yielding the same results...

This is what philosophers call "inductive reasoning"... Its funny, because science is based off this stuff... And in order for us to make sense of anything, we need to have a past that is logically coherent...

Its also quite astonishing as well, that atheists have taken this one step further... While many scientist, theologians, philosophers, have made the argument that the order in nature is evidence for a God, a God who keeps things orderly...

Atheist on the other hand have brought to question inductive reasoning itself.. It is called the "problem of induction", as Hume said it. He couldn't make sense of why things make sense.. He said there needs to be a proof for induction that is not dependent on its past (kind of like how atheist dont want to depend on our past)... And this goes on today as something philosophically unproven (without a God)... That inductive reasoning (which the scientific method is based off of, also logic and language itself) needs to have some kind of justification for it....

So, all these believing scientists/philosophers point to induction as proof of God. While all the atheists scientist/philosophers point to induction as not making any sense... Kind of funny..


Isnt it just clear... The evidence is all on one side... The claim is that truth has a start, knowledge has a foundation, that we can learn truths from our past.. And this isnt even limited to our human history... Science itself is built upon our past experiences...

Where atheist say, we started in ignorance, knowing nothing, and then some how stumbled upon truth... (where? or when? they dont say...)

And where theist say that knowledge and truth has a beginning, from the start with God, and builds upon these things...


I think its pretty clear.. All the evidence, including all the "psychical" evidence is on the side of God, the unmoved mover... And nothing but a void of truth on the side of atheism, where we cant even make sense out of induction itself, or our past.

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #141

Post by Tart »

in fact, atheist like to boast in the sciences as if it is the source of all knowledge.. As if science is the authority of all knowledge, and that it align perfectly with the beliefs in no gods.

But in reality, the sciences arent a solid foundation of knowledge. They are always changing, we are continuously discovering that the sciences we believed yesterday arent true today...

Yet atheism boast in the science we know today, as if it is undeniable truth...

That is why David Berlinski was quoted in his book, "The Devils Delution", saying "scientific atheism [is] a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt"...

Saying atheism aggressively relies on modern science with false surety, as if it is impenetrable, and that there is nothing beyond it...

Seems like scientific atheism itself is a source of indoctrination...

Like as we continue to discover that evolution is not as simple as atheism make it out to be.. That there is more to it, then "random mutations/natural selection"... We will discover evolution is much different then what you guys boast about it being... Just like we discovered that the universe had a beginning (the big bang), after nonbelievers would boast as if the universe is eternal...

They would laugh at you in the 1950's if you said the universe began to exist at some time... Saying the Bible is wrong from the start, with surety, and without question... Yet that idea fell out from under their feet...

seems like scientific atheism is a source of indoctrination itself...

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Post #142

Post by Clownboat »

Tart wrote:
benchwarmer wrote:
Tart wrote: When you say "indoctrinated", that is basically saying people are teaching their children their beliefs... So what would be the difference between someone who teaches the periodic table in a science class to a kid, and someone who teaches a kid about their religious beliefs?
If the kid never bothered to do any experiments confirming the periodic table and simply repeated whatever the teachers taught, then there is no difference.

Yet, for the most part, this is not the case. Most science curriculums have an experimental portion to go along with the text book learning. If you find a problem between what has been taught and what happens in the experiments, you are either doing the experiment wrong (peer review will help) or the teaching was wrong and will need to be corrected.

Good luck applying the same method in religion.

Pastor: Let us learn of prayer:
Mark 11:24 New International Version (NIV)
24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
Little Johnny: I prayed and believed and nothing happened....

Pastor: Maybe you did not believe.

Little Johnny: I believed with all my heart that Jesus would heal my mommy, but she died anyway.

Pastor: The Lord works in mysterious ways!
Having Faith in God, and in prayer, is putting God's plan ahead of your own... That is pretty much a clear cut definition... Believing in that plan, will align you with that plan, in which case.. The destiny of God will unfold in everyone's life...


But so you say if they do experiments then its not indoctrination? So, i was taught by multiple people of the periodic table, yet not really taught about why its order was formed... Maybe until much much later in my education, which we arent even really sure if the periodic table is fully accurate... We are just kind of making educated guesses when it comes to the periodic table ordering. So i guess its indoctrination then... Of things we arent even sure about...

Or what about history class? is that indoctrination?

Education? We use to teach children that life might have spawned by lightning... Which is now considered not true... Is that indoctrination?

If our science today, isnt true tomorrow... Is that indoctrination? If experiments are misused, or misunderstood, forming false hypotheses, and taught as true... Is that indoctrination??
Tart, please realise how weak your defiense is.

Rather than realizing the reality that most people believe the religion of their geography/parents, you are attempting to level the playing field.

I'm sorry, but even if you could discredit science, religion by geography is still demonstrable and kids are still indoctrinated into religions by their parents.

Why you think trying to discredit science helps you in anyway is lost on me.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #143

Post by Tart »

Clownboat wrote:
Tart wrote:
benchwarmer wrote:
Tart wrote: When you say "indoctrinated", that is basically saying people are teaching their children their beliefs... So what would be the difference between someone who teaches the periodic table in a science class to a kid, and someone who teaches a kid about their religious beliefs?
If the kid never bothered to do any experiments confirming the periodic table and simply repeated whatever the teachers taught, then there is no difference.

Yet, for the most part, this is not the case. Most science curriculums have an experimental portion to go along with the text book learning. If you find a problem between what has been taught and what happens in the experiments, you are either doing the experiment wrong (peer review will help) or the teaching was wrong and will need to be corrected.

Good luck applying the same method in religion.

Pastor: Let us learn of prayer:
Mark 11:24 New International Version (NIV)
24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
Little Johnny: I prayed and believed and nothing happened....

Pastor: Maybe you did not believe.

Little Johnny: I believed with all my heart that Jesus would heal my mommy, but she died anyway.

Pastor: The Lord works in mysterious ways!
Having Faith in God, and in prayer, is putting God's plan ahead of your own... That is pretty much a clear cut definition... Believing in that plan, will align you with that plan, in which case.. The destiny of God will unfold in everyone's life...


But so you say if they do experiments then its not indoctrination? So, i was taught by multiple people of the periodic table, yet not really taught about why its order was formed... Maybe until much much later in my education, which we arent even really sure if the periodic table is fully accurate... We are just kind of making educated guesses when it comes to the periodic table ordering. So i guess its indoctrination then... Of things we arent even sure about...

Or what about history class? is that indoctrination?

Education? We use to teach children that life might have spawned by lightning... Which is now considered not true... Is that indoctrination?

If our science today, isnt true tomorrow... Is that indoctrination? If experiments are misused, or misunderstood, forming false hypotheses, and taught as true... Is that indoctrination??
Tart, please realise how weak your defiense is.

Rather than realizing the reality that most people believe the religion of their geography/parents, you are attempting to level the playing field.

I'm sorry, but even if you could discredit science, religion by geography is still demonstrable and kids are still indoctrinated into religions by their parents.

Why you think trying to discredit science helps you in anyway is lost on me.
I am simply asking, what is indoctrination? I am not trying to undermine science, I am simply questioning... Whats the difference between "indoctrination", and anything else we "teach" our children...

Whats the difference?

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Post #144

Post by Clownboat »

Tart wrote:in fact, atheist like to boast in the sciences as if it is the source of all knowledge.

Please show that you speak the truth. It seems to me that your brush is way too broad.
As if science is the authority of all knowledge, and that it align perfectly with the beliefs in no gods.

Why would a method of doing things care about god beliefs?
You seem to think that science is a thing. And that this thing is an enemy to your preferred god concept. Where does this odd behavior come from?
But in reality, the sciences arent a solid foundation of knowledge.

If you have a better method at arriving at the truth of a subject, please let it be known to all here an now. You demean the scientific method, so I would like to know what method you would prefer us humans use.
They are always changing, we are continuously discovering that the sciences we believed yesterday arent true today...

This is a strength, not a weakness. Imagine if science couldn't correct itself when mistakes are found. It would be like religions!
Yet atheism boast in the science we know today, as if it is undeniable truth...
Now you are making atheism out to be some thing. Are you that desperate to have this Us vs Them mentality? Face it, you are an atheist when it comes to all the god, except for one. A real atheist is just like you, but they just take it 1 god further.
Saying atheism aggressively relies on modern science with false surety, as if it is impenetrable, and that there is nothing beyond it...

Not sure what this is about as being an atheist only requires a person to not believe in any of the available god concepts.
Seems like scientific atheism itself is a source of indoctrination...

Please provide the specifics. Is it similar to a parent telling their children that there is a god that loves them so much as to sent them to heaven, but hates another so much as to send them to hell?
Like as we continue to discover that evolution is not as simple as atheism make it out to be.

The scientific method is simple. And atheism has nothing to do with this method. When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates
That there is more to it, then "random mutations/natural selection"... We will discover evolution is much different then what you guys boast about it being... Just like we discovered that the universe had a beginning (the big bang), after nonbelievers would boast as if the universe is eternal...

Stop being so gullible. When people make claims like you seem to hear and yet I don't. Don't just believe them, examine them!
Proverbs 14:15 Only simpletons believe everything they're told! The prudent carefully consider their steps.
Ironically, here you are, defaming a method that allows the prudent to consider the merits of the claims being made via reproducing them (or not being able to).
Shame on you.
They would laugh at you in the 1950's if you said the universe began to exist at some time... Saying the Bible is wrong from the start, with surety, and without question... Yet that idea fell out from under their feet...

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Please try again.
seems like scientific atheism is a source of indoctrination itself...

You make this claim again even though you have been informed about how the scientific method actually works. It's reproducible!!! Therefore, no indoctrination is needed!
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Post #145

Post by Clownboat »

Tart wrote:I am simply asking, what is indoctrination? I am not trying to undermine science, I am simply questioning... Whats the difference between "indoctrination", and anything else we "teach" our children...

Whats the difference?
Parent A) There is a god out there that loves you so much as to send you to heaven, yet hates another so much as to send them to hell.

Parent B) A sparrows song is genetically encoded.

For an idea to be testable, it must logically generate specific expectations — in other words, a set of observations that we could expect to make if the idea were true and a set of observations that would be inconsistent with the idea and lead you to believe that it is not true. For example, consider the idea that a sparrow's song is genetically encoded and is unaffected by the environment in which it is raised, in comparison to the idea that a sparrow learns the song it hears as a baby. Logical reasoning about this example leads to a specific set of expectations. If the sparrow's song were indeed genetically encoded, we would expect that a sparrow raised in the nest of a different species would grow up to sing a sparrow song like any other member of its own species. But if, instead, the sparrow's song were learned as a chick, raising a sparrow in the nest of another species should produce a sparrow that sings a non-sparrow song. Because they generate different expected observations, these ideas are testable. A scientific idea may require a lot of reasoning to work out an appropriate test, may be difficult to test, may require the development of new technological tools to test, or may require one to make independently testable assumptions to test — but to be scientific, an idea must be testable, somehow, someway.

One is testable and the other is not. This is a major difference and disqualifies the scientific method from being considered indoctrination.

Will you amend your arguments going forward about the scientific method? Do you realize that religion indoctrinates (again, all religions, not just yours) by making claims that cannot be tested or are immune from tests because 'god works in mysterious ways'?

And finally, all religious people can remain religious while still practicing the scientific method. This Us vs Them is only in your head it seems.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #146

Post by Tart »

Clownboat wrote:
Tart wrote:in fact, atheist like to boast in the sciences as if it is the source of all knowledge.

Please show that you speak the truth. It seems to me that your brush is way too broad.
As if science is the authority of all knowledge, and that it align perfectly with the beliefs in no gods.

Why would a method of doing things care about god beliefs?
You seem to think that science is a thing. And that this thing is an enemy to your preferred god concept. Where does this odd behavior come from?
It comes from atheism... I personally dont think science is at odd's with God, but atheism is what tells us it is.
Clownboat wrote:
But in reality, the sciences arent a solid foundation of knowledge.

If you have a better method at arriving at the truth of a subject, please let it be known to all here an now. You demean the scientific method, so I would like to know what method you would prefer us humans use.
Well there is different ways people come to conclusions about things... Not just science alone (that atheism leads you to believe)..


For instance, atheist usually agree that there is things that are objectively immoral to some sense... We usually agree killing people, harming children, etc, is wrong... But what happens with atheist is they usually start from that presupposition and then try to justify it by some kind of science, which isnt what led them to believe that in the first place...

Peoples hearts, their convictions, and compassion, is what leads people to morality... It is "written on their hearts"... Not scientific... Yet atheist cant make sense of that, and try to fill in morality with what i like to call "science of the gaps"...
Clownboat wrote:
They are always changing, we are continuously discovering that the sciences we believed yesterday arent true today...

This is a strength, not a weakness. Imagine if science couldn't correct itself when mistakes are found. It would be like religions!
It is like a religion to atheists...
Clownboat wrote:
Yet atheism boast in the science we know today, as if it is undeniable truth...
Now you are making atheism out to be some thing. Are you that desperate to have this Us vs Them mentality? Face it, you are an atheist when it comes to all the god, except for one. A real atheist is just like you, but they just take it 1 god further.
Im not an atheist, i believe in God
Clownboat wrote:
Saying atheism aggressively relies on modern science with false surety, as if it is impenetrable, and that there is nothing beyond it...

Not sure what this is about as being an atheist only requires a person to not believe in any of the available god concepts.
Its about scientific atheism... Its a thing...
Clownboat wrote:
Seems like scientific atheism itself is a source of indoctrination...

Please provide the specifics. Is it similar to a parent telling their children that there is a god that loves them so much as to sent them to heaven, but hates another so much as to send them to hell?
You are talking about judgement? Ya, it's a real thing... (the court of law)...

If atheism teaches people there is nothing beyond science, that science tells them there is no God... That there is no evidence for God, that the Bible isnt spawned from eye witnesses, that Jesus never existed, that Jesus is comparable to spider man, etc... Atheism likes to regurgitate these things, far as im concerned, this is a form of indoctrination...
Clownboat wrote:
Like as we continue to discover that evolution is not as simple as atheism make it out to be.

The scientific method is simple. And atheism has nothing to do with this method. When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates
That there is more to it, then "random mutations/natural selection"... We will discover evolution is much different then what you guys boast about it being... Just like we discovered that the universe had a beginning (the big bang), after nonbelievers would boast as if the universe is eternal...

Stop being so gullible. When people make claims like you seem to hear and yet I don't. Don't just believe them, examine them!
Proverbs 14:15 Only simpletons believe everything they're told! The prudent carefully consider their steps.
Ironically, here you are, defaming a method that allows the prudent to consider the merits of the claims being made via reproducing them (or not being able to).
Shame on you.
How am i "defaming" the scientific method? I believe in the scientific method, i have multiple science degrees... I am commenting on "scientific atheism"
Clownboat wrote:
They would laugh at you in the 1950's if you said the universe began to exist at some time... Saying the Bible is wrong from the start, with surety, and without question... Yet that idea fell out from under their feet...

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Please try again.
seems like scientific atheism is a source of indoctrination itself...

You make this claim again even though you have been informed about how the scientific method actually works. It's reproducible!!! Therefore, no indoctrination is needed!
this is commenting on "scientific atheism"... Its a thing... Not on science itself, or its methods... I support science.

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #147

Post by Tart »

Clownboat wrote:
Tart wrote:I am simply asking, what is indoctrination? I am not trying to undermine science, I am simply questioning... Whats the difference between "indoctrination", and anything else we "teach" our children...

Whats the difference?
Parent A) There is a god out there that loves you so much as to send you to heaven, yet hates another so much as to send them to hell.

Parent B) A sparrows song is genetically encoded.

For an idea to be testable, it must logically generate specific expectations — in other words, a set of observations that we could expect to make if the idea were true and a set of observations that would be inconsistent with the idea and lead you to believe that it is not true. For example, consider the idea that a sparrow's song is genetically encoded and is unaffected by the environment in which it is raised, in comparison to the idea that a sparrow learns the song it hears as a baby. Logical reasoning about this example leads to a specific set of expectations. If the sparrow's song were indeed genetically encoded, we would expect that a sparrow raised in the nest of a different species would grow up to sing a sparrow song like any other member of its own species. But if, instead, the sparrow's song were learned as a chick, raising a sparrow in the nest of another species should produce a sparrow that sings a non-sparrow song. Because they generate different expected observations, these ideas are testable. A scientific idea may require a lot of reasoning to work out an appropriate test, may be difficult to test, may require the development of new technological tools to test, or may require one to make independently testable assumptions to test — but to be scientific, an idea must be testable, somehow, someway.

One is testable and the other is not. This is a major difference and disqualifies the scientific method from being considered indoctrination.

Will you amend your arguments going forward about the scientific method? Do you realize that religion indoctrinates (again, all religions, not just yours) by making claims that cannot be tested or are immune from tests because 'god works in mysterious ways'?

And finally, all religious people can remain religious while still practicing the scientific method. This Us vs Them is only in your head it seems.
I believe in science, you are misunderstanding me... Im simply trying to get a solid definition of indoctrination... Not everything we teach children is testable... You know that, right?

TSGracchus
Scholar
Posts: 345
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #148

Post by TSGracchus »

[Replying to post 146 by Tart]
Tart: "Im simply trying to get a solid definition of indoctrination... Not everything we teach children is testable... You know that, right?"

"in·doc·tri·nate verb
teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
"broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses"
synonyms: brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, reeducate, persuade, convince, condition, program, mold, discipline; More
archaic
teach or instruct (someone).
"he indoctrinated them in systematic theology"

https://www.google.com/search?q=indoctr ... e&ie=UTF-8

The key is the demand for uncritical acceptance. Exempli gratia: "if you don't believe you will burn forever!"

Do you require further clarification?


:study:

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #149

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 134 by Tart]
But when you discredit Christianity, based on how you assume peoples beliefs were formed... Not only is this a gross generalization, that isnt even accurate, it is also fallacious reasoning. It is called a "Genetic fallacy", or a fallacy of origins, to suggest a belief isnt credible based on how that belief formed, rather then taking into account the belief itself. i.e. Jesus as the risen messiah...

It is a "fallacy of irrelevance" to discredit Christianity because you suggest people were indoctrinated.
And yet you were unable to directly refute any of my argument. Your reply has no more weight than a thoughtless denial of "'Tis not". That's usually what happens when the challenge can't be met.

:study:

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #150

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 145 by Tart]
It comes from atheism... I personally dont think science is at odd's with God, but atheism is what tells us it is.
There is no such thing as "scientific atheism". You are simply building a straw man to attack. It is just unfortunate for religions that scientific discoveries have always led to natural explanations of phenomena that were once attributable to gods. Always.

Atheism is nothing more than a disbelief in the existence of any gods. People come to that position for different reasons, but predominantly from lack of any compelling evidence for their existence. What passes as evidence seems to correlate strongly with the gullibility threshold of the individual involved. For example, claims like "morality is written on the heart" have absolutely no merit whatsoever.

:study:

Post Reply