Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

Can emotional trauma in childhood be a factor leading to skepticism in adulthood?

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#401  Postby carl » Jan 18, 2015 9:25 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
carl wrote:
the Bible says the earth is round

And also says insects have four legs and so should not be used as an authority on matters scientific


Lev. 1120: ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. 21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. 22 These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. 23 But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you.

It is primarily a locust, which in the taxonomy and categorization of the Hebrews, was that the hind legs which are indeed up and to the rear, were primarily for jumping, while the front four legs were used for creeping along the ground when not jumping. You will notice the passage above mentions both the front four for creeping PLUS the rears for jumping. It does NOT say it ONLY has four legs.

As for the earth not being exactly round, nowhere does the Bible claim the earth is exactly round.

BTW, have you ever stated "I saw the sun rise"? Or "I searched the ends of the earth"? If you allow yourself various colloquialisms, aren't the Hebrews allowed the same?
carl
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: carl
Posts: 275

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#402  Postby OlivierK » Jan 18, 2015 9:28 am

Indeed. If you think that "God" is a colloquialism for "fucked if I know what did it", then we're done here :cheers:
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9828
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#403  Postby carl » Jan 18, 2015 9:30 am

Calilasseia wrote:Studied any actual cosmology, have you? Only some of us have spent time poring over the peer reviewed papers, and know that your above caricature is precisely that.


If you are claiming there are studies which somehow confirm the origin of the universe - without ANY SPECULATION involved - please let us know about this. That would be news to all of us.
carl
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: carl
Posts: 275

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#404  Postby hackenslash » Jan 18, 2015 9:32 am

carl wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Studied any actual cosmology, have you? Only some of us have spent time poring over the peer reviewed papers, and know that your above caricature is precisely that.


If you are claiming there are studies which somehow confirm the origin of the universe - without ANY SPECULATION involved - please let us know about this. That would be news to all of us.


We're still waiting on why you think the universe had or required an origin.

BTW, I'm one of the 'some of us'. ;)
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21444
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#405  Postby redwhine » Jan 18, 2015 9:35 am

carl wrote:BTW, have you ever stated "I saw the sun rise"? Or "I searched the ends of the earth"? If you allow yourself various colloquialisms, aren't the Hebrews allowed the same?

:ask: So the Wholely Babble was made up by the Hebrews and is not the word of ahlmatty god after all?

Who'd've thunk it!


:roll:
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 7815
Age: 68
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#406  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 18, 2015 10:23 am

carl wrote:
Nicko wrote:The "Problem of Evil" is that the existence of suffering in reality demonstrates that reality was not created by a perfectly-good, perfectly-powerful being as such a being would be both able and willing to create a reality free of suffering. Since the "God Hypotheses" advanced by all major theistic religions do posit a perfectly-good and perfectly-powerful Creator, this argument falsifies those religions.


There were two things I didn't see in your post:
1) Admission of your part in the suffering experienced by others.

Because that's a disenenuous red herring.

carl wrote:a) Much (not all) suffering in this world occurs when we don't do our part to help relieve it.

Failure to adress the point has been noted.

carl wrote:b) We are the cause of some significant suffering of those around us, due to our hurtful words and actions, thus making us a part of the problem.

Continued failure to adress the point has been noted.
These inane herrings you keep flinging won't hide the fact that you cannot adress the point being made carl. :naughty:

carl wrote:2) God did do something 2000 years ago and we will have a world free of suffering someday.

Why did God create suffering in the first place if he's so all loving and omnipotent?
Answer the question carl.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31087
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#407  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 18, 2015 10:24 am

carl wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:The are some emotional arguments against the existence of God, a god or some gods. There are also non-emotional arguments. So if that is really the premise that you are pushing, then you have failed to demonstrate it. Sorry.


When we are emotionally vested in an argument, which we are when it comes to the question of the existence of God

Blind assertion pulled diretly from your arse carl.

carl wrote: any consequence of more rational arguments will be tainted and influenced by those emotions.

Bollocks for reasons already given earlier in this thread.
Stop mindlessly regurgitating the same refuted shite carl, you won't convince anyone.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31087
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#408  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 18, 2015 10:27 am

carl wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
carl wrote:
the Bible says the earth is round

And also says insects have four legs and so should not be used as an authority on matters scientific


Lev. 1120: ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. 21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. 22 These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. 23 But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you.

It is primarily a locust, which in the taxonomy and categorization of the Hebrews, was that the hind legs which are indeed up and to the rear, were primarily for jumping, while the front four legs were used for creeping along the ground when not jumping. You will notice the passage above mentions both the front four for creeping PLUS the rears for jumping. It does NOT say it ONLY has four legs.

As for the earth not being exactly round, nowhere does the Bible claim the earth is exactly round.

BTW, have you ever stated "I saw the sun rise"? Or "I searched the ends of the earth"? If you allow yourself various colloquialisms, aren't the Hebrews allowed the same?

carl, are you familiar with this guy and his family:
Image
Or these guys:
Image

You really got to stop defending the bible. You already failed with the shape of the earth and now with insects as well.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31087
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#409  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 18, 2015 10:28 am

carl wrote:

As for the earth not being exactly round, nowhere does the Bible claim the earth is exactly round.

No, it's actually worse, it claims the earth is a circle with four corners, which itself being a contradictio in termini, is simply false.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31087
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#410  Postby Nicko » Jan 18, 2015 10:53 am

carl wrote:
Nicko wrote:The "Problem of Evil" is that the existence of suffering in reality demonstrates that reality was not created by a perfectly-good, perfectly-powerful being as such a being would be both able and willing to create a reality free of suffering. Since the "God Hypotheses" advanced by all major theistic religions do posit a perfectly-good and perfectly-powerful Creator, this argument falsifies those religions.


There were two things I didn't see in your post:
1) Admission of your part in the suffering experienced by others.
a) Much (not all) suffering in this world occurs when we don't do our part to help relieve it.
b) We are the cause of some significant suffering of those around us, due to our hurtful words and actions, thus making us a part of the problem.

2) God did do something 2000 years ago and we will have a world free of suffering someday. If your main complaint is that earth isn't heaven 'right here and now', maybe we should ask God to remove everyone on earth now who has caused suffering, but then, the earth would be empty.


What I don't see in your post is any honest engagement at all with the Problem of Evil.

Stop pretending that these objections have not been dealt with many hundreds of times. But here we go again ...

Regarding your first point, it is irrelevant that human beings are the immediate cause of some of the suffering that exists when you are positing the existence of a being who is the ultimate cause of everything. To say nothing of the massive amount of suffering that occurs without any human action and in the absence of any human ability to prevent or ameliorate it. If you want to point to human-caused suffering as a way out for your conception of God you need to:

a) Assert that God was for some reason unable to create a universe* that did not contain a massive amount of suffering, thereby denying His omnipotence.

b) Assert that God was unaware that the universe He was creating would contain a massive amount of suffering, thereby denying His omniscience.

c) Assert that God did not care that the universe He was creating would contain a massive amount of suffering, thereby denying His omnibenevolence.

d) Some combination of the preceeding.

In any event, for your objections to hold, you must reject the idea that God - if He exists** - is omnipotent, omnicient and omnibenevolent. At least one of those attributes has to go. Which is it, or would you like to just chuck all three?

After which we can talk about God if you like, but you will have already conceded that it's not the God posited by any of the major Abrahamic religions that we are talking about.

Regarding the second point, it simply illustrates your lack of honest engagement with the Problem of Evil. The problem does not ask, "Why doesn't God do something about X?" but, "Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Creator choose to create a universe in which He knows that X will happen in the first place, when such a being could easily do otherwise?"

Again, the Problem of Evil does not deal with the hypothesis of a disinterested deistic Creator. Nor with the hypothesis of an amoral or outright evil deity. Nor with the hypothesis of a deity somehow limited in its knowledge or power. Any of these hypotheses would neatly sidestep the Problem of Evil.

Seeing as these are not your hypotheses though, I can't see that helping you any.

Look, here's the SEP entry on the Problem of Evil. Come back when you've got an argument that hasn't already been refuted.





* For the purposes of this post, by "universe" I mean the entirety of space/time. I leave aside the semantic incoherency of the idea that something could be "outside" this.

** Hint: He doesn't.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#411  Postby Nebogipfel » Jan 18, 2015 10:59 am

carl wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:The are some emotional arguments against the existence of God, a god or some gods. There are also non-emotional arguments. So if that is really the premise that you are pushing, then you have failed to demonstrate it. Sorry.


When we are emotionally vested in an argument, which we are when it comes to the question of the existence of God, any consequence of more rational arguments will be tainted and influenced by those emotions.


:sigh:
(a) The fact that 100% objective reasoning may not be possible does not mean that objective reasoning is not possible at all, even when it comes to pondering the existence of god.
(b) If you're right (which you're not) then the whole field of Christian apologetics can be dismissed as being tainted with emotion.

Your turn. :coffee:
Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion
-- Carl Sagan
User avatar
Nebogipfel
 
Posts: 2085

Country: Netherlands
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#412  Postby Calilasseia » Jan 18, 2015 2:50 pm

carl wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
carl wrote:
the Bible says the earth is round

And also says insects have four legs and so should not be used as an authority on matters scientific


Lev. 1120: ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. 21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. 22 These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. 23 But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you.

It is primarily a locust, which in the taxonomy and categorization of the Hebrews, was that the hind legs which are indeed up and to the rear, were primarily for jumping, while the front four legs were used for creeping along the ground when not jumping. You will notice the passage above mentions both the front four for creeping PLUS the rears for jumping. It does NOT say it ONLY has four legs.

As for the earth not being exactly round, nowhere does the Bible claim the earth is exactly round.

BTW, have you ever stated "I saw the sun rise"? Or "I searched the ends of the earth"? If you allow yourself various colloquialisms, aren't the Hebrews allowed the same?


This is bollocks plain and simple. Oh wait, members of the Orthoptera are frequently observed using all six legs for walking. Here's some examples thereof ...











Meanwhile, the actual KJV text is as follows:

11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

11:24 And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even.


Oh wait, that version of the text introduces beetles, which are members of the Order Coleoptera, and don't have the same leg anatomy as Orthoptera, which on its own destroys your apologetic attempts to excuse the authors of your favourite mythology and their ignorance of basic biology. Because, wait for it, in the case of those beetles that do have a mechanism for rapid escapes, that mechanism has nothing to do with the limbs. See, for example, the Click Beetles, Family Elateridae, which have a separate appendage located on the ventral side of the body for the purpose.

Hmm. Looks like another failure for apologetics, another victory for real world data.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22089
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#413  Postby laklak » Jan 18, 2015 2:59 pm

I think you've got the cart before the horse, Carl. The trauma comes after the loss of faith, when you realize that dead is dead an you're not going to see Mummy and Daddy again. When you realize that you and only you are in control of your life, that "pray in one hand shit in the other" is a truism.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#414  Postby ElDiablo » Jan 18, 2015 4:37 pm

Sorry, late to the party.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3124

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#415  Postby Greyman » Jan 19, 2015 3:57 am

carl wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Studied any actual cosmology, have you? Only some of us have spent time poring over the peer reviewed papers, and know that your above caricature is precisely that.

If you are claiming there are studies which somehow confirm the origin of the universe - without ANY SPECULATION involved - please let us know about this. That would be news to all of us.

Notice what you did there? You ignored the rest of Calilasseia's paragraph on how the speculation of cosmology is based on extensive observation, modelling, and the continuous search for empirical tests which could falsify developing theories.

The demand that cosmology involve no speculation at all is a spectacularly high bar to clear, and a ridiculous one. If science didn't speculate beyond the current reach of experimentation, it wouldn't drive the development of technology to seek means to extend that reach.

There is also a blatant double standard at work here, as you don't seem to set the same demand for theology; which involves nothing but pure speculation -- with no observation, modeling, nor experimentation at all. In particular the apologetic brand of theology involves trying to argue god into existence using semantics.

carl wrote:the question of His existence is not confirmable by any respected, rigorous method of any kind.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 53

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#416  Postby Calilasseia » Jan 19, 2015 9:12 am

carl wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Studied any actual cosmology, have you? Only some of us have spent time poring over the peer reviewed papers, and know that your above caricature is precisely that.


If you are claiming there are studies which somehow confirm the origin of the universe - without ANY SPECULATION involved - please let us know about this. That would be news to all of us.


Nice selective cherry-picking of my post there carl. Oh wait, what did I say immediately after the part you selectively quoted? Let me remind you (with relevant part highlighted in blue):

What has actually happened in the world of cosmological physics, as anyone who has actually studied the subject properly will tell you, is that the theorists have been able to make advances that for the moment, take several of their ideas beyond the reach of the experimenters. But, those same theorists have started to search for ways and means of making their theories empirically testable, because they know that at bottom, this is the only means by which their theories stand a chance of being properly refuted or validated. Indeed, I've presented two papers by Steinhardt & Turok, in which they present an empirical test allowing their own ideas to be validated at some point in the future, and a considerable amount of diligent labour is being expended toward making that empirical test a reality.


And guess what, carl? Work is underway to conduct those very same empirical tests I covered in the blue highlighted part of my post above, the part you duplicitously snipped in order to peddle yet another strawman canard

Plus, as anyone who paid attention in science classes will tell you, speculation is an essential part of science. It's the means by which new ideas are formulated. But of course, there's the second essential part of science, namely finding ways of testing the products of said speculation, and performing the requisite tests, to determine if the data supports the requisite ideas. Which is where science differs from religion. Religion erects unsupported assertions, demands that said assertions be treated as fact, and treats any proper inquiry into the likely truth-value of those assertions as some sort of heinous offence. Science generates hypotheses, then tests those hypotheses to destruction, and the survivors of said test become the evidentially supported foundations of scientific theories.

Let's see how much of my above post you quote mine next time, shall we carl?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22089
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#417  Postby carl » Jan 21, 2015 12:46 am

Nicko wrote:Regarding your first point, it is irrelevant that human beings are the immediate cause of some of the suffering that exists when you are positing the existence of a being who is the ultimate cause of everything. To say nothing of the massive amount of suffering that occurs without any human action and in the absence of any human ability to prevent or ameliorate it. If you want to point to human-caused suffering as a way out for your conception of God you need to:

a) Assert that God was for some reason unable to create a universe* that did not contain a massive amount of suffering, thereby denying His omnipotence.

b) Assert that God was unaware that the universe He was creating would contain a massive amount of suffering, thereby denying His omniscience.

c) Assert that God did not care that the universe He was creating would contain a massive amount of suffering, thereby denying His omnibenevolence.

d) Some combination of the preceeding.

In any event, for your objections to hold, you must reject the idea that God - if He exists** - is omnipotent, omnicient and omnibenevolent. At least one of those attributes has to go. Which is it, or would you like to just chuck all three?


A 'good' God is not discounted simply based on a 'bad' world:

1) After God created everything, His Creation was 'very good': "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day." (Genesis 1).

2) That 'very good' Creation became tainted by mankind's sin: "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it; all the days of your life; It will produce thorns and thistles for you...and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3). Death and suffering are introduced by mankind's sin.

3) Mankind's first case of murder: "Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him." (Genesis 4).

4) The earth became 'filled with violence': "Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways." (Genesis 6).

The above explains how a 'good God' created a 'very good' world which soon became filled with violence because of mankind's sinfulness. This process of degradation continues today, via the sins and hurtful acts of modern humans (everybody today).

God was not taken by surprise by mankind's sinfulness nor is He without a plan to redeem the situation:

1) God sent His Son to redeem the world: "So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man (Adam) was of the dust of the earth; the second man (Jesus) is of heaven.

2) When this redemption plan is fully set in the future, death itself will be abolished: "For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” (1 Corinth. 15).

3) The present world will burn, right down to the elements: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare." (2 Peter 3)

4) God will remove all sadness when He creates a brand-new tragedy-free world: "Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away...He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed." (Rev. 21).

5) Now, about our impatience with this current world of suffering: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3)

The point made earlier is that God has not yet removed suffering in this world yet because:
1) Suffering in this world AND sin in this world are intertwined. To remove suffering is also to remove sin. Since removing sin means removing all of us sinful humans, He has planned this NOT FOR TODAY but for the future. This is a sign of His patience and mercy on all of us today (a good thing!).

2) Natural disasters are a consequence of sin by Adam and Eve. Although we were not there at that time in the Garden of Eden, we suffer the consequences. Likewise, others suffer the consequences of our sins today (those around us including our families, for example).

3) We will have to wait for the 'new heaven and new earth' to see a natural disaster-free world - in the future. Our waiting is due to God's patience and mercy on us (like I said, a good thing).

4) Waiting in no way implies God is unable or unwilling to remove suffering if there is a reason: Patience and Mercy upon you and me. The above Bible verses, in no way, imply God is waiting for no reason or is just taking His time while He is relaxing. "Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." This is a show of God's goodness to us.

In the meantime, we can show our genuineness of our concern for those suffering (like in third world nations) by establishing organizations and helping them. In some nations today, there is ONE DOCTOR for 100,000 people. Therefore, NONE of us should say there are 'plenty of charitable organizations out there'. No there aren't.

Now if we could just get atheists to group together to form just one relief organization....
carl
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: carl
Posts: 275

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#418  Postby carl » Jan 21, 2015 12:57 am

Calilasseia wrote:
carl wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Studied any actual cosmology, have you? Only some of us have spent time poring over the peer reviewed papers, and know that your above caricature is precisely that.


If you are claiming there are studies which somehow confirm the origin of the universe - without ANY SPECULATION involved - please let us know about this. That would be news to all of us.


Nice selective cherry-picking of my post there carl. Oh wait, what did I say immediately after the part you selectively quoted? Let me remind you (with relevant part highlighted in blue):

What has actually happened in the world of cosmological physics, as anyone who has actually studied the subject properly will tell you, is that the theorists have been able to make advances that for the moment, take several of their ideas beyond the reach of the experimenters. But, those same theorists have started to search for ways and means of making their theories empirically testable, because they know that at bottom, this is the only means by which their theories stand a chance of being properly refuted or validated. Indeed, I've presented two papers by Steinhardt & Turok, in which they present an empirical test allowing their own ideas to be validated at some point in the future, and a considerable amount of diligent labour is being expended toward making that empirical test a reality.


And guess what, carl? Work is underway to conduct those very same empirical tests I covered in the blue highlighted part of my post above, the part you duplicitously snipped in order to peddle yet another strawman canard

Plus, as anyone who paid attention in science classes will tell you, speculation is an essential part of science. It's the means by which new ideas are formulated. But of course, there's the second essential part of science, namely finding ways of testing the products of said speculation, and performing the requisite tests, to determine if the data supports the requisite ideas. Which is where science differs from religion. Religion erects unsupported assertions, demands that said assertions be treated as fact, and treats any proper inquiry into the likely truth-value of those assertions as some sort of heinous offence. Science generates hypotheses, then tests those hypotheses to destruction, and the survivors of said test become the evidentially supported foundations of scientific theories.

Let's see how much of my above post you quote mine next time, shall we carl?


BTW, will those studies actually claiming to confirm the origin of the universe (as if !) contain the words: "possibly", "maybe", "we propose", "it seems likely", "could", "should", "might", "in all likelihood", "theorize", etc.. ?

We need to discern what is speculative and what is confirmative.
carl
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: carl
Posts: 275

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#419  Postby Ironclad » Jan 21, 2015 1:09 am

For Van Youngman - see you amongst the stardust, old buddy

"If there was no such thing as science, you'd be right " - Sean Lock

"God ....an inventive destroyer" - Broks
User avatar
Ironclad
RS Donator
 
Name: Nudge-Nudge
Posts: 23920
Age: 52
Male

Country: Wink-Wink
Indonesia (id)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#420  Postby Ironclad » Jan 21, 2015 1:16 am

carl wrote:BTW, will those studies actually claiming to confirm the origin of the universe (as if !) contain the words: "possibly", "maybe", "we propose", "it seems likely", "could", "should", "might", "in all likelihood", "theorize", etc.. ?


That's not the correct language.


We need to discern what is speculative and what is confirmative


You need to discern what science is, how it describes phenomena, and what happens to the data crunched.
For Van Youngman - see you amongst the stardust, old buddy

"If there was no such thing as science, you'd be right " - Sean Lock

"God ....an inventive destroyer" - Broks
User avatar
Ironclad
RS Donator
 
Name: Nudge-Nudge
Posts: 23920
Age: 52
Male

Country: Wink-Wink
Indonesia (id)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron