nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 625:
Line 625: + + + +
→Atheist Science: Ideologies
::::::::::: I'm not "hiding", just pointing out a very pertinent fact. I'm not rejecting "any claim about the past". I'm rejecting claims based on ideology where they conflict with reliable eyewitness accounts. I'm rejecting the claim that ideology-based science is the only reliable source of information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: I'm not "hiding", just pointing out a very pertinent fact. I'm not rejecting "any claim about the past". I'm rejecting claims based on ideology where they conflict with reliable eyewitness accounts. I'm rejecting the claim that ideology-based science is the only reliable source of information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
If a test of a prediction of the supernatural wants qualify as a scientific test, it should, if it fails, tell you something about the supernatural. And you have been arguing that you can't know about things that happened in the past. But feel free to drop that assumption, it wasn't very useful. However, if you want to stick to this "pertinent fact", then accept that this pertinent fact also applies to you. We know that you think that certain findings are based on ideology, but it seem like you are labeling them as ideological because the are against your "ideology". The findings you are arguing against have been proposed and observed by scientists with all kinds of background, and it would be hard to find an ideology that they all share. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:35, 9 December 2007 (EST)
If a test of a prediction of the supernatural wants qualify as a scientific test, it should, if it fails, tell you something about the supernatural. And you have been arguing that you can't know about things that happened in the past. But feel free to drop that assumption, it wasn't very useful. However, if you want to stick to this "pertinent fact", then accept that this pertinent fact also applies to you. We know that you think that certain findings are based on ideology, but it seem like you are labeling them as ideological because the are against your "ideology". The findings you are arguing against have been proposed and observed by scientists with all kinds of background, and it would be hard to find an ideology that they all share. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:35, 9 December 2007 (EST)
: I have not been arguing that you can't know about things that happened in the past. I've been saying that you ''can'' know about them, from eyewitness accounts, but not directly from scientific investigation.
: No, I'm not labelling them ideology ''because'' they are against my ideology, but because they ''are'' ideology. Yes, mine are based on ideology also. Creationists have been saying this for years, that it all comes down to ideology. It's the secularists who deny or won't admit this. True, there are a range of ideologies, but they can be put into two groups of theistic and atheistic.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 10 December 2007 (EST)
===Legitimate views===
===Legitimate views===
:"''It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions.''": It is, in that sense, not a science book, but that doesn't meant that when it touches on areas of science, such as astronomy (creation of sun, moon, and stars), geology (flood), etc. that it is incorrect.
:"''It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions.''": It is, in that sense, not a science book, but that doesn't meant that when it touches on areas of science, such as astronomy (creation of sun, moon, and stars), geology (flood), etc. that it is incorrect.