Janus

I see knowledge as being in three guises; knowing that, knowing how and knowing with. They are often conflated which creates much confusion and contro...

Thanks for making it clear as to why participating on this site can truly be a complete waste of time. You're are about as much of either a fuckwit or...

I think you mean lysergide, lysergine is, unless I am mistaken, a different chemical altogether.

Perhaps the language I used, specifically the word "disbelieve" is the source of misunderstanding . Let's see. I'll change the wording and see if that...

Done with attempting to discuss anything with you, not done with ridiculing you. Again you show your ignorance; I'm not telling anyone what to think, ...

That's just lame and sad, but I'm going to laugh anyway. :rofl:

I'm tired of wasting time with your strawmen. I have acknowledged several times in this thread that fundamentalist religious claims are (or do at leas...

:rofl: Coming from an "intellectual" such as you who apparently lacks all subtlety, that is simply hilarious! Anyway, thanks for the laughs, I'm done ...

The two domains are mutually exclusive in the sense that one deals with the empirical and the other does not. And they are not mutually exclusive in t...

You mention an important issue. When new age or religious thinkers try to co-opt science to support their faith in a positivistic way they are committ...

Different people have different standards of credibility in different domains. Get over it. The only thing this has to do with turds is that you are b...

Of course I am not saying that the faith approach is compatible with the scientific method in the field of science, nor am I saying that the approach ...

S seems to fail to realize that credibility, except when it comes to empirical beliefs, is a subjective matter.

Religion, if understood in anything but fundamentalist terms, has nothing whatsoever to do with epistemology.

But that is the topic of discussion, because it is on the basis of that individual experience and interpretation of it (given that someone is not mere...

Typical vapid response. Why is it "ludricous" to say that you don't know the nature (in the sense of what they are like) of others' conscious experien...

Problem is that you know only your own conscious experience and how you interpret that as constituting evidence for any belief, and can only guess at ...

There are three possibilities: you actively believe "X", you actively disbelieve "X" or you withhold judgement and neither believe nor disbelieve "X'....

I already know that you are, and have been for as long as I have "known" you, "asleep at the wheel", so there's no need for you to declare it.

You really come across as a chauvinistic fuckwit who lacks any decent arguments and has resort only to vacuous assertions! All I can say is it's a goo...

That's simply bullshit. There are many scientists who are religious. What they believe about matters that science and the scientific method have nothi...

Yeah, of course I am wrong because you must be right! You are responding like someone who thinks there is an objective or absolute law where there is ...

There's nothing in the scientific method that says anything about what to believe about subjects which fall outside the purview of science.

I have no literal theistic beliefs, and I am not an atheist. I am not religious either. Some religious people have no "literal theistic beleifs": have...

It seems he isn't worth responding to, since he is only interested in maintaining at any cost his illusion that he must be right.

It's not absurd to think that a man could become a woman, and vice versa; it happens quite often. What is absurd is to think that a male could become ...

'No people are not dinosaurs' means that all people are dinosaurs. If this statement is not true, it could be that it is not true because either no pe...

No problem, man, take it easy...

It's significant that there is no Nobel Prize for philosophy.

Yes, I think so. "Seeing is believing" as they say. As we have discussed before, I have had quite a few what I would consider numinous experiences, va...

I am not interested in "claiming victory" just in clarifying thought and argument. If you don't have the energy for it, that's OK.

This is an important point, because one may have experiences which lead one to believe things which are not rationally or empirically defensible. Say ...

Unfortunately for you, you don't have a case to rest. So, you are saying it is not possible to be neutral, neither believing nor disbelieving, on any ...

Your language and logic skills are indeed poor if you claim that one cannot be neutral on the question of God, or on many other questions. Not disbeli...

I didn't say I "both" believe and disbelieve; I said I neither believe nor disbelieve. Are you reading selectively or merely poorly?

I neither believe, nor disbelieve, in God, since there is no empirical evidence either way, and I have had no personal experience of God, as some say ...

:up:

"Scientism" is pretty much a neologism. I wasn't speaking about etymology really, just the obvious relationship between the words 'scientist' and 'sci...

How wrong you are: I am not religious at all! And by the way; you haven't provided a single argument.

I know actual scientists don't necessarily adhere to scientism, I mean that is the whole point of saying that religion and science are not inherently ...

Scientists, in the sense of 'adherents of scientism' (I have long thought that practitioners of science should be called 'sciencers' or 'scienticians'...

So, you claim to speak for all Christians? (And take note that the OP is not specifically about the compatibility of science with Christianity). The p...

Religions don't make claims; people make claims. So, within the class of the religious who make, or appear to make, factual claims based on scripture,...

Yeah, pretty much everyone else except you is an idiot and an arrogant idiot to boot, I get it, I really do.

Exactly! It is so by definition. We don't even know what it definitively means to say there is a "noumenal world", but at the very least 'noumenal" si...

I haven't proposed any limits or that we have "reached" any limits. We can develop ever more elaborate models that we may think are "closer to reality...

No problem. I have read Sartre's Nausea, and some of Being and Nothingness and Camus' L'Etranger and The Rebel as well as several of Dostoevsky's, Kaf...

OK, but I am referring only to his antinomies here. The point of these is to show that if we try to reason answers to the questions they are based on,...

Regarding paradoxes of metaphysics, are you familiar with Kant's antinomies of pure reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_antinomies

Yes, I agree that if we change our conception of the universe what are apparent paradoxes at present may dissolve.