> On 3 Sep 2019, at 21:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 9/3/2019 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 1 Sep 2019, at 20:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/1/2019 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> It can be, but biology has become a similar non sense in the materialist >>>> dogmatic USRR. It is not the domain which is a problem, but the use of >>>> dogma, and the discouragement of the doubt, and that is insane, but is not >>>> “religion”, it is the fake religion that we deserve as long as we don’t >>>> let the domain to come back to reason and experiences. >>> The "No true Scotsman" fallacy. >> If this is true. Then we get at last a definition of science: the attempt to >> use the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” each time we get wrong. (If you don’t >> mind doing such a “fallacy” right now). >> >> In science, we change the definition and the theories all the times, in fact >> each time we discover that they are wrong. When discovering that Earth is >> not Flat, we did not say, so Earth do not exist, we just say that our >> conception of Earth has to be revised. > > That's because science is a method, an attitude; not a conclusion about what > is real
Exactly. > or fake science, the way you dismiss what everyone else in the world calls > religion as "fake religion”. After 1500 years of brainwashing. For a long time, everyone else was believing that drugs exist, and surely they do if we mean the original sense (medication of chemical product, usually sold in drugstore). Why do atheists trie, with the radical pseudo-religious people, to brush away one millenium of theological reflection, which brought physics, mathematics and even mathematical logic? Why do atheists use so much energy to defend the theology of the christians? Why to conceive a god. ...just to deny it? When I was young, that was not the case. Most atheists around me were very happy with the idea that we can come back to the scientific attitude in the fundamental domain. Only the “materialist believer/knower” were piss of, but they were a minority (which I discover to be influent much later). Yes, you are right, today’s paradigm in theology is materialist. But it is also still authoritarian, which invalidate them completely, from the scientific perspective. Science is not a democracy. "Everyone say …” is not an argument, or science would never have started, given most important discoveries contradict everyone at the times. It took a long time to accept that 2, 1, and 0 are numbers, given that “number” means numerous, for example. But “the earth is round” is another examples, and there are many such examples. And then, in pour case, there has been a millennium of important and serious reflexion in the field, before it get stolen by pseudo-politics (but real brainwashing). Also, if you look at the detail, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity did get important neoplatonist period, with an important critics on any literal interpretation of religious text, and an insistence to come back to logic and mathematics, and to greek philosophy, in this field. Bruno > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9a846de2-eb32-73e5-f99e-366b0bb96287%40verizon.net. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2C90E191-A9A2-49D7-B95A-645447CC4AA6%40ulb.ac.be.
