It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Are you serious? What kind of world?
A world where people are educated to RECOGNIZE ignorance about xyz is a bad thing?
What happened after slavery was no longer tolerated? Or women being property? Or various other mythologies celebrating human sacrifice?
This is why I like *freedom* and an open market of ideas. If you believe that people are able to recognize the truth when it is presented to them, then you don't need to shove it down their throats...just maintain freedom of speech and of the press and the truth eventually will win out.
Uh...science determines fact via testable evidence.
I read your post, and was confused.
The OP was about organized religion, and using modern education and media to move away from said myths.
We are not on the same subject.
By the way, I'm expressing my freedom of religion by collapsing wavefunctions. Or am I not allowed, because it isn't organized?
Not once have I suggested forcing anything on anyone.
I'll give you that. But when claim after claim after claim about their religion can be shown to be false, illogical, or highly unlikely, do we really want to cling to "well we don't know for sure" straws?
Nope, the OP is not about organized religion at all.
It isn't capitalized or anything.
Misleading content
Insults
red herrings
aggressive behavior
Have you even addressed the OP?
Now an educated person hating on education.
Basically programmed to disagree with me via duality.
I'm expressing my freedom of religion by collapsing wavefunctions.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Tangerine
Uh...science determines fact via testable evidence.
Up to a point.
I am an empiricist just like you. Faith is not part of my world. I find it unnecessary to believe in gods, demons, souls, spirits, magic or life after death.
However, I am not foolish enough to believe that science has the last word on everything. You are making the fatal error of believing (yes, believing) that what is inaccessible to scientific investigation cannot exist.
What are you? Serious question. Are you nothing more than your physical body? Your body grows, changes, suffers damage. Over time, every cell in it is replaced. You endure nonetheless, your identity consistent through all these metamorphoses. Decades may pass, yet other people can still recognize you as the entity known on ATS as Tangerine. What do they recognize?
When the ATS member currently known as AlephBet made his return to the boards, several of us were immediately able to out him as the same person formerly known here as EnochWasRight. What is it we recognized? A style of expression? A particular set of interests and opinions? Is that what a human being is? A style of expression and a collection of opinions? Obviously not — these are external manifestations of the personality known on ATS as AlephBet. But what is the reality behind the manifestation? Why is it recognizably consistent though its external attributes are all subject to change? Why is it identifiable even when it is not itself consistent?
Can science investigate those questions?
Are you the patterns of activity in your brain? The information it contains? Or, perhaps, the behaviour it manifests? Yet when you fall asleep, or into a coma, or even suffer total amnesia, other people still recognize you, showing that you are not simply information or behaviour. Behaviour is not based only on the information in the brain, but on the biases and limitations of your physical body, which vary from person to person. So 'you' are not simply the sum of these attributes. There is more. What are you?
Being, personality, identity — these things have an immaterial component that cannot be investigated scientifically, which resists empirical definition. Other entities and conditions do, too. Take music. Take love. Scientific investigation may explain their causes and describe the biochemical processes associated with them, but it cannot help us understand them in any meaningful way at all. On the contrary, scientific investigation destroys such entities in the attempt to abstract their reality.
Finally, you must surely be aware that nothing can be fully explained through science. The rabbit hole, to use a metaphor much loved by conspiracy theorists, is never-ending. What are quarks made of? What is a string made of? What is time? What is consciousness? Every time we try to answer these questions, we find that the answers generate other questions. Empirical inquiry must acknowledge defeat.
Scientific inquiry is an invaluable human invention but it is not all-powerful. Wise scientists admit that fact. Foolish ones (and their camp-followers) deny it, insisting instead that the universe ends at the limits of their understanding. That is hubris; beware Nemesis.