DAS do you have anything else to say other than compare me to Nazis (when I was asking for tolerance and freedom of expression in this forum), and making short snide remarks?

It would be best if you don't draw conclusions about someone without debating them for a while. Better if you present an argument too.

What you are describing isn't empiricism, it is postivism. I have never met a positivist. Like I said, provide some evidence that goes beyond appeals to emotion and asinine appeals to authority and it will be addressed. As it is, the beauty of a sunset proves nothing. What evidence do you think there is in favour of any creator that you think is dismissed by non-believers?

I am not going to provide "evidence" to convince you. My argument presently is above that of providing evidence and you disqualifying them, and vice versa, as has been going on in this forum for a while.

There are four ways of knowing something...there may be. One is intuition. I can't tell you why I think something doesn't look right or why somebody looks untrustworhty, etc, but I do rely on my intuition quite a bit. Emotion is a part of that. Doctors rely on their intuitions. I once read a book by a surgeon from an Ivy League University who got a strange feeling a number of times before his patients died. That's one way of knowing.

Empirical method is another. You know about that. But the "empirical method" is not clearly defined. What "level of evidence" do we need to be sure about something? That's a common question when evaluating effectiveness of a medicine. A lot of good things has come out of using this method. Some think medicine should be thought of as "evidence-based medicine." Some think intuition plays a bigger role and ignore "evidence" in favor of their own judgement. The debate continues....

Logic is another. There are logical argument both for and against God's existence. Empirical science is based on philosophy of Carl Popper.

The fourth way is relying on authority. Atheists do that (I'm not talking about the atheist prophet, Richard Dawkins, whose arguments are repeated ad nauseam, and taken as fact ) Scientists do that (Carl Popper's philosophy accepted as fact). Human beings do that. There is nothing "inherently" wrong with relying on authority. I noticed that some people who are against relying on authority, actually think THEY are the authority in that subject, or that they rely on THEIR preferred authority.

If a scientist were to actually start from zero to do it all himself, nothing would get done. He relies on the works of others. How is that authority? Well, how does he know the experiments were done correctly? How does he know the results were not forged? A lot is often riding on getting certain result. Colleges need grants. To continue getting grants you need results. The peer review process (letting other "experts" review your work) is not full proof.

I have background in science so I can go on with more personal examples. You are supposed to "respect" the views of heads of departments and the beloved "professors." You can only work within a certain framework that is presented to you, that shapes the research direction of that department. You can only ask questions that you're supposed to ask.

That's why I believe in Kuhnian's view of how science works. That's why Einstein's views were ridiculed. Because scientists are like everybody else. They don't like their views challenged. They only think within the frame work that is defined for them by the authorities of the field.

Las Vegas Churches accept gambling chips

THIS MAY COME AS A SURPRISE TO THOSE OF YOU NOT LIVING IN
LAS VEGAS , BUT THERE ARE MORE CATHOLIC CHURCHES THAN CASINOS.

NOT SURPRISINGLY, SOME WORSHIPERS AT SUNDAY SERVICES WILL GIVE CASINO CHIPS RATHER THAN CASH WHEN THE BASKET IS PASSED.
SINCE THEY GET CHIPS FROM MANY DIFFERENT CASINOS, THE CHURCHES HAVE DEVISED A METHOD TO COLLECT THE OFFERINGS..

THE CHURCHES SEND ALL THEIR COLLECTED CHIPS TO A NEARBY FRANCISCAN MONASTERY FOR SORTING AND THEN THE CHIPS ARE TAKEN TO THE CASINOS OF ORIGIN AND CASHED IN.
































THIS IS DONE BY THE CHIP MONKS.

But it is worthless without other forms of evidence. Intuition on its own is misguided, subjective and smacks of emotion-based dictatorship.


That is anecdote and I'll bet it is erroneous too. I'll also be willing to bet that this did not happen every time and that he merely remembered every occasion it happened and forget those instances that he did not get this "feeling". The hit rate could be as low as 1/50. This is how so-called psychics and mediums perpetuate themselves; by people forgetting the misses and focussing on hits. This is nothing new.


Beyond reasonable doubt is often good enough.


I've never heard a single one and MileysSlave's "logic" amounted to 'look... a watch is manufactured therefore so is the human body'. He kept repeating this non-argument and changing the artefact as though it was relevant the first time, the second time, the third time.... the twentieth time ad nauseum. Logic is evidence based, not emotion based. His logic that the bizarre round artefact was intelligently designed was based on no evidence whatsoever. He needed me to point out that metal does not exist naturally in this state anywhere on the planet. That is the evidence for human design, not a value judgement based on emotion.


Where do atheists rely on authority?


You mistake authority of the arguer for authority of the argument. An argument isn't authority, it is evidence-based. Argument from authority is usually "the pope says so so I'm required to believe it is true" or "we Jehovah's Witnesses are not permitted to believe in evolution" (no offence WesMordine but you have implied that this is the reason you reject it rather than based on your own understanding of it). Last year Richard Dawkins was in a 3 part documentary about the life of Charles Darwin. In it, he went to a school to give a lecture on evolution. I was astounded by the amount of kids saying "evolution makes sense but I'm a Muslim/Jew/Christian and I can't go against my beliefs" at the end of the series.

Argument from authority is to use the credentials of the person making the argument as an argument in itself "so-and-so has a PhD so it must be true" rather than the content of their argument. I like to think that I have always let my arguments do the talking. I have never once said "I have an MA and you're wrong" and left it at that, I have provided evidence to support my argument. EE_EE is the perfect provider of argument from authority "if you can't do my algebra assignment then I know better than you when it comes to evolution".


Because the paper and the systematic peer review ensures good practice. Papers will always state their methods and if they don't (due to word restrictions - some journals want articles no more than 500 words) they will reference other papers that used the same methods.


Review, critique, argument, counter-argument, counter-claim, new studies, review, critique, argument etc...


Examples?


Nobody ever said it was but it is the best we have. If you understood how it works and why it works you wouldn't be making such a baseless accusation.


You haven't given any yet. How can you have a background in any science and claim not to know or understand how the peer review process works? Did you not read a single article while studying?


You obviously haven't read that many academic papers if you think they are too focussed on giving each other blind worship to ever challenge each other's data. Your field (whatever that is) obviously doesn't have he equivalent of Ian Hodder and Lewis Binford. They have been at each other's throats for decades over interpretation of prehistoric data. Though their intense relationship spills over into personal insult at times, their professional disagreement over interpretation is certainly not unique.


Good argument and good data will always stand the test of time. Einstein's did, Newton's did, Galileo's did... and Darwin's did.

I don't accept the Kuhnian view of science because he advocated the idea of revolution. I see science as more of a tree. It grows some and then it reaches a winter where it must halt growth for a while, shed its leaves and prepare. Then a spring comes along and gives it a new growth spurt, allowing more branches to spread out etc...

With Kuhn it is a case of this tree is now at the end of the first growth cycle so let us cut it down and start again from scratch.

Kuhn was wrong because under his philosophy, Newton, Einstein and Darwin should all have been thrown out by now as frivolous and quaint ideas. Truth is, we have built on their work over and over again though they were not right about everything, their work is the foundation of our core sciences. This is why I lean more toward Karl Popper.

Matt, I have a feeling that we are both speaking from personal experiences, being in two different fields.

In my field--social sciences--I see paradigm shifts. I see science as a human endeavor, messy and irrational sometimes, relying on authority to some extent, imprecise at times, shaped by political forces to some extent (grant review process, department's agendas, etc)....

I see paradigm shifts. Till mid 1900s, psychiatry was based on Freudian psychoanalysis. That "tree", which you refer to was cut, and in its place a new tree was planted, that of biological psychiatry. From ID and EGO and SUPEREGO, there was this paradigm shift to "chemical imbalance" and Serotonin and Dopamine.....

p.s. Religious thinking is like Scientific thinking. However, the balance of modes of enquiry is different. You use intuition and authority more in religion, but also logic and empirical evidence (like looking at the complexity and beauty of the world). Maybe it's the subject matter that requires different modes.

For instance, I know my parents love me, not because I have done experiments, graphed the curve, or looked at the confidence interval. I just know.

Point taken. I feel that archaeology straddles social science and traditional science. We are about human thought and actions but at the same time we utilise a large dose of empirical data. My MA dissertation is about the evolution of a medieval town that went into sudden reverse around 1400. Therefore I am looking for empirical evidence of settlement in certain areas of that town (such as datable artefacts, documentary evidence for land use, was the location ideal for settlement, how did it monopolise the landscape) but at the same time looking at social reasons for its expansion and decline which is about societal change as well as empirical reasons for it (Black Death, a fundamental shift in society, unable to keep up with market trends etc).

However my point still stands. I really cannot understand why you think that Universities are under pressure to deliver favourable results on condition of receiving funding; I just can't accept that goes on anywhere. You know how peer review works, any attempt to skew results will be dealt with harshly by critics in the next edition of that same journal. There is safety in numbers when an individual or an institution has an agenda. Different people at different establishments will challenge the data and argue their own case. I refuse to accept there is a conspiracy of silence to keep the status quo. That is the sort of authoritarian dictatorship I would expect in religion, not in science.

But anyway back to the subject at hand. This was supposed to be a thread about jokes.


After a few days, the Lord called to Adam and said, "It is time for you and Eve to begin the process of populating the earth so I want you to kiss her."

Adam answered, "Yes Lord, but what is a kiss?" So the Lord gave a brief description to Adam who took Eve by the hand and took her to a nearby bush.

A few minutes later, Adam emerged and said, "Thank you Lord, that was enjoyable."

And the Lord replied, "Yes Adam, I thought you might enjoy that and now I'd like you to caress Eve."

And Adam said, " 'What is a 'caress'? So the Lord again gave Adam a brief description and Adam went behind the bush with Eve.

Quite a few minutes later, Adam returned, smiling, and said, "'Lord, that was even better than the kiss."

And the Lord said, "'You've done well Adam. And now I want you to make love to Eve."

And Adam asked, "What is 'make love' Lord?"' So the Lord again gave Adam directions and Adam went again to Eve behind the bush, but this time he reappeared in two seconds.

And Adam said

Click to reveal..

"Lord, what is a 'headache'?"

-------------------------------
Seems God was just about done creating the universe, but he had two extra things left in his bag of creations, so he decided to split them between Adam and Eve. He told the couple that one of the things he had to give away was the ability to stand up while urinating.

"It's a very handy thing," God told the couple, who he found under an apple tree. "I was wondering if either one of you wanted that ability."

Before God had a chance to explain any further, Adam jumped up and blurted, "Oh, give that to me! I'd love to, please, oh please, oh please, let me have that ability, It'd be so great! When I'm working in the garden or naming the animals. I could just stand there and let it fly. It'd be so cool, I could write my name in the sand. Oh please God, let it be me who you give that gift to, let me stand and pee, oh please..." Adam went on and on like an excited little boy who had to pee.

Eve just smiled and told God that if Adam really wanted that so badly, that he should have it. It seemed to be the sort of thing that would make him happy and she really wouldn't mind if Adam were the one given this ability.

And so Adam was given the ability to control the direction of his misdirection while in a vertical position. And so, he was happy and did celebrate by wetting down the bark on the tree nearest him, laughing with delight all the while. And it was good.

"Fine," God said, looking back into his bag of leftover gifts, "What's left here? Oh yes,

Click to reveal..

Multiple orgasms..."

-----------------------------
There were these two priests who rode bikes to church every Sunday. Well one day one of the priests showed up to work without his bike. The other priest asked where his bike was so the first priest said, "I don't know, but I think it got stolen!"

The other priest said, "Well what you do is read off the Ten Commandments, and when you get to "Thou shall not steal" someone will confess to the crime."

The next time the two saw each other the priest had his bicycle back. "I see you got your bike back! Did you do what I said?" the one priest said.

Click to reveal..

The other said, "Well kind of, when I was reading the commandments and I got to Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery, I seemed to remember where I had left it."

-------------------
A drunk staggered down the main street of the town. Somehow he managed to make it up the stairs to a cathedral and into the entrance, where he crashed from pew to pew, finally making his way to a side aisle and into a confessional.

A priest had observed all this, and figured the fellow needed some help, so he entered his side of the confessional. After the priest sat there in deathly silence, he finally asked, "May I help you, my son?"

An atheist walked into a bar, but seeing no bartender he revised his initial assumption and decided he only walked into a room.

How many atheists does it take to change a light bulb?

none...they never knew there was light in the room in the first place.

Two. One to change it, and one to link it to Evolution.

None. They'll just wait for the burned bulb to evolve into a working light bulb.

One hundred. One to deny that there ever was light or that he needs light and ninenty-nine to run around to find matches.