Atheism is a belief system?

[Davin]

kowalskil wrote

Yes indeed; dealing with spiritual claims belongs to spiritualists (theologists) not scientists (materialists).

I guess I wasn't too clear, if someone makes a claim, it can be tested with science. All I mean is that scientists shouldn't give a shit about whether the claim comes from a theist or not. Just deal with the claim like any other without caring about religion.

[kowalskil]

nkb wrote

... Pssst, Ludwik! Do you know the forum rules on spamming?

Yes, promoting commercial products would be spamming. But my online autobiography is free. And I just placed the link into the signature. In this way the URL will not appear in the body of the message.

By the way, I also published a Kindle book, a mini-tutorial about using Kindle. I am tempted to post the link. But the book costs $0.99 and posting the link would violate the rules. I also hate spam.

Ludwik Kowalski
.

[Davin]

kowalskil wrote

Yes[...]

Good!

kowalskil wrote

[..]promoting commercial products would be spamming.

Damn it, you don't, you dirty little liar.

[Irreligious]

Promoting an outside blog or Internet forum dedicated to one's own personal aggrandizement is spamming, Kowalski. You don't have license to perpetually promote your brand of Christianity here. That's not the purpose of this forum.

Besides, it's rude and shows that you're mainly interested in using us for your own selfish gain.

[West491]

kowalskil wrote

By the way, I also published a Kindle book, a mini-tutorial about using Kindle. I am tempted to post the link. But the book costs $0.99 and posting the link would violate the rules. I also hate spam.

Plus, you already posted the link. No, in fact, you made a thread about it. Therefore, you can bug off now.

[Kinich Ahau]

weirdo!

[Smellyoldgit]

Fear not, his spam link appears to be working ok now.

[ILOVEJESUS]

I must admit I found it most helpful.

[Michael]

Irreligious wrote

Promoting an outside blog or Internet forum dedicated to one's own personal aggrandizement is spamming, Kowalski. You don't have license to perpetually promote your brand of Christianity here. That's not the purpose of this forum.

Besides, it's rude and shows that you're mainly interested in using us for your own selfish gain.

I am reading through his book now - to be fair there doesn't seem to be a lot of religion associated to it, mostly memoirs about his life. Though I'm only on chapter 2 so who knows what happens after that, I don't know if I'll finish it.

So I don't think he's promoting his christianity in it. However I do agree with the no promoting in signature rule, and support it being removed.

[kowalskil]

Michael wrote

.. . So I don't think he's promoting his christianity in it. ...

Hmm, why would a Jewish person promote Christianity?

Ludwik Kowalski

[Sternwallow]

Davin wrote

The second part is a call to something outside the context of science. If the science leads to there being something other than demon possession, then the people should act, science is just a methodology and we must emply other methodologies to deal with that kind of behavior, not attach it onto science to make it even worse. Use science to explain things and why you think one should or shouldn't do something, but don't try to increase the scope of science.

This is an exciting prospect, a methodology that can do for the moral and spiritual what the scientific method does for knowledge of reality.

Suppose we set science aside for a moment and consider a question that may not be in the scope of science to answer. "Give no thought for tomorrow, do not plan ahead, neither sow nor till because the end of worldly things is near." How would you go about determining if this was good advice or bad?

What methodology would you use to separate bad advice like "do not wear a mixture of fabrics" or "do not protect your child from being killed and eaten by your community" from reasonably good advice like "do not commit perjury"?

We all have biases in our judgments so, to reach a valid position, what part of your non-scientific validation method would best locate and eliminate moral or spiritual bias? Hint: it is not asking your pastor.

[Smellyoldgit]

The spiritual methodology of de-clarification is so abundantly clear - it involves a combination (in no particular order) of goalpost moving, reinterpretation, translation, adding a bit, frightening the shit out of, forgetting dodgy bits and making up a bit of new stuff. The peer review process is something to behold!!

[Davin]

Sternwallow wrote

This is an exciting prospect, a methodology that can do for the moral and spiritual what the scientific method does for knowledge of reality.

Suppose we set science aside for a moment and consider a question that may not be in the scope of science to answer. "Give no thought for tomorrow, do not plan ahead, neither sow nor till because the end of worldly things is near." How would you go about determining if this was good advice or bad?

What methodology would you use to separate bad advice like "do not wear a mixture of fabrics" or "do not protect your child from being killed and eaten by your community" from reasonably good advice like "do not commit perjury"?

We all have biases in our judgments so, to reach a valid position, what part of your non-scientific validation method would best locate and eliminate moral or spiritual bias? Hint: it is not asking your pastor.

There are many options, different things work for different people. I have no problem with using science to support ones method and views of good and bad things.

Which science do propose should be used or created to handle these questions? Because knowing what something actually is, is different from determining whether one likes or dislikes the thing.

[divine zombie]

It's because of this 'debate' that I don't call myself an atheist.

I will reconsider the matter when a word exists for people who have sussed out that santa, nessie, fairies, unicorns etc don't exist.

[Kinich Ahau]

Skeptics?