Oliver,

I am not saying that Copernicus and Galileo did not alter the position of the church. I am saying it was an unintentional outcome of scientific discovery. I am also saying it is irrelevant to the present except as an example how religion can prejudice minds.

Believers did not test for the supernatural as you claim; they believed it from alleged revelation.

I was factoring in all the known forces of physics pertinent to the experiment, not all the known physical forces that exist. You wonder why I get testy.

Cannot find the Sells reference. Can you give a URL? But I would rather you answer the questions in your own words about that which I have asked.

I’m sorry to have to inform you, Oliver, but in the nicest terms I can muster, you have lost the plot on this thread.

If you return, I think as a reasonable request, you stick to answering the questions or our interaction will no longer be a profitable venture.

I mean you no harm and wish you luck with your travels and life.

David

"Galileo was not testing the supernatural no matter how many people believed his findings were heretical. He was making conclusions from observation of nature. To bring a time when science was repressed by the church into the argument as though that can be repeated, is spurious." -- David

Qualified Agreement. The comment addressed the idea the supernatural was tested, after the fact: We can regress past-time and apply the assertion; that a case of the supernational was believed and ultimately rejected... When I made us Dawkins' ancients, and us, some future civilization searching for a space-junk, I was again deliberately shifting the referential frame. Not spurious.

I am not as a "strong" an advocate of applying null hypotheses outside of statistics. I did so in lieu of positive and negative heuristics, which is a lesser known concept. Simply put, I am saying an Atheist should proactively test their belief as should Theist. Having drawn a conclusion one does not sit on it. Else, both opponents "indwell" [Polanyi] in their own performance.

A believer in the Big Bang should keep an eye on Solid State research, and vis~a~versa. A degraded proposition is concurrently maintained. Einstein did this and was eventually convinced Heisenberg was right.

I feel there is value in trying to prove the opponent's case. If [when] you fail you buttreses your position.

I would probably provide the same arguments might you to an alternative David. But I would not put the sole burden on the Religionist as you might. We read too. The burden of proof should be collective/mutual. Philo for example recognizes Virgin Birth as a Furphy; I suggest t in some areas the supernatural posited, tested [intensionally or not] and rejected.

Agree. I doubt Dawkins, as a popular writer, would apply hypotheses in a mass market book. If binary [true/false] methods in genetic research involving prediction it is very likely Ricky would. Karen Armstrong my preferred read.

If time runs out, I am sure we will catch-up a future thread. Meanwhile, you might see via Sells my arguments to Theists on many topics.

Packing...

Cheers!

Oliver,

The questions remain. And yes, we may cross neurons again at a future date.

Adieu

All Sells [Peter Sellick]:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=118

Selected Sells: Some Comment From Me:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5101&page=39
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5480&page=4
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5707

My responses to Peter Sellick [Sells] are around the first nine months of 2007. Philo and George are religionists whom I believe one can discuss matters. Sells and BOAZ_David perhaps a little more affixed.

Ciao

David of Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
By now with your scientific analysis of the universe and its predictable results you should be able to read Oliver's mind before he writes. Since for you there is no independent and creative mind in the universe and all in controled by natural testable chemistry.

Of course for me I believe in the spirit of man that he is a creative and independent mind that has no regular predictable thought. For me it is the human independence and creativity that inspires the human soul of things not bound by scientific analysis. For me it is the aspirations of spiritual things that lifts my mind above the natural chemistry of my aging body to things of the richness of character and the sacrifical love of living in the delight of our purposeful design. Living in the image of God. God is Spirit independent of testable chemistry. He is primarily the God of the living spirit not the God of the dead body of decaying chemistry.

Philo,

On many occasions I have stated truthfully, I do no mind what you believe. The thread began by my reporting the vilification of Atheism by the clergy. This is not in dispute and I defended the Atheist position by pointing out the dangers of religious indoctrination. That indoctrination differs from mature assessment also is not in dispute. I went on to explain how politics can be skewed in an unrepresented manner because of this.

Atheists are questioning the indoctrination process (Any indoctrination process) and simply ask that children be taught about all the main religions, their history, their lack of evidence in support, the problems involved and allow for choice on maturity. If a mature person chooses a religion on faith and not indoctrination, then that is a choice, which has the support of Atheists. The proviso is, as long as it is a private matter between consenting adults and not used to impose laws and mores on the rest of society. We may consider it a poor choice, as you may consider Atheism a poor choice, nevertheless, to each, their own.

The response to this reasonable position was one induced by fear, as is most always expected. It is the fear of being wrong. Atheists do not have such a fear, for if we are wrong, we will change. To an Atheist, religious persons, as improbable as it is, might be correct. But if they are, they are right, as Richard Dawkins has said, for the wrong reasons.

David