Where did that come from? It wasn't in this post, that's for sure.

@evidentialist original post and follow up comments suggest science is the yard stick ro measure truth. While science is one way we have to be careful not to treat it as a religion and blindly follow it.

@cmontes -- There are two things here. First, I don't and didn't say science is the yardstick to measure truth. But now that you mention it, I would be interested in hearing from you what a better yardstick for objectively measuring phenomena might be, because truth is, after all, that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. Is there some other methodology we may apply that will get us fact/reality?

Second, as a scientist, I know better than to blindly follow anything. That is why I am here instead of some other site where the irrational is the norm.

@evidentialist well first thing here is my commen was meant as a caution and not a condemnation. However it seems to have upset you so I will try to clarify for you. Science is one tool of knowing and understanding the world around us. Measurement is but one aspect of knowing. I am Native American and we have had ways of knowing that far pre-dates Western Science. So does Eastern medicine. I see science as one tool in my tool belt that is quite useful in the right context. However just as i wouldnt use a ruler to measure weight, because that is the wrong tool for that, I also wouldnt use science to measure love, or the quality of art and many other things. Science doesnt recognize or acknowledge many non western ways of knowing. So my caution here is to not start treating science as its own religion that discounts everything but itself.

@evidentialist well first thing here is my commen was meant as a caution and not a condemnation. However it seems to have upset you so I will try to clarify for you. Science is one tool of knowing and understanding the world around us. Measurement is but one aspect of knowing. I am Native American and we have had ways of knowing that far pre-dates Western Science. So does Eastern medicine. I see science as one tool in my tool belt that is quite useful in the right context. However just as i wouldnt use a ruler to measure weight, because that is the wrong tool for that, I also wouldnt use science to measure love, or the quality of art and many other things. Science doesnt recognize or acknowledge many non western ways of knowing. So my caution here is to not start treating science as its own religion that discounts everything but itself.

@cmontes -- Not disturbed in the least. Please note, I was talking about measuring phenomena, not elements involving emotion or human response. That is the world of subjective truth and the word 'truth' really shouldn't be used at all in that context. The range of human behavior is broad indeed. But that is not the thing meant in the post. The truth that appears to be the enemy to religion is in the realm of objective reality where measurements and predictions can be made.

One simple example: The worldwide flood as depicted in the story of Noah did not happen. That runs up hard against the infallible word and is a sticking point for the more radical fundamentalists. Things like this are the result of scientific investigation. Human emotions are not a part of it. That I love my wife and children has nothing to do with the biblical problem of distant starlight and time. As this list grows, the spaces (gaps) where a god can be fitted in shrink. That is what this post is about. How people can hold to these notions in spite of the evidence and how people who have declared they are taking a more rational view of the world can hang on to similar ideas.

@cmontes best comment I've read in weeks. Thank you.

@AlgosLethe -- I'm going to present you with an extreme (ridiculous) example, but I think you'll get my point. Suppose I believe in subjugating women, eating children, throwing gays off high places, beheading infidels, but I allow for doubt and that there may just be a chance I am wrong. Does that make my belief okay?

@evidentialist -- if such a person in such a belief structure truly allowed or possessed doubt, they would Question those actions. Didnt work at Nuremberg, should not be excused by Faith

@AlgosLethe -- I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Flesh it out a bit, please.

@evidentialist -- If one has doubt, asa free thinker, one would not blindly follow an Order or Mandate that willfully harms others. More modern decrees, such as some Laws in a society that respects human rights without contradiction, this CAN be the case. It is not absolute. In any context outside of Religion, such barbarisms are Genocidal & Racist.

@AlgosLethe -- Thanks. That makes a lot more sense to me now. Yes, agreed, but my point about the belief is that there are people out there who question their beliefs enough to say they could be wrong but follow that belief anyway. These people cease being only a danger to themselves and extend it to the surrounding society. I don't want to belabor this too much because it wasn't the point of or even part of the original post, but you do make a valid point and it is a good observation.

@HotAlutiiq -- bwcause i do not take it seriously so i am free to ramble. It is nice to know the Fallacies but i toss them to the side so that i may have discourse.

I've never been able to get past energy, our energy, that which drives us, what happens to it? If it cannot be destroyed then it must transmute to something. Even if it dispersed some form could perhaps remain intact.

I don't really know or care what happens after life but I find it difficult to go full atheist when we clearly cannot see all or know all. Just too much certainty but I'm okay with that.

@TristanNuvo -- You misunderstood what was said. Read it again and you'll see that the context is that no one is exempt from dying.

@Deanervin -- What energy? All atoms vibrate and that movement is a form of energy. If you are suggesting that there is some energy that animates humans that is apart from the overall flow of energy that is present in any collection/system of atoms, you're saying 'soul' but giving it another name.

@evidentialist maybe. Call it what you will, I didn't give it a name. My point is i don't know, you don't know, no one really knows so why listen to anyone?

@Deanervin -- "My point is i don't know, you don't know, no one really knows so why listen to anyone?"

So, if that is your point, what is the point in being here?

@evidentialist being here? Where? This forum? This life? I don't know the point of much. I guess all this is just idle banter, just like the rest of life, just all amounts to death.

No way I'm going to pray to my cat. He'll have to perform some pretty neat tricks before I'd even consider it. Maybe I won't feed him in the morning.

@evidentialist Dog?

No kale. I draw the line with kale. Oh, and carrots. No carrots. Everything else is cool. No. Wait. That's not right, either. No eggplant, summer squash, or other squishy stuff. Well, zucchini is good with tomatoes and onions. So, everything else is all right, but not much with corn. Corn tortillas are yummy. Sorry, I'm rambling. I'll go away now. Think I'll fix a tomato, garlic, cucumber, onion, and spinach salad. Strong Italian dressing.

@evidentialist really, no carrots. I love carrots. Your gonna go blind...lol

@RoadGlider -- I use carrots ground to a pulp in my spaghetti sauce to add a subtle sweetness, but that's it. Besides, at my age, I should be having serious vision problems, but no. You'll have to blame something else.

@CoastRiderBill so you think we have science nailed down? b/w the double slit experiment and microtubule research you might wanna rethink that position.

@kauva science is not all nail down but is getting there. Religion doesnt even have nails.

@RoadGlider I'm not supporting religion. I support the vedas.

@kauva -- Um ... who thinks we have science nailed down? Where the hell did that come from?

@kauva, @RoadGlider -- Christians have three nails. Have to hold that dead Jew to the stick somehow, ya know.

@CoastRiderBill then you don't know the vedas. well, more specifically the upanishads. parts of the vedas are silly. I pay them no mind.

@kauva -- There is no argument regarding the philosophies of religions. I pared down the bible to its basic philosophies and came away with a small pamphlet. One could expound upon those basic ideas in the way the Upanishads do and add a great deal of fluff, but that would be all. The basic philosophies of most religions, removed from their dogma/mysticism are all interesting and usually applicable.

@David1955 The implication of the OP was agnostics are somehow intellectually inferior. I a not being exclusionary, The OP was.

@David1955
"the less relevant is any religious woo about going to a place to be reunited with our childhood teddy bears. It's almost as if truth is the enemy of religion and not its ally. It is indeed a sad commentary on the human species that such a large portion of it so desperately needs something to use as a pacifier in order to accept the end of their existence."

If you don't see ridicule in that, we aren't even talking the same language.

@CallMeDave -- You are wrong in your assumptions. First, I am an evidentialist/atheist/agnostic, and all those terms are compatible.

I subscribe to the epistemology of evidentialism, meaning that all things must be supported by evidence to be believed rationally. [iep.utm.edu]

I am an atheist in that I do not believe in anything outside of our realm of experienced reality. That is, nothing supernatural. Gods fall into that category, so I hold no belief in them and that makes me an atheist. [iep.utm.edu]

Because I ascribe to evidentialism, I will not aver that there is not god, even though I personally do not believe in them. It requires evidence to support a claim, thus I am an agnostic. The term “agnostic” is derived from two Greek words: a, meaning “no,” and gnosis, meaning “knowledge.” Literally an agnostic is a person who claims to have no knowledge. Often agnostics apply this lack of knowledge to the existence of God. In this case, an agnostic is one who does not affirm or deny the existence of God. Although I hold no belief in anything supernatural, I cannot make the claim.

I suggest your assumption that I posit agnostics are inferior to atheists is a result of your own uncertainties because nothing in that post alludes to anything of the sort. My source of concern is that a mind that has taken the turn to think about such things rationally can be selective in its choice about beliefs outside the realm of objective observations. I have worked a long while in my area of science and it has never failed to amaze me when one of my colleagues mentioned something that indicated they believed the planets and stars have some control over the lives of people or that their Ouija board said they shouldn't take a trip. That is an interesting example of compartmentalization, but it is consistent with people and their belief systems.

We all need to believe certain things for the purpose of navigating through our daily lives without succumbing to cognitive overload. Those are the mundane beliefs that are transient; they are easily discarded when evidence contrary to the belief presents itself and we go about solving the problem that it has given us.

I write about vampires and such too, but that's fiction. It is fun. It is not real. In this case I am not talking about enchantment. The issue is belief, which is totally different from enchantment. I'm enchanted with the fun of a paranormal tale. I don't believe in the elements of the tale.

Nothing was said about technology being good or bad, constructive or destructive, just that we don't as yet have the technology that will preclude dying, but there is the possibility that it may one day be here. Good or bad will have to be determined at the time.

@CallMeDave -- Superiority has nothing to do with it. It is the mental gymnastics one must go through to support any one belief in the face of evidence or the lack thereof that amazes. The idea that one can claim a lack of belief in one supernatural concept yet place credence in another is astounding to a mind that seeks logical consistency.

@evidentialist perhaps you have seen no evidence and perhaps someone else has.

@CallMeDave -- If someone else has, then they should show it to the world that all may see. In other words, until something is demonstrated it is irrelevant.

Well said.