Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer

[saden1]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

It's one thing to study religion as a sociological construct, quite another to espouse belief. I'm as atheist as they come and I've taken quite a few religion courses... mainly as a means to understanding the craziness that comes out of people's mouths.

I thought you were an avid believer a while back...so much so that you wanted to quite the site. What happened?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by saden1

I thought you were an avid believer a while back...so much so that you wanted to quite the site. What happened?

I was never a believer, in any way shape or form. When I was tempted to quit it was because I felt there wasn't exactly equal footing as far as discussion was concerned, specifically in the off-topic forum. I was wrong, end of story, so I came back. And that's really it.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

I thought you were an avid believer a while back...so much so that you wanted to quite the site. What happened?

I remember that, but I don't think it was BB. Can't think of who it was though.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by saden1

Huh? Aristotal didn't use the scientific method, he developed the fundamental princpile of it...empiricism. As for Voltair, he championed elimination of metaphysics in science.


Intellect means wisdom...science is the pursuit of wisdom in all domains, in religion it is the wisdom of God.

Yes, Aristotle did develop the principle of empiricism which is the foundation of modern scientific technique. But he did so using a philosophical, not experimental, method, and in that sense he talked about science but did not practice it. He established his arguments through rhetoric, not through scientific experiment. The question above was about scientific practice or method.

Same argument for Voltaire. He was a philosopher more than scientist. The claim above was strictly about scientists.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Conveniently you left off the rest of the statement in brackets, yet again reframing an argument.

The insult washes off, you're obviously too emotionally involved in the discussion to stay on point. I get that a lot from people who imagine they're intellectually superior, particularly those of a religious bent (not to say that you are, Lotus, but I typically talk with moslems and christians on these kinds of topics).

I do appreciate your responses though and would be interested in continuing to explore our differences after the weekend.

Thanks for your time and efforts!

I did not reframe your argument by leaving off the brackets. The counterpoint I made works with brackets included. I have stayed right on topic.

And this is not an emotional argument for me. I am in no way an evangelical Christian.

However, above I presented you with a logical either/or which resides in your arguments. You have not yet told me which side is true.