Message from @Mal

Discord ID: 540618673325342769


2019-01-31 19:41:19 UTC  

@meratrix you already provided enough autism bby

2019-01-31 19:41:29 UTC  
2019-01-31 19:41:49 UTC  

religion adjusts because it has to adjust or perish

2019-01-31 19:41:54 UTC  

And again, without religion stating the why, no onr would have questioned the how.

2019-01-31 19:42:16 UTC  

I see no evidence of this

2019-01-31 19:42:19 UTC  

Well science adjusts to pressure of politics and society. So nothing is infallable

2019-01-31 19:42:24 UTC  

Wouldn't that make religion just one conduit for natural human curiosity?

2019-01-31 19:42:51 UTC  

the scientific method doesn't care about politics, the scientist does

2019-01-31 19:42:53 UTC  

In ancient times people thiught rains came from a god. Which caused people to be sated with the fear, but then ask how.

2019-01-31 19:43:52 UTC  

Scientists put out the studies. Some aspects of science are heavily influenced while others, not so much.

2019-01-31 19:44:14 UTC  

Anything made by flawed man, is bound to have flaws.

2019-01-31 19:44:17 UTC  

the scientific method doesn't care about politics, it isn't heavily influenced

2019-01-31 19:44:25 UTC  

the scientist is human, flawed and corruptible

2019-01-31 19:44:34 UTC  

there is good science, there is poor science

2019-01-31 19:44:39 UTC  

Scientific method can be flawed by those applying it.

2019-01-31 19:44:46 UTC  

that is not a criticism of the method

2019-01-31 19:44:53 UTC  

that is again a criticism of the person

2019-01-31 19:44:53 UTC  

Putting in flawed data, adapting the results.

2019-01-31 19:45:13 UTC  

The scientific method is only as good as the one using it.

2019-01-31 19:45:25 UTC  

there is a reason we try to review science and see if results can be reproduced

2019-01-31 19:45:35 UTC  

I'm not disagreeing with you

2019-01-31 19:46:06 UTC  

Though what good is that if another flawwed person with the same influences does it? Or uses the same flawed data?

2019-01-31 19:46:07 UTC  

but you are not really countering my argument that there is knowledge and there is ignorance - that you want to call one spiritualism does not magically make it outside of future observation technology

2019-01-31 19:46:25 UTC  

then you produce poor science, and someone else will come along and produce something better

2019-01-31 19:46:36 UTC  

not really a criticism of the method

2019-01-31 19:47:55 UTC  

Lol. Your failing to see the point but whatever. Stand on that hill.

As for future tech to observe things like post death conciousness, that is severe whataboutism. Especially since modern materialist scientists have no interest. Its doubtful future ones will.

2019-01-31 19:48:29 UTC  

your point did not address my criticism of your notion that some things cannot be observed

2019-01-31 19:48:39 UTC  

how is it whataboutism?!

2019-01-31 19:48:57 UTC  

science does not claim to know everything at this instant

2019-01-31 19:49:02 UTC  

religion often does

2019-01-31 19:49:40 UTC  

Your assuming the future will change where material will care.

Actually a good part of religion is that no one has all the answers

2019-01-31 19:50:08 UTC  

why should I not assume the future will change?

2019-01-31 19:50:21 UTC  

science brings progress, it is ludicrous to assume stagnation

2019-01-31 19:50:23 UTC  

Why should you assume something that massive would?

2019-01-31 19:50:33 UTC  

Its not stagnation.

2019-01-31 19:50:42 UTC  

Its a core principle about materialism

2019-01-31 19:50:57 UTC  

you say something will never happen, I say it might

2019-01-31 19:51:10 UTC  

It all boils to whataboutism

2019-01-31 19:51:16 UTC  

where does your certainty stem from?

2019-01-31 19:51:18 UTC  

Until the pendulum moves

2019-01-31 19:51:26 UTC  

it boils down to you asserting something without evidence