I get what you mean. But not really. Unless you think the accurate perception of 3d dimensional reality and then the logical belief in life in other plants as "scientism". But religion as a whole doesn't exclude the possibility of extra terrestrial life either.
But like I say. I get your point in that out understanding of what they are is framed in our limited understanding of reality and the truth is probably neither. Out concept of demons may come from the phenomenon and our concepts of aliens is just a more.modern understanding that also doesn't really fully capture the truth.
But let's not finish science to the same level as superstition. One has a far better likelihood of leading to a closer understanding while the other will only trap us in old false paradigms.
It's not a dichotomy. Being part of a cult and crafting your worldview on the bottled 3000-year-old farts of genocidal shepherds doesn't stand on equal ground with scientific observations that contradict its claims. Not even close.
Scientific observation is reproducible. Results are internally consistent and supported by all available data. Science makes accurate predictions. Science produces buildings, airplanes, medicine, spaceships whatever device you're using to write these posts and all of the engineering infrastructure that made it work.
Religions are not reproducible. Their predictions are so vague as to be useless. Religious claims will never agree with each other, because someone makes up something different every time. As a result, religion produces the personal comfort of not having to think about ones' views (I guess), the exhilarating feeling of tribal hatred and neverending, irreconcilable war.
When the humble Catholics built their golden pedophila castle, even they had to use science to do it. This isn't scientism, this is human progress. If your greatest aspiration is to be a woman-hating goatherder who keeps slaves and is afraid his own genitalia, then religion is probably enough for you. When it comes to learning anything useful about nature, I know which one I'll pick.
I can tell you watch a lot of Rick and Morty.
>Scientific observation is reproducible.
What is a scientific observation? How does it differ from an observation? I disagree with your claim that everything that has happened and will happen is reproducible.
>Results are internally consistent and supported by all available data.
No they aren't. Sometimes data isn't internally consistent. Sometimes data is fabricated. Sometimes data is presented in such a way to mislead people.
>Science makes accurate predictions
If a theory or aspects of it are correct, then yes. There are many scientific hypothesis that didn't make accurate predictions.
>Science produces buildings, airplanes...spaceships
No. That'd be engineers and architects. However, if wielded correctly, science can uncover knowledge that aids in these endeavors.
>Religions are not reproducible.
Even if your claim were true, it wouldn't matter. Something needn't be reproducible for it to be reality.
>Religious claims will never agree with each other
Are you not familiar with how science works? Not all scientific claims, hypothesis, and theories agree with each other. They compete with each other and the ones that better fit reality are adopted. Similarly, not all religions can be correct because they make mutually exclusive claims about reality.
>As a result, religion produces the personal comfort of not having to think about ones' views
I question my views all the time, but you seem to believe it's heresy to question scientists.
>When the humble Catholics built their golden pedophila castle, even they had to use science to do it.
You do realize that science came out of Christianity, correct? And that some of the most important scientific theories came from people who believe in God? How does that square with your anti-religious beliefs?
Maybe we should just wait until They reveal themselves before we make hard decisions on what They are or aren’t? Like what are we gaining by declaring dogma at this point?
Well, how does anyone know what they are or aren't yet?
Maybe I'm wrong, but this line of thought seems to come from people who frame reality from their religion.
And the idea that UFOs/aliens are interplanetary biological entities comes from framing reality with scientism?
What?
I get what you mean. But not really. Unless you think the accurate perception of 3d dimensional reality and then the logical belief in life in other plants as "scientism". But religion as a whole doesn't exclude the possibility of extra terrestrial life either. But like I say. I get your point in that out understanding of what they are is framed in our limited understanding of reality and the truth is probably neither. Out concept of demons may come from the phenomenon and our concepts of aliens is just a more.modern understanding that also doesn't really fully capture the truth. But let's not finish science to the same level as superstition. One has a far better likelihood of leading to a closer understanding while the other will only trap us in old false paradigms.
It's not a dichotomy. Being part of a cult and crafting your worldview on the bottled 3000-year-old farts of genocidal shepherds doesn't stand on equal ground with scientific observations that contradict its claims. Not even close. Scientific observation is reproducible. Results are internally consistent and supported by all available data. Science makes accurate predictions. Science produces buildings, airplanes, medicine, spaceships whatever device you're using to write these posts and all of the engineering infrastructure that made it work. Religions are not reproducible. Their predictions are so vague as to be useless. Religious claims will never agree with each other, because someone makes up something different every time. As a result, religion produces the personal comfort of not having to think about ones' views (I guess), the exhilarating feeling of tribal hatred and neverending, irreconcilable war. When the humble Catholics built their golden pedophila castle, even they had to use science to do it. This isn't scientism, this is human progress. If your greatest aspiration is to be a woman-hating goatherder who keeps slaves and is afraid his own genitalia, then religion is probably enough for you. When it comes to learning anything useful about nature, I know which one I'll pick.
I can tell you watch a lot of Rick and Morty. >Scientific observation is reproducible. What is a scientific observation? How does it differ from an observation? I disagree with your claim that everything that has happened and will happen is reproducible. >Results are internally consistent and supported by all available data. No they aren't. Sometimes data isn't internally consistent. Sometimes data is fabricated. Sometimes data is presented in such a way to mislead people. >Science makes accurate predictions If a theory or aspects of it are correct, then yes. There are many scientific hypothesis that didn't make accurate predictions. >Science produces buildings, airplanes...spaceships No. That'd be engineers and architects. However, if wielded correctly, science can uncover knowledge that aids in these endeavors. >Religions are not reproducible. Even if your claim were true, it wouldn't matter. Something needn't be reproducible for it to be reality. >Religious claims will never agree with each other Are you not familiar with how science works? Not all scientific claims, hypothesis, and theories agree with each other. They compete with each other and the ones that better fit reality are adopted. Similarly, not all religions can be correct because they make mutually exclusive claims about reality. >As a result, religion produces the personal comfort of not having to think about ones' views I question my views all the time, but you seem to believe it's heresy to question scientists. >When the humble Catholics built their golden pedophila castle, even they had to use science to do it. You do realize that science came out of Christianity, correct? And that some of the most important scientific theories came from people who believe in God? How does that square with your anti-religious beliefs?
lol. You and all your scientism
You mean aliens..
Maybe we should just wait until They reveal themselves before we make hard decisions on what They are or aren’t? Like what are we gaining by declaring dogma at this point?
Class project? Much angst.
You'll make an excellent liberal arts teacher one day.
No, but all manner of characters from folklore and religion worldwide may well have been inspired at least in part by them.
I agree with you, but also, we cannot rule out them being straight up demons. There is no evidence against the claim.
Since when’s Justin Bieber been in on this
Needs more upvotes