In the Star Trek universe, that is similar to Vulcan Philosophy.
I think IMHO that emotions are (for all intents and purposes) "forever" with humans. To deny them is impossible and I will use your statement as support for this statement: "since, by our structure as humans, we have autonomic nervous systems which guarantee an emotional reaction of some sort with each thought."
But you say control, not deny. I think you mean, control our reactions to our own emotions since we cannot suppress them in any meaningful way. We will feel what our biology dictates what we will feel, but we can change what we do when we feel certain things.
This leads me to what we do as scientists. In spite of our feelings, preconceptions, notions, and anything else that gets in the way, we search for a true understanding of the world around us. We do this search using an unforgiving, self-correcting method.
Certain people us a different method which I do not trust.
Anyway, all this talk can be wittled down to my original post:
"If you ask me what I know about whether there is a God, I would have to say I can be 99.9999% sure. If you ask me if I believe there is a God, I would say I 100% believe there is no God.
If you are honest with yourself, and you ask yourself whether you know, according to science you can never really know with 100% certainty because you require evidence and you cannot prove a negative.
But if you ask yourself whether you believe there is a God or not, you can reach 100% because believing requires no evidence."
@Cane: to boil it down even better... as Bill Maher would say, the rule for today is:
In the face of contradictory evidence, you 'know' not... so you 'believe' yeah or neah. When facing zero contradictory evidence, when the evidence is amassed as a Mt Everest on one side, there is nothing to warrant believing that which has no evidence... zero. Big fat zero :)
"There are people who contend that they have found a god, son of god, etc. Do we discount their belief?"
Yes. Call it a delusion or a passionate mistake. Whatever you call it, these people are clearly incorrect, since apart from their internal conviction, their god has no influence on objective reality.
Of course, discounting somebody's delusion/mistake doesn't mean we have to ignore it. Acknowledging a mistake and understanding it are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they go together.
There is an art. Take the words of another and add meaning to them, then twist that meaning into whatever you want, and behold you have refuted the original words. There are two names to this art: Philosophy and ReligionYep. I'm sure you and Francis Bacon would have gotten along well, as you have pretty much summarized in your own words that which he also thought.
I have a feeling that was intended as an insult, but going beyond that, can you provide the arguments that Bacon's contemporaries used to refute him?
Can you refute my claim? Or is my claim bologna?
After reading your above statement about twisting words around, I assumed you were against such games. I assumed you thought such games were a waste of time.
I think Francis Bacon also thought such games were a waste of time.
I assumed the both of you thought such games were a waste of time and that such games amounted to nothing.
And this is why I wrote the above.
Can you refute my claim?
I asked you before to give me a real life example of 'a negative that can not be proven'. You have not provided me with one. If you provide me with one, we can go from there.
can you provide the arguments that Bacon's contemporaries used to refute him?
In regards to science, Bacon never made any real scientific claims. Therefore there were no claims to refute. What he did was, collect information and use it to try and find the true nature of things. He tried to give an example of how to find the true nature of things by observing the real world, and not just relying on ones own thoughts and the thoughts of others in our collective past.
I have a feeling that was intended as an insult
Never did I ever have such an intention. Having now read all your posts, in your debate, mainly with Micheal Tricoci, it is my understanding that you have a philosophical mind set. I have no such mind set, I try to base everything I think on what I deem to exist in the real world.
If you feel I have insulted you then maybe it comes from the difference between our mind sets.
I am an atheist because there is no God. A provable fact. Albeit, an unscientific provable fact.