Socrates Faith in God the Creator in Socrates Own Words

[newpolitics]

Socrates was a polytheist, as any other greek was.

 

[newpolitics]

Who cares what Socrates believed in, as far as dieties go?

Well, obviously the people participating on this thread do or they wouldnt bother, to include you.

The god he believed in certainly wasn't a judeo-christian deity, as that wasn't invented yet.

Lol, yes, the Jewish God was well KNOWN before Socrates, at least down in Palestine, though not by Greeks.

And that the God Socrates IDed was given a different name, the concept was very close, and based on the later Socratic writings by Plato and Aristotle, I think Socrates got it close enough to not strain the difference as far as faith goes. The Catholic church regards the Socratic school as being monotheistic starting with Socrats, and that is really good enough for me.

He lived in a time before science, when supernatural, theistic views of the world dominated the culture. It would be ridiculous for anyone during that time to not believe, as they had no altnerative explanations for anything.

that is a complete myth. They often did use the gods of the gap answer for things, but they also did a lot of experimentation, calculation and reasoned consideration of the world around them. These ancient people calculated the curcumference of the Earth and its diameter, the distance to the moon and its diameter as well. They had mechanical calculators, chemical explosives, atomic theory, and had regular advances in the construction of ever more ocean worthy ocean going ships, and more. And they didnt do this by merely setting up shrines and burning incence to a moon god.

They didn't understand the natural causes of things yet. That didn't happen until the enlightment, in bulk.

Again, bullshit. You dont seem to know much about the technological accomplishments of the ancient world. It wasnt untill the 16th century that westerners began to exced those accomplishments in most respects and scientific/engineering investigation did not start with a dig into the ancient writings of the Socratic school of thought.

Wow. yo'ure a real gem, Jim. I don't have the energy, like you do, to refute you, point by point, so I'll just do a general refutation. What I don't understand, is why you are trying to gather validity for your own insecure beliefs by looking at a man who existed over 2,000 years ago, and trying to discern what his beliefs were. There is something extraordinarily pathetic about this. You can't assess the validity of your own claims, so you weigh in on those held by the man who effectively started methodological naturalism, which eventually lead to scientific discoveries and philosophies that made god obsolete. And, you look to this man for inspiration for you own theistic views? That's really pathetic.

The scientific method simply wasn't around during Socrates time. They were beginning to look for naturalistic explanations for things, but all of their explanations about nature and cosmology still included the greek pantheon as being causal. Their worldview was not informed by scientific discovery, but of polytheism. They thought lightning was caused by the gods, and that the gods actually lived on top of Mount Olympus and dictated and decided all of their affairs. So you tell me, how is this a scientific worldview? They had technology, but that is not synonymous with a scientific worldview. Try not to be so ignorant, dude. I know you want to prove your skydaddy exists, but this simply isn't a good way. Try the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Maybe that will help you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation.

A belief in an eternal creator is not 'magic', doofus.

You're right; belief in an eternal creator is not 'magic'--belief in an eternal creator is believing in magic.

Why is it magic, but belief in the membrane theory of the Big Bangs origen is not magic?

Because one involves personal involvment from an intelligence? What is magic about that?

You make arbitrary and unwarranted distinctions that are not merited, but are merely preferential definitions based on your bigotry against any religion or nonmaterialistic perspective.

In short, you have not proven your claims, and far from it. You look ridiculous.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wow. yo'ure a real gem, Jim. I don't have the energy, like you do, to refute you, point by point, so I'll just do a general refutation.

In other words you will duck the points and obscure them by changing the subject.

What I don't understand, is why you are trying to gather validity for your own insecure beliefs ...

Unwarranted assertion combined with red herring and ad hominem.

There is nothing insecure about my beliefs, dickbrain.

by looking at a man who existed over 2,000 years ago, and trying to discern what his beliefs were.

I am fairly comfortable with what his beliefs likely were; so what? I use him as an example, nothing more.

There is something extraordinarily pathetic about this.

Yes, your dodging my points and now falling back on broadly worded insults and wild ass guesses is very pathetic.

You can't assess the validity of your own claims, ...

Of course I can, and my lack of need to play psychoanalisys as you do demonstrates this.

so you weigh in on those held by a man, whose method of looking into truth, was the gateway that eventually opened the doors to natural philosophy, and eventually science, which is what has effectively killed the need for a god, because we understand the world around u so well now.

Actually, the Socratic school of thought buttressed Christianities claims for over a millenium.

And, you look to this man for inspiration? How ironic.

Only ironic if you ignore what he actually said instead of the bullshit spin atheist wack-jobs like you have applied to him.

The scientific method simply wasn't around during Socrates time. They were beginning to look for naturalistic explanations for things, but all of their explanations about nature and cosmology still included the greek pantheon as being causal.

And many scientists today still view God as having been the cause of the Big Bang. So what?

Their worldview was not informed by scientific discovery, but of polytheism. They thought lightning was caused by the gods, and that the gods actually lived on top of Mount Olympus and dictated and decided all of their affairs. So you tell me, how is this a scientific worldview?

It was not a modern scientific world view, but such is not required in order to begin to understand basic natural phenomenon and develop early technology.

And even so they accomplished quite a bit, and so they do not deserve the derision you direct at them simply because of your anti-religious bigotry.

You stand on the shoulders of these giants and piss all over them.

They had technology, but that is not synonymous with a scientific worldview. Try not to be so ignorant, dude.

You try to put words in my mouth then call me ignorant? roflmao. Technology <> modern science, dipshit.

I know you want to prove your skydaddy exists, but this simply isn't a good way.

The Eternal Creator is not a skydaddy, you fucking moron. Such things display your ignorance regarding what you run your mouth about and you could not care less because you reject the concept of God because of your moral insecurities and inadequacies, and it has nothing to do with the evidence for God since you refuse to even attempt to understand what the concept is in the first place.

You are a blathering, arrogant, ignorant, vain fool too consumed by your own deluded self-importance to try and learn anythying from those you regard as beneath you.

And these humble people you despise are going to bring people like you to heel over the next century, like it or not, fucktard.

Try the Kalam or the Transcendental argument. Maybe that will help you.

Try go fucking yourself, bitch.

The last thing on God's green Earth I will ever do is take advice from a heathen Know-nothing.

 

[newpolitics]

Wow. yo'ure a real gem, Jim. I don't have the energy, like you do, to refute you, point by point, so I'll just do a general refutation.

In other words you will duck the points and obscure them by changing the subject.

What I don't understand, is why you are trying to gather validity for your own insecure beliefs ...

Unwarranted assertion combined with red herring and ad hominem.

There is nothing insecure about my beliefs, dickbrain.



I am fairly comfortable with what his beliefs likely were; so what? I use hom as an example, nothing more.



Yes, your dodging my points and now falling back on broadly worded insults and wild as guesses is very pathetic.




Of course I can, and my lack of need to play psychoanalisys as you do demonstrates this.



Actually, the Socratic school of thought buttressed Christianities claims for over a millenium.



Only ironic if you ignore what he actually said instead of the bullshit spin atheist wack-jobs have applied to him.




And many scientists today still view God as having been the cause of the Big Bang. So what?



It was not a modern scientific world view, but such is not required in order to begin to understand basic natural phenomenon. And even so they accomplished quite a bit, and so they do not deserve the derision you direct at them simply because of your anti-religious bigotry.

You stand on the shoulders of these giants and piss all over them.



You try to put words in my mouth then callme ignorant? roflmao. Technology <> science, dipshit.

I know you want to prove your skydaddy exists, but this simply isn't a good way.

The Eternal Creator is not a skydaddy, you fucking moron. Such things display your ignorance regarding what you run your mouth about and you could not care less because you reject the concept of Godbecause of your moral insecurities and inadequacies, and it has nothing to do with the evidence for Goid since you refuse to even attempt to understand what the concept is in the first place.

You are a blathering, arrogant, ignorant, vain fool too consumed by your own deluded self-importance to try and learn anythying from those you regard as beneath you.

And these humble people you despise are going to bring people like you to heel over the next century, like it or not, fucktard.

Try the Kalam or the Transcendental argument. Maybe that will help you.

Try go fucking yourself, bitch.

The last thing on God's green Earth I will ever do is take advice from a heathen Know-nothing.

I am not obligated to employ the same method of refutation as you do. You made the thread, and you can't even back it up. It is not my job to entertain you're every illogical whim Don't act so fucking self-rigthteous.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I am not obligated to employ the same method of refutation as you do. You made the thread, and you can't even back it up. It is not my job to entertain you're every illogical whim Don't act so fucking self-rigthteous. Deal with it. You failed.

Lol, in your bigoted and unwarranted opinion I failed.

I find that reassuring, dumbfuck.

Point is, Socrates had a rational monotheistic faith, and you can eat shit.

 

[newpolitics]

I am not obligated to employ the same method of refutation as you do. You made the thread, and you can't even back it up. It is not my job to entertain you're every illogical whim Don't act so fucking self-rigthteous. Deal with it. You failed.

Lol, in your bigoted and unwarranted opinion I failed.

I find that reassuring, dumbfuck.

Point is, Socrates had a rational monotheistic faith, and you can eat shit.

This whole post is entirely immature and a complete non-sequitur from anything relevant to the discussion of the existence of god. It is really pathetic. First of all, Socrates was a polytheist. Not a monotheist, so you're assertion is false, and completely unfounded. In this text you quote, he was most likely referring the Zeus, but that doesn't mean he was monotheistic. You also have to consider translation. From this text, you can not simply assume that he had rationally deduced a monotheistic deity. You are exhibiting some serious confirmation bias. It's delusional.

 

[Aristotle]

and?

...and?

Socrates believed in a Creator God who existed prior to the universe that He created, similar to the Jewish concept of God as Creator and not merely some tribal deity.

What this demonstrates is the rational quality of the concept of God and that such concepts do not have to come by revelation but can also be understood by the simple use of reason.

Your wrong but if he did have a monotheistic belief Socrates would have believed in a Demiurge not similar to that of Judaic-Christian and Islamic thought. But he didn't, he followed one of the Pantheon deities.

Correct understanding of Socrates:

"Given what we hear from him inThe Apology, it is not clear why Socrates &#8220;follows&#8221; his God, Apollo


"At least inThe Apology, Socrates never says he &#8220;follows&#8221; God. Instead,he characterizes himself as God&#8217;s gift to the Athenians. He says, &#8220;I am really one given to you by God&#8221; (437)

See: www.scribd.com/doc/3823037/Socrates-and-his-God

 

[Unkotare]

The scientific method simply wasn't around during Socrates time.

You might want to think about this one again. You probably won't, but you might want to.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I am not obligated to employ the same method of refutation as you do. You made the thread, and you can't even back it up. It is not my job to entertain you're every illogical whim Don't act so fucking self-rigthteous. Deal with it. You failed.

Lol, in your bigoted and unwarranted opinion I failed.

I find that reassuring, dumbfuck.

Point is, Socrates had a rational monotheistic faith, and you can eat shit.

This whole post is entirely immature and a complete non-sequitur from anything relevant to the discussion of the existence of god. It is really pathetic.

I do not give a shit what you try to think, ass hole.

First of all, Socrates was a polytheist. Not a monotheist, so you're assertion is false, and completely unfounded.

Bullshit, he constantly refers to a singular God and rarely multiple gods and then it is to accomodate the views of his audience.

In this text you quote, he was most likely referring the Zeus, but that doesn't mean he was monotheistic.

You are pulling that out of your ass. The Socratic school was monotheistic, dumbass.

You also have to consider translation. From this text, you can not simply assume that he had rationally deduced a monotheistic deity.

No this text just shows his conclusions which is all I was looking for.

You are exhibiting some serious confirmation bias. It's delusional.

The Socratic school, once again, was monotheistic and Socrates referenced a singular God almost exclusively.

You are the one being delusional, imagining things that simply are not there.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The scientific method simply wasn't around during Socrates time.

You might want to think about this one again. You probably won't, but you might want to.

He doesnt give a shit as it is all just rhetorical posturing for him.

When someone outside the Christian faith characterizes the Eternal God as a 'skydaddy' that is about as dishonest and insulting as one can get. And that is the pure intent.

Newpolitics is little more than a troll. And not even a very good one at that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#Aristotelian_science_and_empiricism

Aristotle introduced what may be called a scientific method.[12] He provided another of the ingredients of scientific tradition: empiricism. For Aristotle, universal truths can be known from particular things via induction. To some extent then, Aristotle reconciles abstract thought with observation, although it would be a mistake to imply that Aristotelian science is empirical in form. Indeed, Aristotle did not accept that knowledge acquired by induction could rightly be counted as scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, induction was a necessary preliminary to the main business of scientific enquiry, providing the primary premises required for scientific demonstrations.

Aristotle largely ignored inductive reasoning in his treatment of scientific enquiry. To make it clear why this is so, consider this statement in the Posterior Analytics,

We suppose ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and, further, that the fact could not be other than it is.

It was therefore the work of the philosopher to demonstrate universal truths and to discover their causes.[13] While induction was sufficient for discovering universals by generalization, it did not succeed in identifying causes. The tool Aristotle used for this was deductive reasoning in the form of syllogisms. Using the syllogism, scientists could infer new universal truths from those already established.

Aristotle developed a complete normative approach to scientific enquiry involving the syllogism which is discussed at length in his Posterior Analytics. A difficulty with this scheme lay in showing that derived truths have solid primary premises. Aristotle would not allow that demonstrations could be circular; supporting the conclusion by the premises, and the premises by the conclusion. Nor would he allow an infinite number of middle terms between the primary premises and the conclusion. This leads to the question of how the primary premises are found or developed, and as mentioned above, Aristotle allowed that induction would be required for this task.

Towards the end of the Posterior Analytics, Aristotle discusses knowledge imparted by induction.

Thus it is clear that we must get to know the primary premises by induction; for the method by which even sense-perception implants the universal is inductive. [&#8230;] it follows that there will be no scientific knowledge of the primary premises, and since except intuition nothing can be truer than scientific knowledge, it will be intuition that apprehends the primary premises. [&#8230;] If, therefore, it is the only other kind of true thinking except scientific knowing, intuition will be the originative source of scientific knowledge.

The account leaves room for doubt regarding the nature and extent of his empiricism. In particular, it seems that Aristotle considers sense-perception only as a vehicle for knowledge through intuition. Induction is not afforded the status of scientific reasoning, and so it is left to intuition to provide a solid foundation for Aristotle&#8217;s science. With that said, Aristotle brings us somewhat closer an empirical science than his predecessors.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Socrates was a polytheist, as any other greek was.

Monotheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The One" (&#932;&#8056; &#7965;&#957 is a concept that arises in Platonism, although the writings of Plato himself are still cast in polytheistic terminology. The Euthyphro dilemma, for example, is formulated as "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" But Plato prefigures monotheism by looking for the absolute Truth, as in the allegory of the cave, and the absolute Good, as in the Form of the Good. Later, Hellenistic religion, including Hellenistic Judaism, and especially Neoplatonism, formulate monotheism explicitly....


Aristotle's concept of the "Uncaused Cause" - never incorporated into the polytheistic ancient Greek religion - has been used by many exponents of Abrahamic religions to justify their arguments for the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God of the Abrahamic religions.

Atheists argue out of both sides of their mouths, claiming when it suits them that Socrates was a myth, then on the other hand denying that Platonism has any reflection of Socrates philosophy, but anyone with any common sense knows that Plato got his principles and influence from the man who he took his axioms from and that is Socrates.

So there is little doubt that when Socrates uses the singular reference to God 98.7% of the time, it is because he believes in ONE GOD, dumbass.

But deny away anyway, fruitcake.

 

[newpolitics]

The scientific method simply wasn't around during Socrates time.

You might want to think about this one again. You probably won't, but you might want to.

He doesnt give a shit as it is all just rhetorical posturing for him.

When someone outside the Christian faith characterizes the Eternal God as a 'skydaddy' that is about as dishonest and insulting as one can get. And that is the pure intent.

Newpolitics is little more than a troll. And not even a very good one at that.


History of scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aristotle introduced what may be called a scientific method.[12] He provided another of the ingredients of scientific tradition: empiricism. For Aristotle, universal truths can be known from particular things via induction. To some extent then, Aristotle reconciles abstract thought with observation, although it would be a mistake to imply that Aristotelian science is empirical in form. Indeed, Aristotle did not accept that knowledge acquired by induction could rightly be counted as scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, induction was a necessary preliminary to the main business of scientific enquiry, providing the primary premises required for scientific demonstrations.

Aristotle largely ignored inductive reasoning in his treatment of scientific enquiry. To make it clear why this is so, consider this statement in the Posterior Analytics,

We suppose ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and, further, that the fact could not be other than it is.

It was therefore the work of the philosopher to demonstrate universal truths and to discover their causes.[13] While induction was sufficient for discovering universals by generalization, it did not succeed in identifying causes. The tool Aristotle used for this was deductive reasoning in the form of syllogisms. Using the syllogism, scientists could infer new universal truths from those already established.

Aristotle developed a complete normative approach to scientific enquiry involving the syllogism which is discussed at length in his Posterior Analytics. A difficulty with this scheme lay in showing that derived truths have solid primary premises. Aristotle would not allow that demonstrations could be circular; supporting the conclusion by the premises, and the premises by the conclusion. Nor would he allow an infinite number of middle terms between the primary premises and the conclusion. This leads to the question of how the primary premises are found or developed, and as mentioned above, Aristotle allowed that induction would be required for this task.

Towards the end of the Posterior Analytics, Aristotle discusses knowledge imparted by induction.

Thus it is clear that we must get to know the primary premises by induction; for the method by which even sense-perception implants the universal is inductive. [&#8230;] it follows that there will be no scientific knowledge of the primary premises, and since except intuition nothing can be truer than scientific knowledge, it will be intuition that apprehends the primary premises. [&#8230;] If, therefore, it is the only other kind of true thinking except scientific knowing, intuition will be the originative source of scientific knowledge.

The account leaves room for doubt regarding the nature and extent of his empiricism. In particular, it seems that Aristotle considers sense-perception only as a vehicle for knowledge through intuition. Induction is not afforded the status of scientific reasoning, and so it is left to intuition to provide a solid foundation for Aristotle&#8217;s science. With that said, Aristotle brings us somewhat closer an empirical science than his predecessors.

Wow. You guys really are stupid. I don't deny they they were begininng to think scientifically, but thats just it. They were BEGINNING to, and the philosophy was basically an attempt at finding the explanation at things without looking to god. This era was the absolute beginning of looking for natural causal explanations. They had not amassed any actual knowledge, apart from buildling things with their hands, which is different than understanding the natural world. They didn't have the knowledge of Newton, so they didn't understand basic things like Gravity. They didn't have the knowledge of copernicus, so still existed in a heliocentric universe. they didn't undertsand lighting, earthquakes, stars... EVERYTHING around them was attributed to supernatural causation. Get my drift? Good. Now will you stop asserting that these people had scientific knowledge about nature? Because, they didn't, and that's not an insult. Just truth. How could they? We had to start somewhere. They just got the methodology going.

 

[LOki]

A belief in an eternal creator is not 'magic', doofus.

You're right; belief in an eternal creator is not 'magic'--belief in an eternal creator is believing in magic.

Why is it magic, but belief in the membrane theory of the Big Bangs origen is not magic?

Because valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence supports the assertion of the membrane theory of the Big Bangs origin.

Because one involves personal involvment from an intelligence? What is magic about that?

The imaginary--unfounded in verifiable evidence or valid logic--status of this "personal involvment from an intelligence" you introduce for no logically valid reason.

You make arbitrary and unwarranted distinctions that are not merited, but are merely preferential definitions based on your bigotry against any religion or nonmaterialistic perspective.

While you just make shit up out of nothing--like your above statement and this "eternal creator" you posit.

In short, you have not proven your claims, and far from it. You look ridiculous.

I don't have to prove anything, I can rest on the evidence. In short, you've predictably invoked the "burden of proof fallacy." You look retarded.

 

[Unkotare]

You might want to think about this one again. You probably won't, but you might want to.

He doesnt give a shit as it is all just rhetorical posturing for him.

When someone outside the Christian faith characterizes the Eternal God as a 'skydaddy' that is about as dishonest and insulting as one can get. And that is the pure intent.

Newpolitics is little more than a troll. And not even a very good one at that.


History of scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aristotle introduced what may be called a scientific method.[12] He provided another of the ingredients of scientific tradition: empiricism. For Aristotle, universal truths can be known from particular things via induction. To some extent then, Aristotle reconciles abstract thought with observation, although it would be a mistake to imply that Aristotelian science is empirical in form. Indeed, Aristotle did not accept that knowledge acquired by induction could rightly be counted as scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, induction was a necessary preliminary to the main business of scientific enquiry, providing the primary premises required for scientific demonstrations.

Aristotle largely ignored inductive reasoning in his treatment of scientific enquiry. To make it clear why this is so, consider this statement in the Posterior Analytics,

We suppose ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and, further, that the fact could not be other than it is.

It was therefore the work of the philosopher to demonstrate universal truths and to discover their causes.[13] While induction was sufficient for discovering universals by generalization, it did not succeed in identifying causes. The tool Aristotle used for this was deductive reasoning in the form of syllogisms. Using the syllogism, scientists could infer new universal truths from those already established.

Aristotle developed a complete normative approach to scientific enquiry involving the syllogism which is discussed at length in his Posterior Analytics. A difficulty with this scheme lay in showing that derived truths have solid primary premises. Aristotle would not allow that demonstrations could be circular; supporting the conclusion by the premises, and the premises by the conclusion. Nor would he allow an infinite number of middle terms between the primary premises and the conclusion. This leads to the question of how the primary premises are found or developed, and as mentioned above, Aristotle allowed that induction would be required for this task.

Towards the end of the Posterior Analytics, Aristotle discusses knowledge imparted by induction.

Thus it is clear that we must get to know the primary premises by induction; for the method by which even sense-perception implants the universal is inductive. […] it follows that there will be no scientific knowledge of the primary premises, and since except intuition nothing can be truer than scientific knowledge, it will be intuition that apprehends the primary premises. […] If, therefore, it is the only other kind of true thinking except scientific knowing, intuition will be the originative source of scientific knowledge.

The account leaves room for doubt regarding the nature and extent of his empiricism. In particular, it seems that Aristotle considers sense-perception only as a vehicle for knowledge through intuition. Induction is not afforded the status of scientific reasoning, and so it is left to intuition to provide a solid foundation for Aristotle’s science. With that said, Aristotle brings us somewhat closer an empirical science than his predecessors.

Wow. You guys really are stupid. I don't deny they they were begininng to think scientifically, but thats just it. They were BEGINNING to, and the philosophy was basically an attempt at finding the explanation at things without looking to god. This era was the absolute beginning of looking for natural causal explanations. They had not amassed any actual knowledge, apart from buildling things with their hands, which is different than understanding the natural world. They didn't have the knowledge of Newton, so they didn't understand basic things like Gravity. They didn't have the knowledge of copernicus, so still existed in a heliocentric universe. they didn't undertsand lighting, earthquakes, stars... EVERYTHING around them was attributed to supernatural causation. Get my drift? Good. Now will you stop asserting that these people had scientific knowledge about nature? Because, they didn't, and that's not an insult. Just truth. How could they? We had to start somewhere. They just got the methodology going.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and wait until you've studied some more before pontificating on such matters?

 

[newpolitics]

He doesnt give a shit as it is all just rhetorical posturing for him.

When someone outside the Christian faith characterizes the Eternal God as a 'skydaddy' that is about as dishonest and insulting as one can get. And that is the pure intent.

Newpolitics is little more than a troll. And not even a very good one at that.


History of scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow. You guys really are stupid. I don't deny they they were begininng to think scientifically, but thats just it. They were BEGINNING to, and the philosophy was basically an attempt at finding the explanation at things without looking to god. This era was the absolute beginning of looking for natural causal explanations. They had not amassed any actual knowledge, apart from buildling things with their hands, which is different than understanding the natural world. They didn't have the knowledge of Newton, so they didn't understand basic things like Gravity. They didn't have the knowledge of copernicus, so still existed in a heliocentric universe. they didn't undertsand lighting, earthquakes, stars... EVERYTHING around them was attributed to supernatural causation. Get my drift? Good. Now will you stop asserting that these people had scientific knowledge about nature? Because, they didn't, and that's not an insult. Just truth. How could they? We had to start somewhere. They just got the methodology going.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and wait until you've studied some more before pontificating on such matters?

This is common knowledge, and I have studied this material. Granted its been a while, but again, its common knowledge. I can't even believe we are arguing about this. The real explosion of scientific knowledge did not come about until after Newton, at best, and this is also common knowledge. You're assertions defy conventional wisdom, based off a source that many of your ilk decry when convenient. (I dont', I think wikipedia is credible). With that, let me point out that you refuted your own position with the quote you posted:

"although it would be a mistake to imply that Aristotelian science is empirical in form."

Aritstole used induction to draw scientific "truths," without empiricism. That is not science. It was progress towards the scientific method, however.

By the way, How is this even a discussion, and why are these side matters important?!!
I feel like I'm going insane with such fucking idiots telling me the ancient greeks were scientifically advanced. If they were, then we'd be teleporting by now.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wow. You guys really are stupid. I don't deny they they were begininng to think scientifically, but thats just it. They were BEGINNING to, and the philosophy was basically an attempt at finding the explanation at things without looking to god. This era was the absolute beginning of looking for natural causal explanations. They had not amassed any actual knowledge, apart from buildling things with their hands, which is different than understanding the natural world.

Are you just a stupid ass? It has beenrepeatedly shared with you that the Greek Atomist school had a fairly acurate estimate of the size of the Earth, the distance to and diameter ofthe moon, an atomic theory and more.

You just have it wedged firmly in that piss ant brain of your that the ancients knew nothing.

No, you know nothing and you are a fucking disgrace on top of that.

They didn't have the knowledge of Newton, so they didn't understand basic things like Gravity. They didn't have the knowledge of copernicus, so still existed in a heliocentric universe. they didn't undertsand lighting, earthquakes, stars... EVERYTHING around them was attributed to supernatural causation. Get my drift? Good.

Those things are not EVERYUTHING, dumbshit.

Good greif, can you be that stupid really?

Now will you stop asserting that these people had scientific knowledge about nature? Because, they didn't, and that's not an insult. Just truth. How could they? We had to start somewhere. They just got the methodology going.

They DID have some very accurate and early stage scientific knowledge as the article I referenced speaks of.

Dude, grow a brain, or borrow aor steal one, because you are operating right now on nothing but high grade manure betwit your ears

 

[newpolitics]

"Scientific methodology has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years[4] and is the process by which science is carried out. Because science builds on previous knowledge, it consistently improves our understanding of the world. The scientific method also improves itself in the same way, meaning that it gradually becomes more effective at generating new knowledge. For example, the concept of falsification (first proposed in 1934) reduces confirmation bias by formalizing the attempt to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them.[7]"


Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it is reasonable to say "at least 1,000 years" doesn't mean 2,300 years back to the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You're right; belief in an eternal creator is not 'magic'--belief in an eternal creator is believing in magic.

Why is it magic, but belief in the membrane theory of the Big Bangs origen is not magic?

Because valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence supports the assertion of the membrane theory of the Big Bangs origin.

And what makes the membrane theory valid logic but the theory of an eternal crator not?

Oh, thats right because you dont want to feel guilty while you engage in sodomy. I got it.

The imaginary--unfounded in verifiable evidence or valid logic--status of this "personal involvment from an intelligence" you introduce for no logically valid reason.

Except that there is valid logical reason for it. You simply reject it and then ignore it.

Dumbshit.

You make arbitrary and unwarranted distinctions that are not merited, but are merely preferential definitions based on your bigotry against any religion or nonmaterialistic perspective.

While you just make shit up out of nothing--like your above statement and this "eternal creator" you posit.

I didnt make it up, you lying peice of rancid goat shit.

The concept long predates me, jack ass.

You know anyone reading this thread can see what an absolutely ignorant fucktard yo are, so please keep it up, I am rather enjoying it. lolol

In short, you have not proven your claims, and far from it. You look ridiculous.

I don't have to prove anything, I can rest on the evidence. In short, you've predictably invoked the "burden of proof fallacy." You look retarded.

Nope, since I do have evidence there is no fallacy here, twatfaced ass hat.

 

[newpolitics]

Wow. You guys really are stupid. I don't deny they they were begininng to think scientifically, but thats just it. They were BEGINNING to, and the philosophy was basically an attempt at finding the explanation at things without looking to god. This era was the absolute beginning of looking for natural causal explanations. They had not amassed any actual knowledge, apart from buildling things with their hands, which is different than understanding the natural world.

Are you just a stupid ass? It has beenrepeatedly shared with you that the Greek Atomist school had a fairly acurate estimate of the size of the Earth, the distance to and diameter ofthe moon, an atomic theory and more.

You just have it wedged firmly in that piss ant brain of your that the ancients knew nothing.

No, you know nothing and you are a fucking disgrace on top of that.

They didn't have the knowledge of Newton, so they didn't understand basic things like Gravity. They didn't have the knowledge of copernicus, so still existed in a heliocentric universe. they didn't undertsand lighting, earthquakes, stars... EVERYTHING around them was attributed to supernatural causation. Get my drift? Good.

Those things are not EVERYUTHING, dumbshit.

Good greif, can you be that stupid really?

Now will you stop asserting that these people had scientific knowledge about nature? Because, they didn't, and that's not an insult. Just truth. How could they? We had to start somewhere. They just got the methodology going.

They DID have some very accurate and early stage scientific knowledge as the article I referenced speaks of.

Dude, grow a brain, or borrow aor steal one, because you are operating right now on nothing but high grade manure betwit your ears

You're really fucking retarded. Atomism was pure conjecture, in the sense that it could not be verified by any instrumentation. As such, it was not backed by empirical results, but based upon the idea that everything was reducible to an indestructible unit. It was arrived at through highly indirect observation and logic at the time, but it no way was this scientifically verified to be true until relatively recently. It was a genius deduction, that happened to be right, but one that could not be proven until recently with any rigor.

The ability to measure distances is not finding the causes for things!!!! which is what I've been saying, explicitly, yet you are too fucking stupid to read. The ability to manipulate things to form mechanical machines is not finding the causes for things, either. They lacked the ability to properly assess the natural cause for the things we take for granted today. As such, theism occupied a larger epistemological space than it does for people that choose to pay attention to scientific discovery today. You're really frustrating!!!!

Basically, the way you interpret history is just dumb. All of your shittalking is hilarious to me, because you are so utterly biased in your interpretation of historical fact, using it to serve you're own beliefs, rather than assessing them on their own grounds and understanding them for what they truly are, in their element. It's actually intellectual dishonesty, which I am not surprised to see from someone trying to bolster their belief by referencing someone dead for 2,500 years.

I'm done with you dude. It's exhausting debating someone so obviously stupid. I am simply too lazy to fact check everything, because I know you are wrong, and quite frankly, I don't give enough of a shit to debate about the scientific achievements of the ancient greeks in a discussion about fucking god. This whole thing is utterly absurd, and so are you or attempting it. Try christian apologetics, please. This is fucking retarded.