who believes in god

Status
Not open for further replies.
Valgeir said:
Faith in science and faith in religion are not the same. "Faith" in science is based on testable and falsifiable hypotheses, and they must turn out consistently and demonstratably as true before they are "accepted," while "faith" as it refers to religion is not based on logical proof or material evidence. They aren't the same thing.
ah but they are, and you seem to understand the process. one does not believe blindly, or one is foolhardy in their belief. faith in both cases requires evidence for which one should feel compelled to believe x or y
 
Silent Song said:
1. no, its not erroneous at all. science is constantly disproving itself as it evolves, as our knowledge itself evolves. when we thought the world was flat, because we could look all around and see a flat disc, that was fact. fact is a popularly held or expertly given opinion. it is not concrete. when we saw the world from space, and learned to travel around it, its spherical nature became fact, disproving a previous theory. all science can offer is theoretical testable explanations that are verifiable to a certain margin of error. because of this margin of error, nothing can be certainly proven by science. thus, to believe that such proof exists is a matter of faith. those who believe otherwise are only misleading themselves.

Huh?!?!?! That was when we were talking about Science being based on Faith versus Truth.

With regard to the world being flat, religious leaders declared the Earth was flat. The few scientists who took the facts (there was a cyclic nature to the movement of the stars which, when traced behaved more like a pendulum ball; the masts of ships appeared to disappear in the distance as they sailed away; etc.) theorized that the Earth was round. Some of them were killed - the others chose to "believe" the Earth was flat in order to save their skins.
 
"science" is not a specialized art reserved only for certain persons. everyone practices some form of seeking and probing in their lives. my point being that just because someone decreed that the world was flat based on certain 'evidence', and many believed (and of course some did not), did not make it so, just as any theory today. that fact is opinion. that science can only present compelling evidence with which to either augment or overwrite what we have come to "know".
 
Beelzebub said:
Established opinions? I'm sorry, but I have better things to do than to sit around all day and contemplate the color of snow. Is it white? What is white? What if it's really blue but we just call it white? Give me a fucking break. If I throw a vase on the ground, the thing is going to break. How can you deny these obvious truths? I think everyone is just trying to be philosophical and thoughtful for the sake of it.

:tickled:

You said exactly what I wanted to say... ;)
 
This kind of goes back to what I was saying before. Will we ever be able to figure these things out? No. Nothing is set in stone. It doesn't matter to me if there's an afterlife, or when I'll die, or what happens after I die because I don't know, nor do I really care. I don't not have any respect for my life because if that was the case then I'd be out every night shooting heroin and boozing up. I'll worry about death when the time comes. In the meantime I'll just live my life as I see fit. Complicating things is a waste of time.
 
Beelzebub said:
This kind of goes back to what I was saying before. Will we ever be able to figure these things out? No. Nothing is set in stone. It doesn't matter to me if there's an afterlife, or when I'll die, or what happens after I die because I don't know, nor do I really care. I don't not have any respect for my life because if that was the case then I'd be out every night shooting heroin and boozing up. I'll worry about death when the time comes. In the meantime I'll just live my life as I see fit. Complicating things is a waste of time.
that is all your choice to make. note that you make my very own argument where i bolded it above. how then can science prove anything if this is so?
 
I meant that nothing regarding the supernatural--a supreme being, the afterlife, etc. is set in stone.

Edit: This has just been bugging me, but anyone who doesn't think 1+1=2 needs to revisit the first grade. kthx
 
Silent Song said:
all i'm saying is science is not absolute.

Wait a minute, I never said SCIENCE is absolute (I assume you were referring to me since I've been the primary proponent of that side of the argument). I said a scientific LAW is absolute. Of which, there are few. So, to paraphrase, "there are few absolutes."
 
Silent Song said:
if your arm is so frostbitten or burned that you have no nerve endings, it will not hurt. but let's say you have a healthy arm. if you've anasthesized it, for whatever reason, it won't hurt. just one example that such appearingly simple laws are not certain.

Look, again, we're just arguing to argue. A law isn't written as "if you cut your arm off it will hurt". It's written as "If you cut your arm off; without having any impairment of the nervous system, mental capacity, etc.; it will hurt." There are always qualifiers (it's very "legal" in that manner).
 
Two wonderful (and FACTUAL) quotes: :Spin:


"Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it." --Albert Einstein

"Things are simple, people just overcomplicate them." - Beelzebub



Thanks Beelzebub!
 
Anytime. But of course, those mightn't be facts, they could be non-absolutes that are figments of our imagination.

What is your one absolute truth, Silent Song?
 
i apologize, but the argument must then be made clear, as the previously stated example would not hold its own. even still, as the case of the amputation, the more one thinks on it, the more qualifiers arise. quantum physics is a good example of why one may only predict and suggest what may or may not be, and not plainly state with certainty.
 
Silent Song said:
"science" is not a specialized art reserved only for certain persons. everyone practices some form of seeking and probing in their lives. my point being that just because someone decreed that the world was flat based on certain 'evidence', and many believed (and of course some did not), did not make it so, just as any theory today. that fact is opinion. that science can only present compelling evidence with which to either augment or overwrite what we have come to "know".

Refer back to the definitions of Faith, Belief, Fact, Theory, Law, etc.
 
faith - trust based on compelling evidence, without proof.
belief - what one thinks, truly
fact - popular or established opinion
theory - unproven proposition, given evidence and methods to pursue possible verification
law - accepted theory (in the case of science) as truth, verified.

these are my definitions.
 
Silent Song said:
i hold but one absolute.


AHHH!!!! THAT is a statement that I can support! Keep in mind, I'm not saying that anyone's BELIEFs are in question. If you are theist and religious and that works for you - good for you. :wave:

(and I'm serious, I'm not being a smartass anywhere here - it's a much too personal and touchy subject to be trite)
 
Fossil Records said:
AHHH!!!! THAT is a statement that I can support! Keep in mind, I'm not saying that anyone's BELIEFs are in question. If you are theist and religious and that works for you - good for you. :wave:

(and I'm serious, I'm not being a smartass anywhere here - it's a much too personal and touchy subject to be trite)
this i respect a great deal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.