athieism

[Xtreme]

If you scrutinize your philosophy (on anything, really, but particularly a world-view philosophy) you will come to realize that living sanely - read, again, consistently and sensibly - requires what you call "belief" no matter what the field. Theology realizes this, builds upon it, and meets pure empiricism in constructing a more complete understanding of the world. Thinking itself cannot reveal a complete understanding of ourselves and God; nor can pure empiricism. As is the ultimate reality with many aspects of our lives, there is a balance of the two which, when attained, will allow us to understand Truth more fully.

So long as you insist that your "logic" demands no amount of faith or belief in something, then you will simply continue to argue yourself into meaningless circles, accomplishing nothing in the end. Neither consistent nor sensible, this mode of thought is cyclical and self-defeating. Once this is realized, we can move forward. Until then, no debate about the relevancy of theology is necessary.

[linuxdoctor]

Everything requires faith, including the empirical sciences. The basic statement of faith of Science is, "We believe that the universe is knowable and that we are capable of knowing it." If one didn't have this kind of faith there would be no point to science or any other sort of empirical knowledge for that matter.

Empiricism is limited, however, to only those things that can be observed and measured. A hundred years ago scientists were saying that those things that cannot be observed, independent of whether man is currently able to observe them, does not exist. Some scientists today still say and believe that. Those who believe only in science limit themselves; they are sad creatures indeed.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.

If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics.

[Necromis]

I am not saying that people don't have faith or belief. Religion is blind faith, and blind belief. Just because someone told you it is true. There in lines the difference. Science is not blind faith. It is belief based on theory, that in turn is proven by fact and evidence. Religion only has the faith and theory, no evidence that shows you it is proof. This causes atheists, versus theiests. The one thing that must be understood is that atheists are not anti-religion. They simply don't believe in the theory. It is not up to the atheist to prove that God does not exist. it is up to the theist to prove that God does. I could say that pink unicorns exist. I then have to prove that, not have you disprove it.

[linuxdoctor]

[Necromis]

LD, history is not proof, or evidence of the truth of religious belief. Any faith/belief, whether religious or not, that is founded on he said she said is a blind faith. You are taking what is told to you to be fact. Not using proven evidence to show your theory is fact. There is nothing unwarranted or prejudicial in my statement. If I was to tell you I believe in those same pink unicorns because of a book teaching me they exist, because others believe in the same thing, and I was taught about this by my parents because they believe the same thing. That does not make those pink unicorns any more real. That does not make this faith I have any more blind.

[linuxdoctor]

And what about your faith in science? Can you show that that belief is not blind also? In other words can you prove science to be true to the satisfaction of a skeptic?

Remember, I'm a scientist and I'm not going to making it easy for you. I've had to do just that for religious fanatics.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.

If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics.

[Necromis]

Ah, but LD that in turn proves my point. Science uses empirical evidence to prove theories into laws/facts. Not just belief/faith. If I was able to show you a pink unicorn it would be proof of my theory they exist. Just as if you were able to show me the boat Noah used. It woudl in turn to some extent prove the tail of the story of the Ark. Especially if it was found way up in some mountain miles above current sea level.

[linuxdoctor]

[Necromis]

LD, you are trying to go off the deep end a bit here. If I give you a rock and a board and you drop them in front of you, you see with your own eyes that they fall at the same rate. That is emperical evidence. To say that is illusion would be foolish and going to an extreme that even fanatic would be hard pressed to obtain just for the sake of debate.

[linuxdoctor]

[Necromis]

LD, the proof is in the evidence, and facts. For your stretching this out of logical shape does not change that. Yes, things can be biased based on other factors. However, if you repeatedly complete the same experiment with the same items, under strict conditions and you get the same results repeatedly. You have proven your case. So droping the brick and board, or apple and getting the same result every time is your emperical proof. If at some point you have a person who is drunk observe it and find it false, or another where a sleep deprived person. You then can remove them from the observation and prove they were the issue, not the theory. That is why science works. It does not just have one test and say poof it is law. it tests over and over and over again to confirm that what someone thought was true is true.

[linuxdoctor]

Actually, you are avoiding the logical consequences of your position. If you demand scientific proof of God I demand scientific proof of science. All you're doing is giving me anecdotal evidence which is no better than those who believe in God because they feel that someone or something had to create the universe.

Prove that science is true to a scientific certainty. That's all I'm asking.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.

If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics.

[Necromis]

I have done that. IF you wish to ignore that you have that choice. Science uses repeated testing to prove that it is factual. As demonstrated in my previous post.

[Xtreme]

You have, not, in fact done anything to prove science's ability to discover the truth on any level. I was making the same point just before linuxdoctor. Except he's backed the issue into a much more specific and straightforward corner.

My point before was that living sanely, consistently, and sensibly cannot be accomplished with a world view or set of beliefs based solely in empiricism. This, in fact, was never responded to directly. Empiricism demands the use of our admittedly imperfect powers of observation. Linuxdoctor questions how such an approach can possibly be one's sole method of determining the truth of a matter. This is a valid qualm, no doubt.

Linuxdoctor's point is that your arguments in favor of the truthfulness of science are, in fact, of even lesser strength than the arguments in favor of theism that you have already dismissed. You demand incontrovertible proof of God and theology yet you gloss over the reality that you don't seem to be able to present any such proof in favor of the scientific method or empirical observation.

Short of it: demanding proof that demonstrates the truth of theology's methods suggests you can provide us with incontrovertible proof of the truth of science's methods.

Linuxdoctor and I may not always be on the same page, but here he hasn't gone off the deep end yet.

[Necromis]

Xtreme, you have to be kidding. Theology has only belief. It has no facts or evidence of any kind. I priest says it, a book contains it, a person believes it. These are the only qualifiers to theology. Man uses what senses we have to define our world. Science uses these tools to test theories, and prove facts. So whether you wish to take the truth and facts as what they are is yoru choice. I have still proven science exists and works. Theology has not come close to providing the same answers. Unless you wanna still say the world is flat. Wasn't that what the church used to say? Also don't get me wrong. I am more agnostic than athiest. I believe there is the potential of God, just have not seen any proof to that effect.