| Author |
Message |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1258
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
How do you know that science has been proven? Show me the proof if there is one. You don't and you can't. You have absolutely no idea that science is true because you have not and, I know in fact, you cannot prove it.
So, one more time. Prove to me that science is true, scientifically. If you cannot do so I submit that your assertions against God and religion is rather hypocritical. It ends up being your belief against their belief.
_________________
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Xtreme
Lifeless Person
Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1326
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | 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. |
Come now, I never said that theology had the answer to every conceivable question. The question of the shape of the earth is not a theological one, and theology makes no attempt to answer it. If you'll notice, the Church's stance on things only changes over time when those things do not have to do with theology and morals. Besides, you're the one saying that only the empirical process can derive truth. I consider this absurd, and, as Linuxdoctor has, call you to demonstrate to us how you know that science describes absolute and actual truth.
If you are to make the claim that theology cannot be shown to be true, then surely you must be able to at least prove to us that science is true?
And don't think that I'm some tree-hugging hippie with no knowledge of science; in effect, I'm studying science on many levels in my everyday life. I'm simply trying to bring to light the fallacy of your logic.
To reiterate - I am calling for you to prove that the scientific method incontrovertibly leads us to the truth. Not for you to simply say that science repeats experiments over and over and minimizes confounding variables and so forth. I never contested that. I am asking you to demonstrate that science leads us to truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
pharmer4
Metallica Fanatic
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1907
Location: Deniliquin, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Xtreme wrote: | | Is that an attempt to provoke theists? |
yes it is. Because they need provoking. This thread shows one of the issues I have with people who believe in their imagination so much that they need to blitttle others. Instead of addressing the statement I made in the beginning of this thread, yourself and LD have instead attacked Nexromis' assertion that science is more believable that religion. So, instead of facing the argument that you cannot win, you instead tout out the same recycled argument for why science is no better than religion
| Xtreme wrote: | | The idea of God and man's relationship with Him is at the very core and root of our being. All nature cries out in exaltation to Him and upon all of our hearts He has written His law. If you're just trying to ignore that, then that's your business. |
well, firstly, it certainly is an idea, as I said at the start, and most definately is not fact. Also, if may be at the heart of your being, but it certainly is not at the heart of mine. god does not exist, so why would she be in the heart of my being? in the heart of my being is blood.
Also, I am not ignoring anything. How can you ignore something that does not exist? I suppose I also ignore Necromis' pink unicorns, yes? They are just as likely to exist (especially given the cosmological bubble theory of the universe). No, the answer is that I ignore nothing, becuase what you are suggesting does not exist, therefore it cannot be ignored.
| Xtreme wrote: | | Now if you want an honest discussion, that's something entirely different. I - and others, I'm sure - just wasn't getting that drift from your original post. |
I certainly want an honest discussion, hence i started the thread. My original post was fairly straight forward - it seems to me strange that people who refute something still define themselves by that thing.
| Xtreme wrote: | | You cannot possibly talk sanely - that is, consistently and sensibly - about "the reality of the universe" if you choose to ignore theology. If you're prepared to engage in a logical discussion of theology, then I recommend that you be prepared to discuss specific points instead of just leaping around vaguely like many of the threads on this board do. |
You most certainly can talk sanely on any topic while ignoring theology. This is the way i approach all topics I discuss, except when discussion fiction.
The fact is theologians are incapable of denying their own beliefs, because it makes their life seem pretty hollow to even consider that one of the strong points of their life is in fact innefectual and no more substantial than any other fictitous creation.
Almost any other topic that can be discussed, be it science, art, history, or law, can be discussed intelligently, because those discussing the subject are capable of making temporary assumptions such as "I will consider this topic from the point of view that my current opinions are false"
Since people who believe in the fictitious creations of all religions cannot do this, they cannot intelligently discuss the topic
_________________
For Metal and Rock interviews and reviews, go to www.heavymetalnation.com - You can Contribute too if you want!
[img:d85b591d6d]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/pharmer4/pharmer4.jpg[/img:d85b591d6d]
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
pharmer4
Metallica Fanatic
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1907
Location: Deniliquin, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am responding to each post individually, due to the size of each response, it is causing issues with the system.
| Xtreme wrote: | 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. |
faith is not needed for any argument. I don't have faith in any particular thing. I am completely prepared for any fact or theory that i have used in the past to be incorrect tomorrow. This is not an issue for me. I operate under a system of past results. For instance, in my work in the medical field, I will look at the use of a particular medicine for a persons condition as the best thing to use, because based on past results, this has been the best thing to do, but if the patient returns and tells me that in fact this has not worked, or has made things worse, then I will not be surprised - this is the nature of working in a scientific field.
I am going to attend to the "science" argument that has gone on in this thread in a minute, but in this post I will suffice to say that Science is not based on "belief" or "faith" - it is based on averages. It relies on reproducabilty of any phenomenon, and the scientific explanation is then constructed based on the average result achieved.
Therefore, Xtreme, I say to you, I do not have faith in any single thing in this or any other universe, and never will, because I fully expect that at some time or another, what I expect to happen will in fact not happen, since the averages of all events allows for all things to happen.
_________________
For Metal and Rock interviews and reviews, go to www.heavymetalnation.com - You can Contribute too if you want!
[img:d85b591d6d]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/pharmer4/pharmer4.jpg[/img:d85b591d6d]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
pharmer4
Metallica Fanatic
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1907
Location: Deniliquin, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | 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. |
Nothing at all requires faith, and the whole point of empiricism is that you don't have faith, otherwise, why repeat the experiment?
the statement you quote there is a belief held by one a small number of people, and none of these are practicing scientists. How many scientists actually believe that all things can be known? for that to happen, then all of existence would be taken up by the repository of that knowledge, be it one centralised computer (for instance), or billions of sentient beigns throughout the universe knowing one tiny fraction of the nature of everything, each adding together to create a total knowledge of all things.
The point of science is not to know all things. That is absurd. The point of science is to create workable theories for why an observed, repeatable phenomenon occurs. This theory is either then admired by all as something very clever, but perhaps either useless or unusable, and never looked at again, or it is tested, refuted, argued, etc.
The theories are used to create new hypotheses about other phenomena, thus alloing new theories to be created. Occasionally, these hypotheses, phenomena, and theories allow for intuitive leaps that progress yet more hypotheses and theories, and less commonly, allow for the application of theories in useful ways.
There is no idea that science investigates facts. That is not what science is for. Facts, as humans can comprehend them, can only be made up of things that have occured, ie history, etc. These things cannot be changed, since they exist at a single time that cannot be influenced, and are therefore facts. Science, as stated above, investigates theories and hypotheses, not facts.
There is a reason that there are only a few scientific laws, and even these are still the subject of much debate (ie if you would like some mind-bending reading, check out the cosmological arguments that try to prove that the universe does in fact follow the law that all systems become less and less organised over time).
Anyway, back to the point - if people really operated under the system that if I can't know anything, then it is not worth knowing anything, then i guess society would not have advanced as far as it has. I certainly don't believe that everything is knowable, but you don't see me indulging the nagging hopelessness floating around the ether, just waiting to convice all the scientists to commit auto-lobotomies in despair.
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | 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. |
you are mixing things there dude. Empiricism certainly does look at things that are measurable, but nowhere in the definition of empiricism does it say that if it can't be measured, it does not exist.
Why don't you look at quantum physics (something that I believe you know about from previou posts, unless I am confusing myself) - since measuring quantum particles alters the thing you are measuring, this makes them practically unmeasurable - therefore, by your defition of empiricism, there are actually no quantum particles.
Since an entire branch of physics is dedicated to these fuzzy little subatomic particles, I think you can agree that empiricism does not make those assumptions.
Sure, some scientists make those assumptions, but then, they are idiots. I'm surprised they are not theologians.
Your final statement is interesting, since science is not a belief system. As i've explained above, you don't believe anything in science, you demonstrate it and use it as a tool, but you don't believe in it.
Whether people who don't believe in anything are sad or not is also an interesting statement, one that could probably be tested by science, but I'm fairly sure that science would demonstrate your statement as false, because I'm a pretty cheery bloke, yet I believe in nothing.
_________________
For Metal and Rock interviews and reviews, go to www.heavymetalnation.com - You can Contribute too if you want!
[img:d85b591d6d]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/pharmer4/pharmer4.jpg[/img:d85b591d6d]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
pharmer4
Metallica Fanatic
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1907
Location: Deniliquin, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | Necromis wrote: | | Religion is blind faith, and blind belief. |
That is an unwarranted assumption or perhaps a prejudice. Certainly there are people who blindly believe in some sort of religion but that does not mean that the religion itself is blind. The same can be said of what people may believe of any belief system, religious or otherwise. |
while necromis' statement may be prejudicial, it is not an unwarranted assumption, since you yourself also say that there may be people who believe something blindly. It is very conceivable that there are those who follow their religious beliefs blindly, and are willing to do extraordinary things to prove their devotion to their religion. This just makes it all the more ironic that they are wrong.
| linuxdoctor wrote: | There is nothing blind in the faith of true Christians. The Catholic Faith has a two thousand year history of solid scholarship behind it.
As for proving the existence of God, there are plenty of proofs, just not any the atheists will accept. I sited one in a previous thread. |
It is correct that there is nothing blind about the faith of catholics, because they have a grandiose history and writings. But faith is not fact. it is not wrong to have faith in something; since faith is about disregarding the absence of facts in order to still believe in something, you cannot actually assail faith with facts. that single aspect of faith allows all theologians to slap aside all arguments based in fact.
this does not, however, mean that what they have faith in actually exists anywhere outside of the combined faith of the followers of said religion. So, basically, the only place that any faith actually exists is in the combined thoughts of those who have faith, and in the powers of these people to persuade others that it actually exists elsewhere.
The fact remains, though, that no god or diety exists in reality, and therefore they have no actual impact on the lives of those who do not shackle themselves with religious detritus, except when those who do have faith attempt to make themselves feel safe and cosy in their belief by getting as many other people as possible to believe in their imaginary friend instead of someone elses (or none at all).
_________________
For Metal and Rock interviews and reviews, go to www.heavymetalnation.com - You can Contribute too if you want!
[img:d85b591d6d]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/pharmer4/pharmer4.jpg[/img:d85b591d6d]
Last edited by pharmer4 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
pharmer4
Metallica Fanatic
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1907
Location: Deniliquin, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | Necromis wrote: | | 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. |
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. |
I have two issues with where you are trying to take necromis here - firstly, you assertion that you need to have faith in science in order to rely on it is flawed - as a scientist yourself, you should know that the mechanism by which science works is that you don't take anything for granted, and you operate under the assumption that while the theories you currently have to work with may do the job, there is no gauranteeing that these are a correct representation of reality.
secondly, even if necromis could prove that faith in science was wholy and totally justified, this does not then automatically transfer to faith in anything else, and the vice vera is also true (ie just because faith in religion is pointless and a waste of time, does not mean that faith in science is also).
_________________
For Metal and Rock interviews and reviews, go to www.heavymetalnation.com - You can Contribute too if you want!
[img:d85b591d6d]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/pharmer4/pharmer4.jpg[/img:d85b591d6d]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
pharmer4
Metallica Fanatic
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1907
Location: Deniliquin, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Xtreme wrote: | 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. |
It amazes me that people still make this type of argument. ie:
Person 1: I don't believe in god, so prove to me she exists.
Person 2: well, science is no better
Person 3: [now drawn into argument about science gets taken off course and loses sight of the original question]
Science does not need to be perfect. It only needs to be useful. This does mean that if someone asks you to prove that god exists, you go off on a tangent asking for them to prove something else.
that is like asking someone to demonstrate how big infinity is, and when you can't, saying - see! I win. It makes no sense to base your argument on asking someone else to demonstrate something that has no relationship or bearing on the thing you have been asked to demonstrate.
now, back to my original point (and thus the point of the thread), why should people who refute the existence of any dieties etc still be defined by religion, ie "a"thiest - withouth theology. I am just me. I'm not an athiest, I am not a theist.
That is the original argument of this thread, not whether empiricism is a practical enough system to be used to measure all things accurately without questions being asked as to the veracity of those measurements.
_________________
For Metal and Rock interviews and reviews, go to www.heavymetalnation.com - You can Contribute too if you want!
[img:d85b591d6d]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/pharmer4/pharmer4.jpg[/img:d85b591d6d]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1258
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your responses are far too long for me to address every point that you raised. I'll just pick a couple of salient points.
| pharmer4 wrote: | Nothing at all requires faith, and the whole point of empiricism is that you don't have faith, otherwise, why repeat the experiment?
the statement you quote there is a belief held by one a small number of people, and none of these are practicing scientists. How many scientists actually believe that all things can be known? for that to happen, then all of existence would be taken up by the repository of that knowledge, |
The definition of empiricism is, in a nutshell, the view that there is no reality beyond that which can be observed and experienced and that experience is the only true source of knowledge. Modern science, being empirical, thus denies any reality beyond that which can be observed and measured.
| pharmer4 wrote: | | The point of science is not to know all things. |
Actually, that is precisely the point of science. The word 'science' comes directly from the Latin word for knowledge, scientia.
| pharmer4 wrote: | | That is absurd. The point of science is to create workable theories for why an observed, repeatable phenomenon occurs. This theory is either then admired by all as something very clever, but perhaps either useless or unusable, and never looked at again, or it is tested, refuted, argued, etc. |
You are confusing the methods of science with its goal. Despite your clever caveat concerning clever theories whether or not they are useful (if all else failes theories can be 'admired' if they are not 'useful'), you are in reality making science out to be completely utilitarian which it most certainly is not. Much of science is not useful at all, in fact. Much of science has been made useful, certainly, and these things are called Applied Science which, when you think about it, is science made useful. This in turn implies that science in itself, that is to say pure science, is not utilitarian. Pure science is all about learning things whether they have any use or not.
What's the point of learning what makes the stars glow or the planets move? What's the point of figuring out the mass of the earth? What use is breaking apart matter in super-conducting super-colliders? Do we really care how the elements are made and do need all these synthetic elements? What about the the origin of the universe and the Big Bang? Is that useful to us? Not really. Some of this stuff may be useful in the future, maybe. Maybe not. Probably not.
Since the rest of your post is basically along the same lines, I'll skip the rest. What you are doing is imposing yourself upon science turning it into some sort of utilitarian tool rather than being the pursuit of knowledge, all knowledge, that it in really truly is. You seem to be engaging in some sort of wishful thinking that experience does not require faith on your part in order for it to be real. Of course it does. At the simplest level you have to have faith that your senses are not lying to you. At higher level, the level of the empirical sciences, you have to have faith that the scientific method really will uncover the truth. At the highest level one must have faith that universe can be understood and that you, poor creatures that you are, are capable of understanding it.
As I said before, everything requires faith. Everything.
_________________
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
pharmer4
Metallica Fanatic
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1907
Location: Deniliquin, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Linuxdoctor, firstly, I will say that I enjoy duelling with you.
Before I get into your statements, I will make one over-riding obvservation - you are again missing the point of my original post, and attacking what you believe is a soft target, ie science is no better than religion.
To begin, I have made no such assertion. I don't hold any particular aspect of human existence to be inherently more correct that anything else, but I dop find the reliance on religion a terrible weakness, whereas the utilisation of science is useful in some instances (certainly not all).
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | Your responses are far too long for me to address every point that you raised. I'll just pick a couple of salient points. |
Another way of saying what you have said is "most of what you have said cannot be argued against, because you can't prove me wrong"; just as someone can't prove religion to be wrong, since by it's very definition it is unassailable by logic, since it exists outside of logic, my statements cannot be assailed by theology, because my statements refute it's existence.
Since the first assumption made of any argument I make about religion is that there is no gods et al, then any "proof" you present is immediately disregarded as null, since it originates from theology.
It is perfectly acceptable for me to make this type of assuption, since religion makes similar assumptions about facts and reality having no bearing on religion . . . .
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | pharmer4 wrote: | Nothing at all requires faith, and the whole point of empiricism is that you don't have faith, otherwise, why repeat the experiment?
the statement you quote there is a belief held by one a small number of people, and none of these are practicing scientists. How many scientists actually believe that all things can be known? for that to happen, then all of existence would be taken up by the repository of that knowledge, |
The definition of empiricism is, in a nutshell, the view that there is no reality beyond that which can be observed and experienced and that experience is the only true source of knowledge. Modern science, being empirical, thus denies any reality beyond that which can be observed and measured. |
I'm not particularly interested in other people's definitions of empiricism. Just as I don't heed to people's religions or theological imaginings, I also don't restrict myself to other people's strict rules on the application and gathering of knowledge, be it scientific or otherwise.
"Modern Science" as you call it, is just as much an institution as organised religion (which is a bigger blight on humanity than organised crime) - Any group that tries to impose their own "beliefs" on others is hindering growth and expansion of human existence. One of the laments Einstein had is that he was so emminently regarded, that he worried that everyone would take his research as completely correct and never question it, which as a scientist mortified him, since the whole point of science is to attempt to prove everyone else wrong by experimenting.
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | pharmer4 wrote: | | The point of science is not to know all things. |
Actually, that is precisely the point of science. The word 'science' comes directly from the Latin word for knowledge, scientia. |
see now, you are trying to take the discussion away from the point by making a statement that on the surface seems to prove your point, but in fact all you have said is something along the lines of "all music has melody, since the definition of music is | wiktionary wrote: | | A sound, or the study of such sounds, organized in time in a melodious way. |
"
Just because a word is derived from the description of a concept, does not mean that word can only applied to anything that falls into the description. Not all music is melodious (most of the music I enjoy is in fact not melodious), and not every person who utilise science is interesting in knowing all things.
| pharmer4 wrote: | | That is absurd. The point of science is to create workable theories for why an observed, repeatable phenomenon occurs. This theory is either then admired by all as something very clever, but perhaps either useless or unusable, and never looked at again, or it is tested, refuted, argued, etc. |
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | You are confusing the methods of science with its goal. Despite your clever caveat concerning clever theories whether or not they are useful (if all else failes theories can be 'admired' if they are not 'useful'), you are in reality making science out to be completely utilitarian which it most certainly is not. Much of science is not useful at all, in fact. Much of science has been made useful, certainly, and these things are called Applied Science which, when you think about it, is science made useful. This in turn implies that science in itself, that is to say pure science, is not utilitarian. Pure science is all about learning things whether they have any use or not. |
LD, I can assure you I am not confused about any thing at all (except perhaps the workings of the female mind . . . .)
The point of science is not to know all things. Perhaps this may end up being the final result of utilising science, but it is not the purpose of it. Otherwise, there would be endless mundane studies into the most pointless of things (sidebar - perhaps Universities see the point of science as needing to understand everything, since they do, in fact, participate in some pointless, mundane studies, but I digress).
One scientific tool is the concept of infinity. Since nothing can actually be infinite, since it must then be the entirety of existence, it is safe to say that no scientist would claim that the point of science is to understand everything, thus creating infinite knowledge.
If the point of science was to know all things, and by your previous assertion, if you cannot know all things, then there is no point of knowing anything at all, then the symbol for infinity ∞ (apologies if your browser does not show the symbol) should drive all scientists into fits of despair and suicide, since it defies their life purpose and mocks their pitiful attempts to know everything.
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | What's the point of learning what makes the stars glow or the planets move? What's the point of figuring out the mass of the earth? What use is breaking apart matter in super-conducting super-colliders? Do we really care how the elements are made and do need all these synthetic elements? What about the the origin of the universe and the Big Bang? Is that useful to us? Not really. Some of this stuff may be useful in the future, maybe. Maybe not. Probably not. |
Again, my posts have not been made in order to defend science, but to decry religion. I don't pretend to think there is any purpose to knowing any of the things you have described above, other than that it is perhaps interesting to some, and for a lot of those things, they are in fact practical already. knowing the mass of the earth for instance allows us to predict (still with a level of uncertainty) the seasons etc. I'm surprised you used that as an example, since it is eminently useful. that is beside the point - I'm not here to have a pissing match, pointing out the minor statements we each make as being wrong etc, I am more interesting in the entire Idea as stated in my original post.
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | Since the rest of your post is basically along the same lines, I'll skip the rest. What you are doing is imposing yourself upon science turning it into some sort of utilitarian tool rather than being the pursuit of knowledge, all knowledge, that it in really truly is. |
No, actually when discussing science, I am doing 2 things - I am defending Necromis, since he clumsily fell into your trap of diverting the discussion away from the original point (actually, you did not do that, but you have perpetuated it). Secondly, I am pointing out the way that your arguments are not actually forwarding your argument that any kind of religious invention is in fact a reality in any useful or meaningful way (theology doe not count, since it is the study of imaginary things in order to attempt to make them seem useful or meaningful, yet fails to actually do any more than corrupt the minds of impressionable, weak willed people).
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | You seem to be engaging in some sort of wishful thinking that experience does not require faith on your part in order for it to be real. |
Wishful thinkging? I don't hold mutch stock in wishes either I'm afraid. The "supernatural", while very cool for fiction, is just as imaginary as the dieties and gods invented over the millenia, and served the same purpose - a way to explain things that you can't or don't want to look to closely at.
Faith is not necessary for anything. As I stated earlier (which i guess is one of the things you decided was too long to discuss), I don't operate with faith in anything. I completely expect all assumptions I operate under to fail at some point - this does not mean I am not surprised when specific instances of this occur, but I don't then start spouting nonsense about how it is impossible for my previous assumptions to have failed in this instance.
| linuxdoctor wrote: | At the simplest level you have to have faith that your senses are not lying to you. At higher level, the level of the empirical sciences, you have to have faith that the scientific method really will uncover the truth. At the highest level one must have faith that universe can be understood and that you, poor creatures that you are, are capable of understanding it.
As I said before, everything requires faith. Everything. |
No, you are still operating under the same assertions you made before, which are inherently flawed, because you are not capable of discarding them for the sake of your argument.
I never have faith that my senses don't lie to me. They are pretty spectacular pieces of spontaneous evolution, but they are not perfect. If I was a smart ***, at this point i would say that that in itself must be proof that She (by that i mean god) does not exist, since a divine being would not make such shoddy work that they can't perceive things exactly as they are without discrepencies between observations or observers. (actually, I am a smartass, but I don't see the point in making such a statement, since the people who invented the bible were clever enough to cover all those types of arguments with theological "facts" that are unassailable by actual facts).
I also don't have faith that the universe can be understood, because I don't care if it isn't. I would in fact be quite happy if some phenomenon was observed that could not be explained by any of the scientific laws, theories, postulations, hypotheses or cogitations that exist now or at any time in the future. The only draw back is that when such phenomenon occur, theologians hold it up as proof that their imagination is not imaginary, and their wasted lives have actually had some purpose after all.
This is a frustrating thing about religion - when science can't explain something, it is announced by theologians as a sign of the existence of the divine, but when science catches up with our observations, theologians say it is god's will that we understand. If this truly was the case, then i must say that she really is a precosious bitch that won't be happy until the finished tormenting us all. Since this is not the case, (since she does not actually exist), i won't make such references to an imaginary being.
Anyway, after all that, I still make the same statement as the first post.
Since no gods, dieties, supernatural et al imaginary inventions (or theology, to be more succinct) actually exist, why is it that I should be defined by theology - ie "athiest"
I'm not going to disbelieve someone else's imagination, since that would require some small possibility that it could actually be true. Since it does not exist in any manner outside of the combined musings of millions of moronic individuals, it does not dignify denying it.
Just because a lot of people believe that their imaginary friend is in fact the same imaginary friend that a lot of other people have, does not make that imaginary friend any more real than if it was just you believing she exists.
_________________
For Metal and Rock interviews and reviews, go to www.heavymetalnation.com - You can Contribute too if you want!
[img:d85b591d6d]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/pharmer4/pharmer4.jpg[/img:d85b591d6d]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Xtreme
Lifeless Person
Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1326
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
There seems to be a point being missed: that it is impossible, without some type of faith, to live consistently and sensibly at all. As linuxdoctor said, one must have certain levels of "non theological" faith, even, to manage through daily life - faith that it is possible to know truth at all, faith that the human mind can actually understand anything around it, faith that ones senses are not being utterly deceived.
It is very conceivable that one might back into a philosophy that says otherwise, but it seems to me that the easiest way to address this is to simply get out of the chair you're sitting in and live life! Philosophy is of clear importance, but it is, again, a tool. A tool being used by a being capable of fallacy and mistake.
Live life. Then think about it.
| Quote: | | Faith is not necessary for anything. As I stated earlier (which i guess is one of the things you decided was too long to discuss), I don't operate with faith in anything. I completely expect all assumptions I operate under to fail at some point - this does not mean I am not surprised when specific instances of this occur, but I don't then start spouting nonsense about how it is impossible for my previous assumptions to have failed in this instance. |
This still places faith in the scientific method and faith in the ability of science to arrive at truth at all. It's not about having faith in your previous assumptions that's the matter at hand; it's the faith in the entire system, the concept, the idea of science. If you have no faith that science can arrive at any measure of truth, then it seems illogical to engage in it in the first place.
| Quote: | | Since no gods, dieties, supernatural et al imaginary inventions (or theology, to be more succinct) actually exist, why is it that I should be defined by theology - ie "athiest" |
It is no coincidence that atheism is defined in terms of theology and not the other way around. As I said before, it is fundamentally natural for our hearts to look to theology and to God.
On a small side note, do you consider it at all possible or conceivable that God (as described by Christianity or essentially any monotheism) could exist? That is, do you consider God a total impossibility? Or an unproven possibility? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1258
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
The following quote says it all.
| pharmer4 wrote: | I'm not particularly interested in other people's definitions of empiricism. Just as I don't heed to people's religions or theological imaginings, I also don't restrict myself to other people's strict rules on the application and gathering of knowledge, be it scientific or otherwise.
"Modern Science" as you call it, is just as much an institution as organised religion (which is a bigger blight on humanity than organised crime) - Any group that tries to impose their own "beliefs" on others is hindering growth and expansion of human existence. |
In other words, you believe what you believe and nobody is going to tell you anything different, be it religious, scientific or anything else. The facts be damned.
A show stopper if there ever was one. If you're going to hold to your own definitions then what's the point of discussing anything. Definitions exist so that people will have a common ground for understanding and discussion. You make that impossible if you're going to hold to definitions of things that differ from their standard accepted meanings.
And finally....
| pharmer4 wrote: | | Since no gods, dieties, supernatural et al imaginary inventions (or theology, to be more succinct) actually exist, why is it that I should be defined by theology - ie "athiest" |
Atheism is simply the philosophy of empiricism stated negatively in theological terms. To refresh your memory, empiricism is the belief (yes belief) that only those things which can be observed and experienced exist in the real universe and, as a consequence, experience is the only true source of knowledge. Theologically this means that since God, the object of theology, cannot be experienced, at least in terms that empiricists accept, then God must not exist. It can be readily seen, therefore, that atheists are just empiricists. So, if you object to the 'atheist' label, perhaps 'empiricist' is more to your liking.
That means, of course, you'll have to incorporate the true meaning of empiricism into your vocabulary. 
_________________
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
pharmer4
Metallica Fanatic
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1907
Location: Deniliquin, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Xtreme wrote: | | There seems to be a point being missed: that it is impossible, without some type of faith, to live consistently and sensibly at all. As linuxdoctor said, one must have certain levels of "non theological" faith, even, to manage through daily life - faith that it is possible to know truth at all, faith that the human mind can actually understand anything around it, faith that ones senses are not being utterly deceived. |
Even considering that you are correct with a statement that there must be some kind of faith in your life, even mundane faith (as opposed to divine faith), how could that possibly legitimise your stance that you can't live without divine faith?
It doesn't, and the only possible reason you could bring up such a statement is the hope that either myself in this argument, or those who come along and read it, would somehow link mundane faith with divine faith, and therefore divine faith could gain some credibility from your defense of mundane faith.
If you are going to argue that divine faith is necessary for living life consistently and sensibly, then you need to argue consistently and sensibly. You can't argue for point A by trying to say how point B, which has a similar name, is so good, therefore point A is good by association.
On top of that, you are still wrong about any need for faith. I have no faith in my life, I don't go through life blindly accepting that things will be as they have always been, or that what I perceive with my sense is accurate, or anything else for that matter. As I said already, I don't see any single thing as constant, and am fully accepting of things failing or not, whatever happens. I don't need faith in my life, and I don't have any.
| Xtreme wrote: | It is very conceivable that one might back into a philosophy that says otherwise, but it seems to me that the easiest way to address this is to simply get out of the chair you're sitting in and live life! Philosophy is of clear importance, but it is, again, a tool. A tool being used by a being capable of fallacy and mistake.
Live life. Then think about it. |
I do live my life dude. I have found from experience that when people assume something of someone else, then this is the norm for them. If you assume that I just sit at home and don't live a life worth living, then perhaps this is (possibly subconsciously) your perception of your own life. Of course i don't have faith in this experience, so I am very prepared to be wrong about that point.
Secondly, now you are bringing in philosophy into this argument. Are you now going to state that since philosophy is pervasive and useful to some people, then by default religion is too? It is interesting that you keep bringing unrelated concepts into this discussion.
| Xtreme wrote: | | Quote: | | Faith is not necessary for anything. As I stated earlier (which i guess is one of the things you decided was too long to discuss), I don't operate with faith in anything. I completely expect all assumptions I operate under to fail at some point - this does not mean I am not surprised when specific instances of this occur, but I don't then start spouting nonsense about how it is impossible for my previous assumptions to have failed in this instance. |
This still places faith in the scientific method and faith in the ability of science to arrive at truth at all. It's not about having faith in your previous assumptions that's the matter at hand; it's the faith in the entire system, the concept, the idea of science. If you have no faith that science can arrive at any measure of truth, then it seems illogical to engage in it in the first place. |
You have not read my posts man. I have no faith in the process of science. and yet you are still able to stear the discussion away from religion. Now you are talking about TWO other concepts that have no bearing on religious faith - ie science, and mundane faith (ie expectations). You are not winning any point of this argument by trying to discuss things that have nothing to do with religion.
| Xtreme wrote: | | Quote: | | Since no gods, dieties, supernatural et al imaginary inventions (or theology, to be more succinct) actually exist, why is it that I should be defined by theology - ie "athiest" |
It is no coincidence that atheism is defined in terms of theology and not the other way around. As I said before, it is fundamentally natural for our hearts to look to theology and to God. |
there is of course a system that defines people who don't believe in the delusions of other people - these people are called SANE, and those who do believe in their delusions are called INSANE.
the only reason religion is as pervasive as it is, is because of complacency. The reason I used the description above is for this simple reason - if someone says they hear god speaking to them, people immediately think they are insane, because at the core of it, no one really believes that any god actually exists. People are complacent and scared to think of the alternative though, which is we are all actually alone in reality, with no safety net of heaven etc to catch us when we die. This in practical situations, no one will accept the existence of god, but when it comes to facing their fears, people will still say they believe there is a god.
So anyway, why is it that people who hear god are commited to institutions or treated as imbeciles or lunatics? Why can't god speak to them? it's not like she couldn't if she wanted too, she's supposed to be omnipetent, remember. Who cares if she gave us free will and all the other excuses people use for why she doesn't have more direct impact on our lives, she's omnipetent, she can change her mind if she wants to. Yet people still never ever believe that god really speaks to any individual who claims it as so.
It's because most people, truthfuly, don't actually believe in a god, yet are too meek, frail of mind, moronic, and scared to fully declare their real thoughts on the matter, even to themselves.
| Xtreme wrote: | | On a small side note, do you consider it at all possible or conceivable that God (as described by Christianity or essentially any monotheism) could exist? That is, do you consider God a total impossibility? Or an unproven possibility? |
What I believe is not relevant. there is no god, so holding beliefs of it's existence, or the possibility of it's existence, or non existence, is pointless.
You may as well ask me if it is possible for necromis' pink unicorns exist. the answer depends on how the universe works.
Since I don't know how the universe works, and since I don't care if we ever do know (  LD), it's a pointless question to ask.
to paraphrase, god does not exist. It does not matter whether it could exist since it does not. I'm not interested in philosophy, so i don't partake in it.
As to the idea of it being an unproven possibility, that is such an idiotic question. How do you prove the existence of something that was invented as a way to keep the human masses from gaping in fear at the thought of their insignificant lives actually being so insignificant that when they die, no one notices or cares? you can't prove such a thing, just like you can't DISprove it, and hence religion thrives on the ignorance of the majority, and the deceit of a few.
_________________
For Metal and Rock interviews and reviews, go to www.heavymetalnation.com - You can Contribute too if you want!
[img:d85b591d6d]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/pharmer4/pharmer4.jpg[/img:d85b591d6d]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
pharmer4
Metallica Fanatic
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1907
Location: Deniliquin, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | pharmer4 wrote: | I'm not particularly interested in other people's definitions of empiricism. Just as I don't heed to people's religions or theological imaginings, I also don't restrict myself to other people's strict rules on the application and gathering of knowledge, be it scientific or otherwise.
"Modern Science" as you call it, is just as much an institution as organised religion (which is a bigger blight on humanity than organised crime) - Any group that tries to impose their own "beliefs" on others is hindering growth and expansion of human existence. |
In other words, you believe what you believe and nobody is going to tell you anything different, be it religious, scientific or anything else. The facts be damned.
A show stopper if there ever was one. If you're going to hold to your own definitions then what's the point of discussing anything. Definitions exist so that people will have a common ground for understanding and discussion. You make that impossible if you're going to hold to definitions of things that differ from their standard accepted meanings. |
No, in other words, I am not going to take someone else's word as fact. Anyone who likes can try and tell me differently, and I will listen to them, I'm not a bigot, I balance all arguments made. They are going to have a hard time convincing me, though, of anything to do with any theological invention being fact, since it is impossible for there to be facts about a metaphysical creation invented to keep people from fearing their own insignificance.
| linuxdoctor wrote: | And finally....
| pharmer4 wrote: | | Since no gods, dieties, supernatural et al imaginary inventions (or theology, to be more succinct) actually exist, why is it that I should be defined by theology - ie "athiest" |
Atheism is simply the philosophy of empiricism stated negatively in theological terms. To refresh your memory, empiricism is the belief (yes belief) that only those things which can be observed and experienced exist in the real universe and, as a consequence, experience is the only true source of knowledge. Theologically this means that since God, the object of theology, cannot be experienced, at least in terms that empiricists accept, then God must not exist. It can be readily seen, therefore, that atheists are just empiricists. So, if you object to the 'atheist' label, perhaps 'empiricist' is more to your liking.
That means, of course, you'll have to incorporate the true meaning of empiricism into your vocabulary. |
Empiricism does not state that things can only exist if they can be observed or experienced, only that you can't rely on those things that are not observable or able to be experienced. Empiricism is about describing things that can be observed and experienced, therefore it is beyond the domain of empiricism to DENY the existence of anything that cannot be measured, such as inventions of the imagination (ie your god).
_________________
For Metal and Rock interviews and reviews, go to www.heavymetalnation.com - You can Contribute too if you want!
[img:d85b591d6d]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/pharmer4/pharmer4.jpg[/img:d85b591d6d]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1258
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pharmer4 wrote: | | No, in other words, I am not going to take someone else's word as fact. Anyone who likes can try and tell me differently, and I will listen to them, I'm not a bigot, I balance all arguments made. They are going to have a hard time convincing me, though, of anything to do with any theological invention being fact, since it is impossible for there to be facts about a metaphysical creation invented to keep people from fearing their own insignificance. |
You say that you are not a bigot in one breath and then you make a clearly bigoted statement with the next.
| pharmer4 wrote: | | Empiricism does not state that things can only exist if they can be observed or experienced, only that you can't rely on those things that are not observable or able to be experienced. Empiricism is about describing things that can be observed and experienced, therefore it is beyond the domain of empiricism to DENY the existence of anything that cannot be measured, such as inventions of the imagination (ie your god). |
Empiricism is a theory about knowledge. The first statement of empiricism is all knowledge comes from experience and the second is everything that exists can be experienced. No more, no less. The empiricism you describe is known as "scientific empiricism" which is an application of the previous definition.
I see you cannot refrain from making a bigoted statement with regard to God, calling Him an invention of the imagination. Logically, the existence of God is a logical imperative as the rationalists would say. To deny God, as the atheists do, is to deny what logic tells us. If God's existence is a logical imperative then God must exist in some form, perhaps even in a way that scientists can measure. If so, the fact that science has not been able to measure him thus far only means that science has not yet got the right tools. If not, then God cannot be empirically experienced, but that contradicts Divine Revelation, which is entirely different subject.
_________________
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forum FAQs 
Knowledge Base 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Hosting
Register
Donate 
Profile 
Log in 
