|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:14 pm
Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus I am increasingly of the opinion that the scientific paradigm is limited in such a way that there are some things we will never have concrete answers to. Time will tell on that. I think you underestimate the scientific and rational mind. Possibly. However, throughout history science has encountered things that required a paradigm shift in scientific thought to allow for advancement. I also think that sometimes we forget that science is a tool and not an ideology. I would have more faith in science's ability to find answers if there were a totally unbiased way to apply science. Humans being a part of the process limits this. Science is a noble tool. I'm not saying that it's not. I'm just saying that a tool is all that it is and it shouldn't become an ideology as some people make it out to be. I think that like any other tool it also has limits. Correct. And its limitations can be lessened with more research--- and exploration.Personally, I think it explains the world rather well.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:30 pm
XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus I am increasingly of the opinion that the scientific paradigm is limited in such a way that there are some things we will never have concrete answers to. Time will tell on that. I think you underestimate the scientific and rational mind. Possibly. However, throughout history science has encountered things that required a paradigm shift in scientific thought to allow for advancement. I also think that sometimes we forget that science is a tool and not an ideology. I would have more faith in science's ability to find answers if there were a totally unbiased way to apply science. Humans being a part of the process limits this. Science is a noble tool. I'm not saying that it's not. I'm just saying that a tool is all that it is and it shouldn't become an ideology as some people make it out to be. I think that like any other tool it also has limits. Correct. And its limitations can be lessened with more research--- and exploration.Personally, I think it explains the world rather well. It explains some things pretty well. What I mean by limitations though is I think eventually we'll reach a point where things cannot be falsified and therefore cannot be tested scientifically. That's our primary limitation right now in some areas. We hope that further research and developments in technology will allow us some advancement, but we can't be certain of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:44 pm
Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus Possibly. However, throughout history science has encountered things that required a paradigm shift in scientific thought to allow for advancement. I also think that sometimes we forget that science is a tool and not an ideology. I would have more faith in science's ability to find answers if there were a totally unbiased way to apply science. Humans being a part of the process limits this. Science is a noble tool. I'm not saying that it's not. I'm just saying that a tool is all that it is and it shouldn't become an ideology as some people make it out to be. I think that like any other tool it also has limits. Correct. And its limitations can be lessened with more research--- and exploration.Personally, I think it explains the world rather well. It explains some things pretty well. What I mean by limitations though is I think eventually we'll reach a point where things cannot be falsified and therefore cannot be tested scientifically. That's our primary limitation right now in some areas. We hope that further research and developments in technology will allow us some advancement, but we can't be certain of that. I think everything can be falsified to some degree--nothing is infallible or absolutely certain or true. Time and effort will tell. Growing technologies to,say, improve the way we process information may be a contributing factor in our understanding of the world-- of ideas and gaining new knowledge and insights. All based on human effort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:48 pm
XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus Possibly. However, throughout history science has encountered things that required a paradigm shift in scientific thought to allow for advancement. I also think that sometimes we forget that science is a tool and not an ideology. I would have more faith in science's ability to find answers if there were a totally unbiased way to apply science. Humans being a part of the process limits this. Science is a noble tool. I'm not saying that it's not. I'm just saying that a tool is all that it is and it shouldn't become an ideology as some people make it out to be. I think that like any other tool it also has limits. Correct. And its limitations can be lessened with more research--- and exploration.Personally, I think it explains the world rather well. It explains some things pretty well. What I mean by limitations though is I think eventually we'll reach a point where things cannot be falsified and therefore cannot be tested scientifically. That's our primary limitation right now in some areas. We hope that further research and developments in technology will allow us some advancement, but we can't be certain of that. I think everything can be falsified to some degree--nothing is infallible or absolutely certain or true. Time and effort will tell. Growing technologies to,say, improve the way we process information may be a contributing factor in our understanding of the world-- of ideas and gaining new knowledge and insights. All based on human effort. What I mean by falsifiable is that something like God isn't falsifiable because there's no conclusive evidence for or against and no way to test it in the laboratory. Or to use a popular example: invisible pink unicorns. In order for something to be a valid scientific hypothesis it has to be falsifiable. Mixing this chemical with that chemical will either do this or it won't. That kind of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:35 pm
XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith Actually atheism does fall under one of the definitions of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Which atheism does fall under = P http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion Faith requires no evidence. We are atheists because of the evidence we have for scientific claims. Namely experiments,data, tangible facts. Not just stories,miracles or pseudoscientific claims of healing and prayer.Or UFOs, ghosts....you name it. Faith is a "nonrational belief in a proposition that is contrary to the sum of evidence for that belief." Faith usually denotes non-empirical statements and notions. -- I go with the claim that has the more evidence on its side. Not the one I would like to be true because it feels nice. --Science needs no 'faith' in the sense of religiosity or devotion. It explores claims and accepts doubt as a constant. Most of religion does not. Actually the best definition I have ever heard of faith goes like this "Faith holds onto what reason once accepted despite changing emotions"-C.S. Lewis. For instance I reason perfectly well that a surgeon is good at what he does, but yet I get scared none the less when I am strapped to the table, it is the faith I have in the surgeon, put into the surgeon by reason, that he will do his job well, by what the past has shown. You have merely taken faith and twisted it into such a way to make it seem like a horrid beast. Yet you seem to not realize that you use it within your own beliefs. For instance you put faith into your ability to reason at all or that science isn't just giving you a nice little lie. (Though I do love science, and believe it has its place) Though my original definition taken from the dictionary itself was not debunked as a matter of fact you completely ignored it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:39 pm
Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus I'm not saying that it's not. I'm just saying that a tool is all that it is and it shouldn't become an ideology as some people make it out to be. I think that like any other tool it also has limits. Correct. And its limitations can be lessened with more research--- and exploration.Personally, I think it explains the world rather well. It explains some things pretty well. What I mean by limitations though is I think eventually we'll reach a point where things cannot be falsified and therefore cannot be tested scientifically. That's our primary limitation right now in some areas. We hope that further research and developments in technology will allow us some advancement, but we can't be certain of that. I think everything can be falsified to some degree--nothing is infallible or absolutely certain or true. Time and effort will tell. Growing technologies to,say, improve the way we process information may be a contributing factor in our understanding of the world-- of ideas and gaining new knowledge and insights. All based on human effort. What I mean by falsifiable is that something like God isn't falsifiable because there's no conclusive evidence for or against and no way to test it in the laboratory. Or to use a popular example: invisible pink unicorns. In order for something to be a valid scientific hypothesis it has to be falsifiable. Mixing this chemical with that chemical will either do this or it won't. That kind of thing. Then I shall not bother myself. I just will take the step and say it is very unlikely for anything mystical to exist or any divine entity. Certainly I could go around and try to gather 'data' to see what the likelihood is for something to have created the world and the universe---going on claims and alleged stories, which are not accurate. And although it is impossible, the urge to assign everything an order is a very human thing. So, I think that the need for a god or gods or spirituality is purely psychological and has no 'reality' outside of the mind. And there it provides comfort. Not that it makes a difference in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:48 pm
RsnblFaith XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith Actually atheism does fall under one of the definitions of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Which atheism does fall under = P http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion Faith requires no evidence. We are atheists because of the evidence we have for scientific claims. Namely experiments,data, tangible facts. Not just stories,miracles or pseudoscientific claims of healing and prayer.Or UFOs, ghosts....you name it. Faith is a "nonrational belief in a proposition that is contrary to the sum of evidence for that belief." Faith usually denotes non-empirical statements and notions. -- I go with the claim that has the more evidence on its side. Not the one I would like to be true because it feels nice. --Science needs no 'faith' in the sense of religiosity or devotion. It explores claims and accepts doubt as a constant. Most of religion does not. Actually the best definition I have ever heard of faith goes like this "Faith holds onto what reason once accepted despite changing emotions"-C.S. Lewis. For instance I reason perfectly well that a surgeon is good at what he does, but yet I get scared none the less when I am strapped to the table, it is the faith I have in the surgeon, put into the surgeon by reason, that he will do his job well, by what the past has shown. You have merely taken faith and twisted it into such a way to make it seem like a horrid beast. Yet you seem to not realize that you use it within your own beliefs. For instance you put faith into your ability to reason at all or that science isn't just giving you a nice little lie. (Though I do love science, and believe it has its place) Though my original definition taken from the dictionary itself was not debunked as a matter of fact you completely ignored it. Blind faith is a bête noire of mine, yes. And like anything that is blind leads to making poor decision-making. When beliefs are not questioned-- and taken at face value...when the kool-aid is drunk without wondering the cyanide it contains, one runs the risk of dying intellectually and as an individual. One knows the surgeon knows how the body works and can tell what to operate,remove, extract and cut. He is human,but through technical training he can do what is necessary. He does not rely on blind chance or whether the issue will go away by praying. He has faith in his knowledge acquired through meticulously studying human physiology. I do not de-bunk, I apply to the context of the discussion or my argument. Blind faith is what I said it was-- blind, unwarranted, unyielding. If I find anything that contradicts my beliefs I will consider it and even alter my views. I do not believe in absolutes. But I will go with what has the greatest sum of proof on its side that I can examine, process,study and rely upon without having to go to great lengths to make sense of it... namely, having to disconnect myself from reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:53 pm
XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus I'm not saying that it's not. I'm just saying that a tool is all that it is and it shouldn't become an ideology as some people make it out to be. I think that like any other tool it also has limits. Correct. And its limitations can be lessened with more research--- and exploration.Personally, I think it explains the world rather well. It explains some things pretty well. What I mean by limitations though is I think eventually we'll reach a point where things cannot be falsified and therefore cannot be tested scientifically. That's our primary limitation right now in some areas. We hope that further research and developments in technology will allow us some advancement, but we can't be certain of that. I think everything can be falsified to some degree--nothing is infallible or absolutely certain or true. Time and effort will tell. Growing technologies to,say, improve the way we process information may be a contributing factor in our understanding of the world-- of ideas and gaining new knowledge and insights. All based on human effort. What I mean by falsifiable is that something like God isn't falsifiable because there's no conclusive evidence for or against and no way to test it in the laboratory. Or to use a popular example: invisible pink unicorns. In order for something to be a valid scientific hypothesis it has to be falsifiable. Mixing this chemical with that chemical will either do this or it won't. That kind of thing. Then I shall not bother myself. I just will take the step and say it is very unlikely for anything mystical to exist or any divine entity. Certainly I could go around and try to gather 'data' to see what the likelihood is for something to have created the world and the universe---going on claims and alleged stories, which are not accurate. And although it is impossible, the urge to assign everything an order is a very human thing. So, I think that the need for a god or gods or spirituality is purely psychological and has no 'reality' outside of the mind. And there it provides comfort. Not that it makes a difference in my opinion. You continue to believe whatever you want to believe. I didn't start out trying to convert anybody; I just wanted some light debate. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:53 pm
I'm not sure if this is supplemental to the topic or not, but I call myself an agnostic mostly because people harassed me about it whenever discussions of religion came around here and on other sites, as well as irl. Although most religions, in my opinion, seem like a fat load of lies, (if you'll forgive me for being so blunt) there is a certain magic possessed in the belief that there is a higher power, whether it be a He, She, or Thing. I find that it stimulates my creative sense. c:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:56 pm
Just Call Me Acey I'm not sure if this is supplemental to the topic or not, but I call myself an agnostic mostly because people harassed me about it whenever discussions of religion came around here and on other sites, as well as irl. Although most religions, in my opinion, seem like a fat load of lies, (if you'll forgive me for being so blunt) there is a certain magic possessed in the belief that there is a higher power, whether it be a He, She, or Thing. I find that it stimulates my creative sense. c: How about deriving that creative sense from nature--- the complexity of life, the ephemerality of our existence. The workings of cells-- of the weather. How extremely delicate and imperfect everything is...and how painfully beautiful it is to be able to witness it all? Why must there be fairies at the bottom of the garden to make it worthy of admiration?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:02 pm
Because, unlike some people, I'd rather not think about death until I absolutely have to. You, on the other hand, seem to be obsessed with it. I'm sorry, but I need something lurking there, just out of sight, with wings and all that splendiferous stuff to keep me concentrated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:07 pm
XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith Actually atheism does fall under one of the definitions of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Which atheism does fall under = P http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion Faith requires no evidence. We are atheists because of the evidence we have for scientific claims. Namely experiments,data, tangible facts. Not just stories,miracles or pseudoscientific claims of healing and prayer.Or UFOs, ghosts....you name it. Faith is a "nonrational belief in a proposition that is contrary to the sum of evidence for that belief." Faith usually denotes non-empirical statements and notions. -- I go with the claim that has the more evidence on its side. Not the one I would like to be true because it feels nice. --Science needs no 'faith' in the sense of religiosity or devotion. It explores claims and accepts doubt as a constant. Most of religion does not. Actually the best definition I have ever heard of faith goes like this "Faith holds onto what reason once accepted despite changing emotions"-C.S. Lewis. For instance I reason perfectly well that a surgeon is good at what he does, but yet I get scared none the less when I am strapped to the table, it is the faith I have in the surgeon, put into the surgeon by reason, that he will do his job well, by what the past has shown. You have merely taken faith and twisted it into such a way to make it seem like a horrid beast. Yet you seem to not realize that you use it within your own beliefs. For instance you put faith into your ability to reason at all or that science isn't just giving you a nice little lie. (Though I do love science, and believe it has its place) Though my original definition taken from the dictionary itself was not debunked as a matter of fact you completely ignored it. Blind faith is a bête noire of mine, yes. And like anything that is blind leads to making poor decision-making. When beliefs are not questioned-- and taken at face value...when the kool-aid is drunk without wondering the cyanide it contains, one runs the risk of dying intellectually and as an individual. One knows the surgeon knows how the body works and can tell what to operate,remove, extract and cut. He is human,but through technical training he can do what is necessary. He does not rely on blind chance or whether the issue will go away by praying. He has faith in his knowledge acquired through meticulously studying human physiology. I do not de-bunk, I apply to the context of the discussion or my argument. Blind faith is what I said it was-- blind, unwarranted, unyielding. If I find anything that contradicts my beliefs I will consider it and even alter my views. I do not believe in absolutes. But I will go with what has the greatest sum of proof on its side that I can examine, process,study and rely upon without having to go to great lengths to make sense of it... namely, having to disconnect myself from reality. Only thing I would argue in this is your statement that absolutes do not exist, which would in itself be an absolute statement, which makes it a self-defeating statement = P. But I would also like to point out that not all faith is blind, and if you are going to make such a claim in understanding this point, then separate faith and blind faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:18 pm
RsnblFaith XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith Actually atheism does fall under one of the definitions of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Which atheism does fall under = P http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion Faith requires no evidence. We are atheists because of the evidence we have for scientific claims. Namely experiments,data, tangible facts. Not just stories,miracles or pseudoscientific claims of healing and prayer.Or UFOs, ghosts....you name it. Faith is a "nonrational belief in a proposition that is contrary to the sum of evidence for that belief." Faith usually denotes non-empirical statements and notions. -- I go with the claim that has the more evidence on its side. Not the one I would like to be true because it feels nice. --Science needs no 'faith' in the sense of religiosity or devotion. It explores claims and accepts doubt as a constant. Most of religion does not. Actually the best definition I have ever heard of faith goes like this "Faith holds onto what reason once accepted despite changing emotions"-C.S. Lewis. For instance I reason perfectly well that a surgeon is good at what he does, but yet I get scared none the less when I am strapped to the table, it is the faith I have in the surgeon, put into the surgeon by reason, that he will do his job well, by what the past has shown. You have merely taken faith and twisted it into such a way to make it seem like a horrid beast. Yet you seem to not realize that you use it within your own beliefs. For instance you put faith into your ability to reason at all or that science isn't just giving you a nice little lie. (Though I do love science, and believe it has its place) Though my original definition taken from the dictionary itself was not debunked as a matter of fact you completely ignored it. Blind faith is a bête noire of mine, yes. And like anything that is blind leads to making poor decisions.When beliefs are not questioned-- and taken at face value...when the kool-aid is drunk without wondering the cyanide it contains, one runs the risk of dying intellectually and as an individual. One knows the surgeon knows how the body works and can tell what to operate,remove, extract and cut. He is human,but through technical training he can do what is necessary. He does not rely on blind chance or whether the issue will go away by praying. He has faith in his knowledge acquired through meticulously studying human physiology. I do not de-bunk, I apply to the context of the discussion or my argument. Blind faith is what I said it was-- blind, unwarranted, unyielding. If I find anything that contradicts my beliefs I will consider it and even alter my views. I do not believe in absolutes. But I will go with what has the greatest sum of proof on its side that I can examine, process,study and rely upon without having to go to great lengths to make sense of it... namely, having to disconnect myself from reality. Only thing I would argue in this is your statement that absolutes do not exist, which would in itself be an absolute statement, which makes it a self-defeating statement = P. But I would also like to point out that not all faith is blind, and if you are going to make such a claim in understanding this point, then separate faith and blind faith. Um, just like there is no perfection-- or no absolutes. And is it really an absolutist statement? Can you point anything that is absolute? Not all faith is blind,I agree. And yes, we can separate the two of them. One is believing without seeing anything or wanting to test the reasons for those notions...another one arises from having tested and having understood pretty thoroughly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:23 pm
Just Call Me Acey Because, unlike some people, I'd rather not think about death until I absolutely have to. You, on the other hand, seem to be obsessed with it. I'm sorry, but I need something lurking there, just out of sight, with wings and all that splendiferous stuff to keep me concentrated. Well, death is a reality. Whether we want to face it or not-- pardon me if I am upfront about that fact. And sometimes that imminence is even more encouraging than the idea of going to some place after death to live forever and ever in mirth. Boring, dontcha think? And even if we found ways to extend human lifespans, why not work with the materials we have and what we know in order to create works of art? Why must it be the purely fantastical and the idea of saviours,and angels, and gnomes and elves?-- they are all very pretty ideas and figments, surely romantic,but ultimately, we must face the reality that they may not be there to aid us. We must aid ourselves, face hunger,pain,suffering and also pleasure,love... the flesh,the mind, why the fear of getting dirty and accepting that we are this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:29 pm
XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith Actually atheism does fall under one of the definitions of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Which atheism does fall under = P http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion Faith requires no evidence. We are atheists because of the evidence we have for scientific claims. Namely experiments,data, tangible facts. Not just stories,miracles or pseudoscientific claims of healing and prayer.Or UFOs, ghosts....you name it. Faith is a "nonrational belief in a proposition that is contrary to the sum of evidence for that belief." Faith usually denotes non-empirical statements and notions. -- I go with the claim that has the more evidence on its side. Not the one I would like to be true because it feels nice. --Science needs no 'faith' in the sense of religiosity or devotion. It explores claims and accepts doubt as a constant. Most of religion does not. Actually the best definition I have ever heard of faith goes like this "Faith holds onto what reason once accepted despite changing emotions"-C.S. Lewis. For instance I reason perfectly well that a surgeon is good at what he does, but yet I get scared none the less when I am strapped to the table, it is the faith I have in the surgeon, put into the surgeon by reason, that he will do his job well, by what the past has shown. You have merely taken faith and twisted it into such a way to make it seem like a horrid beast. Yet you seem to not realize that you use it within your own beliefs. For instance you put faith into your ability to reason at all or that science isn't just giving you a nice little lie. (Though I do love science, and believe it has its place) Though my original definition taken from the dictionary itself was not debunked as a matter of fact you completely ignored it. Blind faith is a bête noire of mine, yes. And like anything that is blind leads to making poor decisions.When beliefs are not questioned-- and taken at face value...when the kool-aid is drunk without wondering the cyanide it contains, one runs the risk of dying intellectually and as an individual. One knows the surgeon knows how the body works and can tell what to operate,remove, extract and cut. He is human,but through technical training he can do what is necessary. He does not rely on blind chance or whether the issue will go away by praying. He has faith in his knowledge acquired through meticulously studying human physiology. I do not de-bunk, I apply to the context of the discussion or my argument. Blind faith is what I said it was-- blind, unwarranted, unyielding. If I find anything that contradicts my beliefs I will consider it and even alter my views. I do not believe in absolutes. But I will go with what has the greatest sum of proof on its side that I can examine, process,study and rely upon without having to go to great lengths to make sense of it... namely, having to disconnect myself from reality. Only thing I would argue in this is your statement that absolutes do not exist, which would in itself be an absolute statement, which makes it a self-defeating statement = P. But I would also like to point out that not all faith is blind, and if you are going to make such a claim in understanding this point, then separate faith and blind faith. Um, just like there is no perfection-- or no absolutes. And is it really an absolutist statement? Can you point anything that is absolute? Not all faith is blind,I agree. And yes, we can separate the two of them. One is believing without seeing anything or wanting to test the reasons for those notions...another one arises from having tested and having understood pretty thoroughly. How is it not an absolute statement? It absolutely claims that NO absolutes exist. But since it claims that none exist it makes it a self defeating statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
