mnemonicTonic
Member
Do you have a problem with what I said? If so correct the logic, or tell me where you see bias. I can elaborate if you wish. Throwing an ad hominem at me won't make me more pensive.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Faith is necessary for Science to function
- Thread starter mnemonicTonic
- Start date
Do you have a problem with what I said? If so correct the logic, or tell me where you see bias. I can elaborate if you wish. Throwing an ad hominem at me won't make me more pensive.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
This has never been anything other than a semantic dispute, as I already said
And 'no' to the question.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
No, it isn't.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
mnemonicTonic
Member
Let's resolve it then. What would you like me to define?
How does Science prove objects to exist then? Please enlighten me on your choice.
mnemonicTonic
Member
Why not?
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
We can resolve it by causing it to cease. They are not conflatable for reasons already stated.
mnemonicTonic
Member
Why even subscribe to a religious debate room if at the first sign of adversity, you accuse others of misnomers. When presented with a resolute for clarity, you immediately switch to a cease-and-desist stance. C'mon! :computer:
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Hey man, I totally predicted your stance, didn't I? This isn't me retreating, it's the contest being over quickly and you refusing to stop.
Victors don't retreat; we retire.
Last edited:
mnemonicTonic
Member
I realize it now. You are just a troll, and whatever logic I spew into you would not account for much. You came to this conversation with confirmation bias, not an intent to debate.
:sleep: Anyone else alive?
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
But I did, in fact, state your motivation, didn't I?I realize it now. You are just a troll, and whatever logic I spew into you would not account for much. You came to this conversation with confirmation bias, not an intent to debate.
:sleep: Anyone else alive?
That's not trolling. That's called 'pegging'.
In fact, my seed about atheism caught you immediately, didn't it? With a predictable response. I placed it there specifically for that purpose.
This was essentially a Holmsian exercise.
Last edited:
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
btw, are 'confirmation bias' and 'troll' the claims you use to divert from people making critical statements to your premise in all cases?
Because that's the first response I see you make against a dissenting voice in your video comments, too. Tch.
note: ^^ this post might have been a troll, but, my point also appears valid
Because that's the first response I see you make against a dissenting voice in your video comments, too. Tch.
note: ^^ this post might have been a troll, but, my point also appears valid
Because if they don't exist, "exist" is robbed of meaning.
A more meaningful way that science relies on faith is the way it depends on induction.
You're promoting semantics again: a religion isn't define by "belief."
thebigpicture
Active Member
MnemoniTonic, you'll find yourself getting that kind of reaction a lot around here when you strike a nerve. It's not a big deal. It's ridiculous, yes. But you really shouldn't let that stuff get to you. Just ignore it and move on by making your points.
I agree with you about certain aspects of science being faith-based. When the news says, "Studies by scientists show that . . ." people's ears perk up and they believe and have faith wholeheartedly that what's being said is a fact. When scientists come to a "conclusion" they are excited and have faith they have found an answer until later on something else proves what they thought would be the answer really isn't. Then the news update comes later on with, "Studies now show that . . . ." Scientists have to have a certain amount of faith in what they think they've discovered or found to be an answer in order for them to even continue to build from that point. It is a lot like religion in that there are certain things in religion that can obviously stand as truth. Then there are things that are faith-based and things that change based on interpretation or what people say or do. People search for answers in religion just like scientists constantly search for answers in science.
Welcome aboard!
I look forward to your weathering the responses to your thread....& to better threads to come.
mnemonicTonic
Member
How would you essentially draw an inference from an observational experience if you're not perceiving it? I don't see how you can extrapolate real objects from imaginative objects.
A religion can be a set of beliefs dependent or independent of an absolutely necessary entity. Both Scientism and Atheism are subscribed to numerous belief sets. Atheism on the other hand says, there is no absolutely-necessary-entity and everything in reality is universally sufficient. Mind you, it makes this assumption without attaining absolute-knowledge, and the knowledge it possess is plausible. :faint:
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
I hardly need absolute knowledge to say, "I have never seen anything to suggest a God."
Also, science technically doesn't depend on anything existing; it constructs useful models, not necessarily true ones. (This is also where the mess of interpretations about what QM "actually" means come from. Shut up and calculate.
)That sentence gives me a headache, lol. Are you saying objects are just in our heads?
And the basis for science is observation rather then objectivity. After all, it is only through observation that you can reach objectivity. So I guess you can say objectivity is the goal, but not the means to reach it. Assuming by "objectivity" you mean "how the universe works"
.Problem with forums... no one likes to stay on topic
.
Last edited:
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Perhaps if people would stop sugar coating the same old worn out "arguments" and actually come up with something new...
But then that is one of the big problems with trying to reduce science to nothing but faith.
As was already stated in the fifth post of this thread:
The attempt to insist that science requires faith is merely a reverse attempt to place science on par with faith itself as being equally valid. the inference being that if something as reliable and important as 'science' is actually a matter based simply on faith, then whatever religion the person positing this, has, it MUST be valid, because it possesses faith!
And yet this is not a problem with science but with those who take the same blind faith in science as theists do in their beliefs of god.
And here you are merely trying to reduce science to the same level as your faith.
Why is it that you are not trying to bring your faith up to the same level of science?
Is it that you are afraid it cannot be done?