waitasec
Veteran Member
well then it doesn't apply to atheism...
there are no set of beliefs. christianity, islam and judaism are dogmatic, atheism isn't.
not all atheists rely on science
fail.
-
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
there are no set of beliefs. christianity, islam and judaism are dogmatic, atheism isn't.
fail.
Orias
Left Hand Path
Stretch it too far?
Exactly how far is too far...?
When does the moon become reachable? Where does science come from? And what exactly separates assumption from manipulation?
Finally, when does theory become relative? When it applies to the unexplainable, or when it pertains to what matters to the SELF?
Stretch it too far, some don't stretch meanings enough...like this God character that everyone is so certain about.
Faith is what it is, it comes from all forms of art including science and religion and everything else.
The faithless need not speak on matters of which they possess no faith about and that should be the end of it, otherwise any arguments are based solely upon that which they curse...faith.
Last edited:
Daviso452
Boy Genius
holy **** 41 pages in 5 days.
Anyway I only had time to read the first page and from what I can tell there seems to be a confusion between trust and faith. Both require having been told something to which they themselves do not know, however trust has reasoning for it's existence. Suppose you have two young boys who knew nothing of evolution, but knew it involved biological science. Then two men appear. one is a biologist and the other a random dude off the street. They both describe evolution, but in different ways. When the men are done, the boys choose who they believe. One boy believes the biologist because he trusts his expertise. The other boy just believes the random man out of faith.
Science itself does not rely on trust; it is the people doing the science. However this is where science is a self-correcting system. If a person performs an experiment but the results come up differently than was expected, it could mean one of 3 things. A) Your reasoning/logic was off, B) There was an unexpected variable present, or C) Your background information (the thing you trust) was wrong. And so the truth finds itself.
People can put their trust in the wrong people. But the truth eventually worms its way to the surface eventually.
Anyway I only had time to read the first page and from what I can tell there seems to be a confusion between trust and faith. Both require having been told something to which they themselves do not know, however trust has reasoning for it's existence. Suppose you have two young boys who knew nothing of evolution, but knew it involved biological science. Then two men appear. one is a biologist and the other a random dude off the street. They both describe evolution, but in different ways. When the men are done, the boys choose who they believe. One boy believes the biologist because he trusts his expertise. The other boy just believes the random man out of faith.
Science itself does not rely on trust; it is the people doing the science. However this is where science is a self-correcting system. If a person performs an experiment but the results come up differently than was expected, it could mean one of 3 things. A) Your reasoning/logic was off, B) There was an unexpected variable present, or C) Your background information (the thing you trust) was wrong. And so the truth finds itself.
People can put their trust in the wrong people. But the truth eventually worms its way to the surface eventually.
Last edited:
Depends on your perspective. To say that I actively believe deities exist would be wrong. I am not rejecting their existence, I am not convinced of it. Like I am not convinced of a lot of things.
The reason I object to being called religious is because I am not religious. Simple as that.
Its hard to eat a picture on a computer screen, so no, I prefer real pastaDo you prefer copypasta instead? I sometimes grow tired of repeating the same thing.
.
mnemonicTonic
Member
You can't denote "Little is left to the imagination", if all you do is conceive reality.
mnemonicTonic
Member
It is not a fail, you fail for not understanding the notion. You can't be an irreligious-atheist and not have a lack of belief in a concept. You are contradicting yourself.
mnemonicTonic
Member
How do we know objects exist if we conceive reality and not perceive it? We might perceive objects with our senses, but we don't know it until we conceive that notion in our minds. Can you think of an argument that suggests we even have perceiving-senses?
You take a leap of faith right there when you assume we do. You trust the random man after all!
Last edited:
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
41 pages of redefinitions
41 pages of redefinitions
more or less
We perceive with our senses and then conceive. Is there an alternative way to conceive reality?
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
I have said little, not none. So you are right, but when you talk of faith, however when imagining what might happen while testing an hypothesis, and then testing it and writing up the results, that is not faith, not when compared to rewriting history, making a book full of rubbish and believing blindly in it. IMO.
Last edited:
thebigpicture
Active Member
I don't know.
Okay. Again, by your definitions of conceive and perceive... do you have an opinion on whether or not two people can conceive identical realities without having had prior conferment. For example, two strangers driving in two separate cars happen upon a tornado, and both pull to the side in hopes of surviving it. After it passes over, they discuss what almost just happened to them. Now both have experienced a tornado passing over them. Would you say that they somehow imagined (conceived) the exact same reality at the exact same time? Or would you say that what happened was the perception of a definite reality?
mnemonicTonic
Member
No matter how objective we try to be in our observations and judgments we must remember we are still subjective-entities.
mnemonicTonic
Member
They can be two-entities in a collective-subjective state experiencing identical realities. Yes. It is happening right now. Both are imaginary, so what is the point?
Hence why Science has peer review
mnemonicTonic
Member
Intersubjective verifiability is a subjective interpretation. :no:
it's as close to objective as you're going to get
Photonic
Ad astra!
Thankfully that is a subjective interpretation.
True if all the plastic people are actually real.