Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, let's not because again, I make no arguments or claims.
I simply make a statement: I believe in GOD because I choose to.
I do not argue why GOD exist, and I do not have any evidence for my beliefs. This belief is completely irrational. This belief is made with no evidence or reason. And I make it anyway.
There is nothing supporting my belief in GOD aside from my will. Is there anything in your life that is there because of your sheer force of will? I doubt that.
Don't waste your time talking to someone who is completely living in a fantasy world of evidence. He can't even provide the evidence he himself just did yesterday.
Humans choose accounts of witnessing to believe instead of digging for evidence. Evidence may be absent in some kind of truths (such as historical events), humans today are brainwashed to think that everything should be evidenced like a science. As a matter of fact, one can dig up evidence only of a specific kind of truth we call science. Or those events happened very recently. Evidence of historical events will become more and more sheer as they went farther and farther away from us.
That's actually why the one who is talking to you can't even provide evidence for what he himself just did yesterday, not to speak the evidence of what he did today 30 years ago. This is the nature of a whole category of truth (we call history). Their average IQ can only handle one kind of specific truths we call science, and to falsely treat all kinds of truth as a science.
Don't waste your time talking to someone who is completely living in a fantasy world of evidence. He can't even provide the evidence he himself just did yesterday.
Humans choose accounts of witnessing to believe instead of digging for evidence. Evidence may be absent in some kind of truths (such as historical events), humans today are brainwashed to think that everything should be evidenced like a science. As a matter of fact, one can dig up evidence only of a specific kind of truth we call science. Or those events happened very recently. Evidence of historical events will become more and more sheer as they went farther and farther away from us.
That's actually why the one who is talking to you can't even provide evidence for what he himself just did yesterday, not to speak the evidence of what he did today 30 years ago. This is the nature of a whole category of truth (we call history). Their average IQ can only handle one kind of specific truths we call science, and to falsely treat all kinds of truth as a science.
This lack of verifiable evidence is just another reason why it is absurd that a god demand repentance to itself when there is zero evidence of itself. It is not rejection to merely desire verifiable evidence. Surely a just super being would be understanding of those who wish to act rationally.
Don't waste your time talking to someone who is completely living in a fantasy world of evidence. He can't even provide the evidence he himself just did yesterday.
Humans choose accounts of witnessing to believe instead of digging for evidence. Evidence may be absent in some kind of truths (such as historical events), humans today are brainwashed to think that everything should be evidenced like a science. As a matter of fact, one can dig up evidence only of a specific kind of truth we call science. Or those events happened very recently. Evidence of historical events will become more and more sheer as they went farther and farther away from us.
That's actually why the one who is talking to you can't even provide evidence for what he himself just did yesterday, not to speak the evidence of what he did today 30 years ago. This is the nature of a whole category of truth (we call history). Their average IQ can only handle one kind of specific truths we call science, and to falsely treat all kinds of truth as a science.
yup. we range from smart chimps to really smart chimps. We can only keep posting rational notions in hope that it helps somebody.
This lack of verifiable evidence is just another reason why it is absurd that a god demand repentance to itself when there is zero evidence of itself. It is not rejection to merely desire verifiable evidence. Surely a just super being would be understanding of those who wish to act rationally.
this was the biggest reason I became atheist in like the 3rd grade.
"He made us." ... "the way we are."
I didn't know then, but I figured they had "it" all wrong. As far as the "self" part. We have to understand that anything we do is really the universe doing. You'll have to get around that little truth.
First, there are indeed countless phenomena which cannot be approached scientifically.
Countless? I disagree since science is a means to acquire knowledge. You don't have to apply the scientific method to everything in order to acquire knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Second, philosophy is at the basis of science, as any scientist will tell you.
Once upon a time many centuries ago science and philosophy intertwined together. Fast forward to today and they are divorced. Which is why we now have departments of Natural Science which don't include the department of Philosophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Science approached the "natural world," while philosophy handles everything else.
Not exactly true. Philosophy does not handle a lot of things nor do we encounter it in our everyday lives as much as science does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
There is no scientific equation to figure out where freedom should end and security can begin.
Iv'e never heard of a "scientific equation". I have heard of mathematical equations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
That is philosophy, and just one example of it. And before I hear "waaaa!!!!! dat's common sense!!!!!" I ask this:
Is it fair to scrutinize Muslims more than non-Muslims at security and immigration check points? That is a question science cannot answer. It can give us data (Muslims are 11% more likely over all to carry out a terrorist attack) but can't give us insight into what should be done with that data.
LOL science only gives us data! LOLOLOL! Sure just look at the data that just jumps out of the page and tells us how to land on the moon. Magical data.
Science discovers objective truths.
Science distinguishes itself from all other branches of human pursuit by its power to probe and understand the behavior of nature on a level that allows us to predict with accuracy, if not control, the outcomes of events in the natural world. Science especially enhances our health, wealth and security, which is greater today for more people on Earth than at any other time in human history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
In short, science provides data about the natural world, and philosophy has to be applied to act on that data.
"Only Data" LOLOL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Is it ethical to ban Muslims? If this is a "common sense question" then I guess the Western World should just put you in charge.
Oh, and the cure for AIDS is also common sense. Trust me. I'm not gonna post it here, but yeah, it's easy. All those people who've studied medicine for their entire adult lives and have institutions for this stuff, they ain't got jack on a rando from the internet like me. Yep, it's common sense.
^The above is basically your argument for the demonstrably false idea that "philosophy is fading away" and it's "all common sense."
Common sense? Why did you pull that out of thin air and then go on a tirade about it? *shrug*
In fact I don’t think many humans possess much common sense…need evidence? Take a good look around. It's obvious that common sense is not so common.
Philosophy does not generate knowledge. Science generates knowledge.
Philosophy is incapable of addressing the truly fundamental questions about our existence. If you have not noticed, Science is making Philosophy obsolete.
At one time Philosophy was merged with Science. Philosophy is merely a reflection on the knowledge that we learn, but it does not generate knowledge.
The knowledge about how the Universe works comes from Science.
The Philosophers can talk about it and think about all they want and maybe even add insight, but at the end of the day they don't generate knowledge. I can certainly recognize the contributions that Philosophy contributed to Science over in the ancient past. However, once Philosophy became divorced from Science...i.e. once Philosophy separated out on its own, Science became Natural Science and Philosophy remained Philosophy. At this point Philosophy started becoming marginalized and it's been more and more marginalized ever since. Of course Philosophers are not thrilled with this fact, but it's just a fact.
I can show you a huge array of new knowledge generated by scientific inquiry and discovery, can you do the same with philosophy?
VP's post contains two arguments dressed up as philosophy.
(a) the appeal to unknowns and deprecating science because it doesn't answer them. In fact ONLY science can answer them. The rest is guesswork. with Real Philosophy (not just foggy thinking designed to prop up religious of Cult-claims) providing some useful lines of research.
(b) the other and related point is to make us doubt everything that science thinks it knows. This is futile, not only because we rely on 'what it knows' every day of our lives - and the religious apologists hold it up as gospel truth when it suits their argument - even when they get the science wrong! But also because, even if you could put the entire corpus of verified scientific data into the realm on "no confidence" that wouldn't do a thing to make the God-claim more valid. But it would certainly make the job of the religious easier in fooling people into thinking it was.
VP's post contains two arguments dressed up as philosophy.
(a) the appeal to unknowns and deprecating science because it doesn't answer them. In fact ONLY science can answer them. The rest is guesswork. with Real Philosophy (not just foggy thinking designed to prop up religious of Cult-claims) providing some useful lines of research.
(b) the other and related point is to make us doubt everything that science thinks it knows. This is futile, not only because we rely on 'what it knows' every day of our lives - and the religious apologists hold it up as gospel truth when it suits their argument - even when they get the science wrong! But also because, even if you could put the entire corpus of verified scientific data into the realm on "no confidence" that wouldn't do a thing to make the God-claim more valid. But it would certainly make the job of the religious easier in fooling people into thinking it was.
Correct.
VP's argument essentially boils down to "science can't explain everything, therefore [his] god exists."
It's the same "appeal to the unknown" fallacy that religion has used since religion was invented: "we don't understand X, therefore our religion/god is the explanation for X."
VP's argument essentially boils down to "science can't explain everything, therefore [his] god exists."
It's the same "appeal to the unknown" fallacy that religion has used since religion was invented: "we don't understand X, therefore our religion/god is the explanation for X."
LMAO!
Wow. You are so absolutely and obviously wrong that it's hilarious. Wrong as in you can literally look at the title of this thread and see that your statement has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.
My argument is that, in smaller words, I do not care what science says and evidence in the scientific sense of the word is absolutely irrelevant.
Literally, it is absolutely irrational and outside of science and yet I BELIEVE ANYWAY
I don't know how I can make that any easier to understand.
I believe because I choose to. I need no more justification than that. That's why it's called FAITH.
VP's post contains two arguments dressed up as philosophy.
(a) the appeal to unknowns and deprecating science because it doesn't answer them. In fact ONLY science can answer them. The rest is guesswork. with Real Philosophy (not just foggy thinking designed to prop up religious of Cult-claims) providing some useful lines of research.
Ahh...NO. I could give a damn about "unknowns." I believe for reasons of faith and that's enough. I do not require any justification beyond that. Try reading the OP.
Quote:
(b) the other and related point is to make us doubt everything that science thinks it knows. This is futile, not only because we rely on 'what it knows' every day of our lives - and the religious apologists hold it up as gospel truth when it suits their argument - even when they get the science wrong! But also because, even if you could put the entire corpus of verified scientific data into the realm on "no confidence" that wouldn't do a thing to make the God-claim more valid. But it would certainly make the job of the religious easier in fooling people into thinking it was.
"God" is not a claim. That is your first of many absolute failures of understanding. It is a statement of FAITH. Hence, it needs no evidence to back it up.
As for science being in doubt, yes, science, like everything else in the world, is ultimately in doubt. We know nothing for 100% certainty and any real scientist would admit as such. But science has its uses and its limits like any discipline. The moment someone says "well, I don't care what the scientific data says because I do not base my every decision on such things" is the moment the real scientist would walk away and say "well, that's by definition outside the epistemological approach to science so science can't comment."
That's what I'm talking about here: epistemology.
Again, I do not care what science does or does not claim and I couldn't care less about "scientific evidence" "data" or any other such things. I choose to believe in GOD and my faith justifies itself. And yes, again, all faith justifies itself if the believer is sincere, including the old, tired reductio ad absurdum of "well, so if someone believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster is that justified?" Yes, it is, if someone sincerely believes it.
But of course you'll go back to spouting some crap about "but meh science!" and ignore the fact that I, by definition, am ignoring it and finding it irrelevant for this purpose. You're like someone who walks into a vegan restaurant and can't understand why he can't have a porterhouse steak.
Ahh...NO. I could give a damn about "unknowns." I believe for reasons of faith and that's enough. I do not require any justification beyond that. Try reading the OP.
"God" is not a claim. That is your first of many absolute failures of understanding. It is a statement of FAITH. Hence, it needs no evidence to back it up.
As for science being in doubt, yes, science, like everything else in the world, is ultimately in doubt. We know nothing for 100% certainty and any real scientist would admit as such. But science has its uses and its limits like any discipline. The moment someone says "well, I don't care what the scientific data says because I do not base my every decision on such things" is the moment the real scientist would walk away and say "well, that's by definition outside the epistemological approach to science so science can't comment."
That's what I'm talking about here: epistemology.
Again, I do not care what science does or does not claim and I couldn't care less about "scientific evidence" "data" or any other such things. I choose to believe in GOD and my faith justifies itself. And yes, again, all faith justifies itself if the believer is sincere, including the old, tired reductio ad absurdum of "well, so if someone believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster is that justified?" Yes, it is, if someone sincerely believes it.
But of course you'll go back to spouting some crap about "but meh science!" and ignore the fact that I, by definition, am ignoring it and finding it irrelevant for this purpose. You're like someone who walks into a vegan restaurant and can't understand why he can't have a porterhouse steak.
So glad you came back to pick up this awesome thread!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
