|
down with slavery posted:Pretty good, and as much as I tested my parent's love, couldn't really prove the existence of it one way or the other Its okay, I worshiped at the alter of my parents love daily. Since only faith could prove it to me. down with slavery posted:It's an example. Emotions, especially complex ones like love, are basically untestable(yes, I know we share some common emotions and that we can test some of these things) because they don't even have a real physical definition. You can test aspects of emotions. They are easily testable, even DETECTABLE via brainwaves and the hormones in your body. In fact, given the right chemicals, you can induce these emotions in people. fade5 posted:Interestingly, there's actually some historical evidence for some of the early bible stories: Noah's flood was likely a large, local flood of the area and to the people living there, their entire "world" was flooded. Yes, there may have been some aspects of the stories that was true, but it doesn't exactly make the stories themselves literally true, which is why the Fundies and Literalists won't accept it. down with slavery posted:I'm not saying that the science is the problem. I'm saying that peoples faith in science is a problem, much like you're saying faith in god is a problem. Two sides of the same coin imo. *sighs* No, its not. While their faith may be a problem, at the end of the day if those people want physical and falsifiable proof, its there for them to find and people are there who will help them interpret it. The other side of the coin is ancient texts based around stories passed down by shepherds and prophets and must be accept without evidence, the only test being your own emotional attachment said faith in it. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Nov 16, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:50 |
|
CommieGIR posted:You can test aspects of emotions. They are easily testable, even DETECTABLE via brainwaves and the hormones in your body. In fact, given the right chemicals, you can induce these emotions in people. I never said it was... my claim is that faith is integral to human existence and denigrating someone for it is kinda dumb, even if they place their faith in things you feel aren't real.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:He already did, Jesus! Not even God could raise their ratings? Ouch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I never said it was... my claim is that faith is integral to human existence and denigrating someone for it is kinda dumb, even if they place their faith in things you feel aren't real. Its a claim you have not proven, and your definition of faith is...interesting to say that least, considering that you are comparing a faith that requires blind belief to one that provides evidence and testable conclusions. Religion is not going to give you anything tangible other than the idea that your emotional feelings are somehow signs that their faith is true over all other faiths. Skepticism in religion is frowned upon. Science gives you the tools to question all the claims it makes, gives you a chain of evidence, and even gives you people willing to explain the how and the why. Skepticism in science is encouraged. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:51
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its a claim you have not proven, and your definition of faith is...interesting to say that least, considering that you are comparing a faith that requires blind belief to one that provides evidence and testable conclusions. Faith is blind belief, it doesn't require it. Religion provides evidence and testable conclusions too, just... not about the existence of god. CommieGIR posted:Religion is not going to give you anything tangible other than the idea that your emotional feelings are somehow signs that their faith is true over all other faiths. Skepticism in religion is frowned upon. Objectively false, religion has done many material/tangible things in this world(not all of them good). quote:Science gives you the tools to question all the claims it makes, gives you a chain of evidence, and even gives you people willing to explain the how and the why. Skepticism in science is encouraged. Can you define Science for me? down with slavery fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, there may have been some aspects of the stories that was true, but it doesn't exactly make the stories themselves literally true, which is why the Fundies and Literalists won't accept it.  "The flood is a historical event, not a myth!" "I agree with you, the flood happened.""See, look, there's even historical evidence for a local flood.""But you're not agreeing the right way, so you're wrong."Also Kyrie eleison I thought you were better bro, what happened?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Religion provides evidence and testable conclusions too, just... not about the existence of god. http://www.openbible.info/topics/how_do_we_know_god_exists What?! What testable conclusions, what evidence?! Seriously, I think we're at the root of your issues with Western Science v. Religion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:54
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.openbible.info/topics/how_do_we_know_god_exists Religion is not only about whether or not god exists, hth (I thought I made it clear in the post...)
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Also Kyrie eleison I thought you were better bro, what happened? You might be thinking of another poster who went off meds and made a 'you're all gonna burn, heathens' thread a few months back. Kyrie thinks gamergate is an existential threat to the left and the beginning of the conservative millennium.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Religion is not only about whether or not god exists, hth (I thought I made it clear in the post...) Um, regardless of the moral and sociological implications of religion, God is the center point of religion in general. down with slavery posted:Can you define Science for me? This is as bad a question as your 'What is real' question where you attempted to bait me into discussing metaphysical interpretations of reality. Science does not hinge on faith. Your poor attempts to intertwine the two is not going to justify your argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:03
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Um, regardless of the moral and sociological implications of religion, God is the center point of religion in general. No its not? quote:This is as bad a question as your 'What is real' question where you attempted to bait me into discussing metaphysical interpretations of reality. You've attributed quite a few things to science so I think it's fair you offer a definition. It's not bait. CommieGIR posted:
quote:gives you a chain of evidence quote:even gives you people willing to explain the how and the why I'm not sure all three of these things can be chalked up to "Science". CommieGIR posted:Science does not hinge on faith. Your poor attempts to intertwine the two is not going to justify your argument. Sure it does, there's no way any progress could be made if nobody had faith in the scientists that worked before them, alongside them, and after them. Faith (belief in something without "evidence") is fundamental to human existence and refusing to admit it isn't going to make it any less true. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Now I expect an onslaught of people not taking this seriously, to them I say: our calendar is dated from the birth of Christ. The greatest civilization on Earth was born out of Christ. There is no issue more important or more worth discussing than the true nature of Jesus Christ. You have to take him seriously. You don't have a choice. I like this argument the best because if it's convincing then nobody would have ever become a Christian, since at the time of Jesus' death our calendar started with the coronation of the current Emperor and the greatest civilization on Earth (always Our Civilization Best Civilization) worships the Emperor, so QED the Emperor is god, suck it Christians. 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I'm not sure all three of these things can be chalked up to "Science". Of course you can't, because you are wholly sold on the idea of science being define by faith, which is pretty much the polar opposite of the scientific process. You've spent the last two pages making that very argument. down with slavery posted:No its not? Please explain to me the foundations of religion. down with slavery posted:Sure it does, there's no way any progress could be made if nobody had faith in the scientists that worked before them, alongside them, and after them. Faith (belief in something without "evidence") is fundamental to human existence and refusing to admit it isn't going to make it any less true. For fucks sake...THEY CAN TEST IT. They can verify the work of scientists before them in order to ensure it is viable. Many things proposed by prior scientists get invalidated all the time, or the theories updated to account for new evidence. You can have ZERO faith in the work of a prior scientist, and all you have to do is TEST it. The faith in those scientists has no bearings on whether their work will remain credible or valid. Its why Einsteins Theory of Relativity gets tested OVER and OVER and OVER to verify its validity. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:09
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Of course you can't, because you are wholly sold on the idea of science being define by faith, which is pretty much the polar opposite of the scientific process. You've spent the last two pages making that very argument. Uhhh no, I do not think science is defined by faith. quote:Please explain to me the foundations of religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Uhhh no, I do not think science is defined by faith. down with slavery posted:Sure it does, there's no way any progress could be made if nobody had faith in the scientists that worked before them, alongside them, and after them. Faith (belief in something without "evidence") is fundamental to human existence and refusing to admit it isn't going to make it any less true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:13
|
|
Do you understand that although faith is integral to scientific progress, it does not define it. Is that clear enough?CommieGIR posted:For fucks sake...THEY CAN TEST IT. They can verify the work of scientists before them in order to ensure it is viable. Many things proposed by prior scientists get invalidated all the time, or the theories updated to account for new evidence. You can have ZERO faith in the work of a prior scientist, and all you have to do is TEST it. The faith in those scientists has no bearings on whether their work will remain credible or valid. But they don't test it every time. Why not? Every experiment is built on assumptions from previous ones, the complex systems we see in the world today could not exist without faith.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Do you understand that although faith is integral to scientific progress, it does not define it. Is that clear enough? You can have zero faith in a scientist and still verify his hypothesis. It is not integral at all. down with slavery posted:But they don't test it every time. Why not? Every experiment is built on assumptions from previous ones, the complex systems we see in the world today could not exist without faith. And yet you must verify those assumptions prior to accepting them as true, or be able to read the work of others who verified it ahead of time. You are trying to stretch the interpretation of faith to places it does not work. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:16
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You can have zero faith in a scientist and still verify his hypothesis. It is not integral at all. Or you can have faith in a scientist and not verify his hypothesis. The science will still stand. You simply cannot do all of the experiments that led up to this one. The chain is too long, and beyond that, it's unnecessary. Because we trust (or have faith in, whatever words you want to use) that the information we're being given is valid. CommieGIR posted:You are trying to stretch the interpretation of faith to places it does not work. Sorry. Perhaps you'd care to define faith? I know how opposed you are to actually giving definitions for the words you use, but just this once? down with slavery fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
What is the holy spirit ps. I'm not gonna actually read your response
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Hey scientists, you have to have faith that when you see the results of an experiment that your senses are perceiving reality and it's not some elaborate deception by Decartes' daemon, so since you're already having faith anyway you might as well have faith in whatever bullshit I pull from my rear end about talking animals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Or you can have faith in a scientist and not verify his hypothesis. The science will still stand. ...and yet they still do not require it, its testable if they DO need to verify it. If you have no faith in that scientist, you can still test his hypothesis of your own accord. Keep trying. down with slavery posted:Perhaps you'd care to define faith? I know how opposed you are to actually giving definitions for the words you use, but just this once? Woops. Nope, I'm not slipping into that. You are trying to get me to define faith as in trust in the same terms as religious faith. Two different definitions of the same word. You are arguing for the RELIGIOUS interpretation of faith, not the word 'faith' as in 'trust' Just because 'Faith' covers both definitions does not imply science is a faith. Nice try. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:18
|
|
CommieGIR posted:...and yet they still do not require it, its testable if they DO need to verify it. If you have no faith in that scientist, you can still test his hypothesis of your own accord. Trying to do what? I've already explained in great depth as to how faith (secular people like the word trust but really it's the same thing) is integral to scientific progress. Obviously you could redo every scientific experiment in existence to confirm it's validity. Your unwillingness to understand what the word "faith" means is really another thing altogether. I suspect you'd have a much better time debating and discussing if you were actually willing to answer the hard questions as well as the easy ones. CommieGIR posted:Woops. Nope, I'm not slipping to that. You are trying to get me to define faith as in trust in the same terms as religious faith. Two different definitions of the same word. You are arguing for the RELIGIOUS interpretation of faith, not the word 'faith' as in 'trust' I think they are one and the same. I'm not arguing for any interpreation of anything, I'm saying that faith, or believing in things which we ourselves cannot prove, is integral to human belief systems. Even yours.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Trying to do what? I've already explained in great depth as to how faith (secular people like the word trust but really it's the same thing) is integral to scientific progress. Obviously you could redo every scientific experiment in existence to confirm it's validity. Your unwillingness to understand what the word "faith" means is really another thing altogether. I suspect you'd have a much better time debating and discussing if you were actually willing to answer the hard questions as well as the easy ones. Faith as in TRUST. Not faith as in 'Religion'. Two different meanings. down with slavery posted:I think they are one and the same. Good for you. They are not. No more than the word 'theory' means both guess and scientifically established idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:22
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Good for you. They are not. Except they are! Wow this is easy! Maybe try speaking about a concept you feel comfortable defining.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Except they are! Wow this is easy! Many English words have more than one meaning, its not hard to get confused. Its called a homonym  Please define the word Theory. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
McDowell posted:You might be thinking of another poster who went off meds and made a 'you're all gonna burn, heathens' thread a few months back. Now that I think about it, this reminds me a little of Erispa, just with a different focus (Religion vs fade5 fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:27
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Many English words have more than one meaning, its not hard to get confused Yeah, that's why I asked you for a definition while you're using the word, hence you could explain the context and definition. I'm not going to come out and tell you "no, that's not what faith is" but if you're speaking to a completely different concept than me, well, it's only your fault at this point. I've been quite clear and tried to get you to explain what you're saying multiple times, but all my questions are "traps" I guess?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Yeah, that's why I asked you for a definition while you're using the word, hence you could explain the context. Except you are treating 'faith' as a catch all, to imply faith as a religious term to everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:28
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Except you are treating 'faith' as a catch all, to imply faith as a religious term to everything. I'm not, I'm treating faith as belief in things you cannot prove. See, how hard is that?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I'm not, I'm treating faith as belief in things you cannot prove. So....religion. In other words, not Science. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:30
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So....religion. That's actually not what religion means (I think we had this problem earlier, did you read the wikipedia page?) Like I said, I believe faith is integral to human existence, ie outside of the realm of "religion" or "science". It's just something humans do because we have limited capacity for holding information. I know that's bit too "big picture" for you, but until you're willing to address it I'm not sure much more can be said. There are plenty of reasonable critiques of religion. "Faith is dumb" and "god isn't real" aren't them.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
You can't dismiss my faith as long as you have faith that when you take penicillin it was the pills that cured you like scientists say and not the Devil doing it as a ploy to lead you astray from God. I can dismiss the all of the faiths of the planet's other eleventy-billion religions though because unlike mine those guys are obviously full of poo poo, I mean come on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:That's actually not what religion means (I think we had this problem earlier, did you read the wikipedia page?) down with slavery posted:I'm not saying that the science is the problem. I'm saying that peoples faith in science is a problem, much like you're saying faith in god is a problem. Two sides of the same coin imo. down with slavery posted:Falsifiability is a poor basis for what is real. Yeah, I think we're done here. down with slavery posted:There are plenty of reasonable critiques of religion. "Faith is dumb" and "god isn't real" aren't them. You jumped in an argument where a guy was literally arguing that "God is real. Live with it DnD" and then went on to call anyone who didn't accept is premise stupid, and then you tried to define science as tied to faith and then defining faith as a religious experience by saying Western Liberals treat science as a religion, therefore its a faith. Please, stop. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:36
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You can't dismiss my faith as long as you have faith that when you take penicillin it was the pills that cured you like scientists say and not the Devil doing it as a ploy to lead you astray from God. I mean, you can dismiss it, and I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with is saying religion is stupid because "god isn't real" or "faith is a bad belief system" or any number of the other bad arguments that have been trotted out to counter the obvious troll thread. I'm not religious, but I have enough perspective to take a step back and actually view Religion as a societal institution as opposed to magic (what it appears most posters think Christianity is) CommieGIR posted:You jumped in an argument where a guy was literally arguing that "God is real. Live with it DnD" and then went on to call anyone who didn't accept is premise stupid, and then tried to define science as tied to faith. No, I jumped into an argument where a guy was literally making this argument: CommieGIR posted:I think you don't understand why its an ethnocentrism. After posting back and forth with him for a few times, it was confirmed to me that he was a kneejerk internet atheist who had no interest in learning anything, just spouting off retarded bullshit that looks like it came out of a youtube comment. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
The same three people, none of which are the op, arguing in circles for 7 pages. DnD in a nutshell. Anyways, having been clinically dead for a couple minutes but not seeing any heaven or hell or anything (was pretty much like being unconscious, conscious before and then just waking up in the hospital), I'm curious as to whether there is some kind of minimum time you have to be dead before you can experience the wonders of the supernatural realm. tia site fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
dad rockin this thread now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el75UyYO554 edit: nils cline probably isn't god
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
This reminds me of a series of honeypot threads in the civfanatics general forums. They were called 'Watch me destroy Christianity'. It was hundreds of pages of one post snipes repeating the same ruddy arguments. hey down with slavery if you were born in a Muslim country
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:This reminds me of a series of honeypot threads in the civfanatics general forums. They were called 'Watch me destroy Christianity'. It was hundreds of pages of one post snipes repeating the same ruddy arguments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:50 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:I mean, you can dismiss it, and I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with is saying religion is stupid because "god isn't real" or "faith is a bad belief system" or any number of the other bad arguments that have been trotted out to counter the obvious troll thread. I'm not religious, but I have enough perspective to take a step back and actually view Religion as a societal institution as opposed to magic (what it appears most posters think Christianity is) Yeah but the people who go to church actually believe the poo poo they say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 00:35
|
|
