Misconception Faith vs. Reason

[The ClayTaurus]

Knee-slapper!

Hey, how's the view from the basement window of your mom's house? Yes, I'm talking about before you put up the tinfoil.

Remember:

ad hominem attacks are an ineffective arguing tool

 

[dilloduck]

You've obviously confused science for something else. Science isn't in the "search for good and bad" business.

Religion's refusal to acknowledge fact and fiction makes it stagnant when confronted with new information.

You right--science is in the "demanding that everything is relative or neutral" business.
What new evidence do you have that God didn't create life ? Got any new evidence that heaven exists or not ?

 

[MissileMan]

You right--science is in the "demanding that everything is relative or neutral" business.
What new evidence do you have that God didn't create life ? Got any new evidence that heaven exists or not ?

Perhaps you can link some scientific studies that are trying to prove or disprove the existence of heaven. If not, perhaps it's time for you to stop throwing out absurdities.

 

[LOki]

Not that you care, but I feel you may be losing sight of some answers by splitting hairs as finely as you are.

No. As I said earlier, I'm not trying to split hairs, more appropriately, I'm trying to ascertain the usage meaning of the terms being bandied.

There's no sense in the discussion if the words end up being meaningless.

Apologies

Accepted.

Hypothetically or otherwise?

Yes.

Hypothetical bullshit accusation?

Of course.

I was not suggesting that you were. Rather, it was merely a preemptive declaration so that we don't needlessly go down the wrong roads.

Unneccesary. If I come to that conclusion, I'll come by it honestly, and I'll take the great pains I'm noted for in detailing every bit of evidence that supports that conclusion.

Ah, but you draw a connection between faith and a laziness for the truth.

Laziness is a fair accusation, but I'd rather consider it disregard for the point. I question the motives of those who demand that "the Truth" not be questioned--particularly their version of the Truth, and the basis of that "Truth."

One CAN have faith and also be in constant observation. Faith in fidelity does not imply closing ones eyes to the reality. Correct?

It DOES imply it; but I will stipulate that it does not necessitate it if, and only if, denial of valid evidence CANNOT be faith.

Just being... friendly

Fear? Fear of what? I find hypotheticals to be tiresome, especially when you are so unwilling to actually delve into anything concrete regarding your own existence.

Fear the the excersise might cause you you to question the assumption that faith is necessary. And allow me to sympathize with you regarding tiresome hypotheticals--it is my experience that the hypothetical is often brought up rhetorically, or it is abused in the manner where all responses become invalid analogies because of lack of intellectual rigor. I won't pretend you have to believe me if I say that I have no interest in that.

The fact that I am reluctant to reveal my personal life to the entire internet is not an indictment of my argument, but rather the internet. Yes?

No intention of creating bullshit accusations.

Despite my posting to your replies, please don't take that as an accusation you should carry yourself. In fact, you're rather fair with yourself, and fair in general IMO--but there are some severe retards that would take my personal information as ground to dismiss a valid point on the basis of my being some flavor of "Che-commie/eco-hippie/bong-smoke-philosopher" or "Dittoheaded/Bush-Rules!/church-lady-parrot."

I do find it rather... interesting... your refusal to touch your own personal experience.

Don't you worry, I'm in touch--enough so that I'm sure my personal experience is not the internet's business.

It's completely relevant, as it speaks to your own arguments.

And I agree, but it also might speak against them for no other reason than presumptive bullshit biases.

I'm curious as to how your faith-free life (if indeed it is, since you've yet to offer conclusively how much faith you operate with) works, and not in that "oh it works well" or "oh it doesn't work well" kind of way.

Look, I want to be cool about it, but what you're going to get from is is pretty much "it works well." That in mind:

I am married. My spouse and I find great comfort in our relationship. My spouse takes great comfort in my capacity for faith.

There's a better than 50% chance my frienships are older than your kids. I've held them so long and so close, IMO, precisley because of the nature of my faith in myself to not take them for granted.

I am professionally well respected--not because the people who rely on me have belief in me, because I have proven, and can prove they can rely on me.

Demonstrate.

See the above.

I accused you of nothing, sir. Merely stating possibilities.

I stand corrected, and to correct the record: I'm not sure I'm so absent of faith; I am not a loner and it remains to be demonstrated that there is a necessary correlation between a lack of faith and a lack of company; and I don't have any "magic secret," but if you send me a dollar and a SASE, ......

The defensive unproductive rejoinders aren't just coming from one corner, although I do like your use of the word.

Of couse not...and "rejoinder" IS cool.

So, are you willing to pick up where we left off and procede?

 

[dilloduck]

Perhaps you can link some scientific studies that are trying to prove or disprove the existence of heaven. If not, perhaps it's time for you to stop throwing out absurdities.

ok Mr. Picky----how about what happens to our awareness after we die?

 

[LOki]

Is a lie closer to the truth if it is presented in some official scientific format with "reasoning" attatched as opposed just blurted out at poker party?

What lie specifically are you alluding to?

Just in general---science and religion both look for answers and explanations

The argument appears to be that science is much more trustworthy but has goofed up since it's inception. It's a process and to date hasn't solved the great mysteries any more than religion has.

I agree with MissileMan, I'd like you tell me of what lies specificly, OR in general you refer to.

And I'm sure I saw MissileMan say it below, but I will reaffirm that science asks questions to look for answers, to accurately describe reality without prejudice; religion presumes knowledge, presumes to possess the Truth, and is only interested those questions whose answers conform to that presumed knowledge and Truth.

Is a lie closer to the truth if it is presented in some official scientific format with "reasoning" attatched as opposed just blurted out at poker party?

No. Is a lie closer to the truth if it has no support in evidence or logic but some guy at the front of a church asserts it as the "Will of God" with great passion and conviction?

Do your logic thing---those with "beliefs" aren't going to get in your way. When you get life explained you can tell us all " I told you so".

The way "those with "beliefs"" stayed out of the way of Galileo? That same, exact, way?

Just saying science isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

Who is doing this "cracking up" you're speaking of, and exactly what are they "cracking up" science to be?

 

[dilloduck]

I agree with MissileMan, I'd like you tell me of what lies specificly, OR in general you refer to.

And I'm sure I saw MissileMan say it below, but I will reaffirm that science asks questions to look for answers, to accurately describe reality without prejudice; religion presumes knowledge, presumes to possess the Truth, and is only interested those questions whose answers conform to that presumed knowledge and Truth.

Science cannot describe reality wihout prejuduce. The observer is always in the way. Religion claims a path to the truth that is not necessarily "scientific".

The way "those with "beliefs"" stayed out of the way of Galileo? That same, exact, way

?

Oh right--all those scientists who are so persecuted today.

Who is doing this "cracking up" you're speaking of, and exactly what are they "cracking up" science to be?

Science has no proponents?

 

[LOki]

I agree with MissileMan, I'd like you tell me of what lies specificly, OR in general you refer to.

Avoiding the question? (again?)

Science cannot describe reality wihout prejuduce.

Unprovable.

The observer is always in the way.

Every observer? With the exact same prejudice?

Not likely.

Religion claims a path to the truth that is not necessarily "scientific".

And not demonstrably true either.

?

Oh right--all those scientists who are so persecuted today.

Avoiding? (again?)

Science has no proponents?

Avoiding? (again?)

 

[dmp]

LOKi is NEVER wrong. LOki is 100% absolutely RIGHT in EVERY opinion LOki has. In NO area will LOki EVER admit to having 'learned something'. LOki will debate EVERY point ANYONE makes. Nobody loves LOki more than LOki.

 

[dilloduck]

Avoiding the question? (again?)

Unprovable.

Every observer? With the exact same prejudice?

Not likely.

And not demonstrably true either.

Avoiding? (again?)

Avoiding? (again?)

Elaborate.

 

[dmp]

I forgot one:

For Each Answer LOki is given which LOki doesn't understand or agree with, LOki will blow it off with the old stand-by "Are you avoiding??"

 

[Mariner]

a first! You've said something with which I totally and completely agree. I never thought the day would come!

"Science is good at explaining how things work, religion is good at providing moral framework for living life AND utilizing the power of science."

Mariner

 

[dilloduck]

a first! You've said something with which I totally and completely agree. I never thought the day would come!

"Science is good at explaining how things work, religion is good at providing moral framework for living life AND utilizing the power of science."

Mariner

So i guess the next natural question would be---"'Where did the power of science come from?"

 

[LOki]

LOKi is NEVER wrong. LOki is 100% absolutely RIGHT in EVERY opinion LOki has. In NO area will LOki EVER admit to having 'learned something'. LOki will debate EVERY point ANYONE makes. Nobody loves LOki more than LOki.

Is this really true? Can you prove it?

 

[Said1]

Is this really true? Can you prove it?

Have faith, man.

 

[Powerman]

So i guess the next natural question would be---"'Where did the power of science come from?"

Science comes from mankind

That much is obvious

Of course I'm not going to reverse engineer this thread. I started at the end and this is as far back as I'm going for now.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

No. As I said earlier, I'm not trying to split hairs, more appropriately, I'm trying to ascertain the usage meaning of the terms being bandied.

Fair enough. Intent had, up to this point, been less than crystal clear.

There's no sense in the discussion if the words end up being meaningless.

That depends on what your definition of "is" is...

Accepted.

Acceptance accepted.

Yes.

Then you're hypothetically welcome.

Of course.

Hypothetical apologies.

Unneccesary. If I come to that conclusion, I'll come by it honestly, and I'll take the great pains I'm noted for in detailing every bit of evidence that supports that conclusion.

True enough, although I still reserve the right to state things preemptively, be it necessary or otherwise. See? Just did it again.

Laziness is a fair accusation, but I'd rather consider it disregard for the point. I question the motives of those who demand that "the Truth" not be questioned--particularly their version of the Truth, and the basis of that "Truth."

I'm all for questioning of truth, Truth, the Truth, THE TRUTH, and even occasionally la verdad. But never La Verdad. That's unquestionable. My point is not that I use faith and halt the search for and observation of the Truth, but rather that I use faith while I search for and observe the truth.

It DOES imply it; but I will stipulate that it does not necessitate it if, and only if, denial of valid evidence CANNOT be faith.

I will concede that it becomes a blurred line of compromised objectiveness when placing faith in an outcome of which the truth is still being ascertained, however I consider it an unintentional strength of hypothesis/theory/answer test. It's not that my faith can never be usurped, but rather that I place faith in my own hypothesis that I am comfortable with. That I have a "feeling" about. I get a sense of victory when I find evidence that my faith was well placed, and a feeling of ineptitude when I find evidence to the contrary. Consider it one of the many games within life we play to keep things interesting.

Fear the the excersise might cause you you to question the assumption that faith is necessary. And allow me to sympathize with you regarding tiresome hypotheticals--it is my experience that the hypothetical is often brought up rhetorically, or it is abused in the manner where all responses become invalid analogies because of lack of intellectual rigor. I won't pretend you have to believe me if I say that I have no interest in that.

I fear not anything nor anyone that may cause me to question faith in something/someone or faith itself. Perhaps I might be led to believe that one requires less faith as they grow older, as certain truths are ascertainable only over a finite amount of time. Interesting, then, that often old age tends to increase the general population's level of faith, although I have a sneaking suspicion as to your hypothesis regarding that phenomena, and I'm not sure it'd be one I'd disagree with

The fact that I am reluctant to reveal my personal life to the entire internet is not an indictment of my argument, but rather the internet. Yes?

Guilty as charged.

Despite my posting to your replies, please don't take that as an accusation you should carry yourself. In fact, you're rather fair with yourself, and fair in general IMO--but there are some severe retards that would take my personal information as ground to dismiss a valid point on the basis of my being some flavor of "Che-commie/eco-hippie/bong-smoke-philosopher" or "Dittoheaded/Bush-Rules!/church-lady-parrot."

Likewise. The main difference being I stopped giving a shit if people dismissed valid points invalidly. That's on them, not you or I.

Don't you worry, I'm in touch--enough so that I'm sure my personal experience is not the internet's business.

Worry I shall not. Personal life challenges retracted.

And I agree, but it also might speak against them for no other reason than presumptive bullshit biases.

PBB's. The acronym has henceforth been coined.

Look, I want to be cool about it, but what you're going to get from is is pretty much "it works well." That in mind:

I am married. My spouse and I find great comfort in our relationship. My spouse takes great comfort in my capacity for faith.

Congrats on finding happiness, and providing it to others.

There's a better than 50% chance my frienships are older than your kids. I've held them so long and so close, IMO, precisley because of the nature of my faith in myself to not take them for granted.

Considering the current lack of existence of aforementioned offspring, I'll do the honors of just knocking that up to a guaranteed 100%. It appears as though you equate the average person's faith with taking someone or something for granted, yes?

I am professionally well respected--not because the people who rely on me have belief in me, because I have proven, and can prove they can rely on me.

But your work is not guaranteed. Any day you could up and choose to spit out a shit product. Your peers place faith in your work based on your storied track record. It is in fact not a fact that your quality of work is ever guaranteed. Perhaps we have different twists on the definition of faith.

See the above.

Seen.

I stand corrected, and to correct the record:

Perhaps you should direct DMP to this as proof of your ability to be incorrect. I wouldn't blame him or others for avoiding our epic collections of call and response.

I'm not sure I'm so absent of faith; I am not a loner and it remains to be demonstrated that there is a necessary correlation between a lack of faith and a lack of company;

I feel the majority of our discrepencies lie not in the spirit of the argument, but rather the semantics of the word "faith." Perhaps this was your point the entire time, and if so, I apologize for my blindered-approach.

and I don't have any "magic secret," but if you send me a dollar and a SASE, ......

Oh no you don't, I'm not getting sucked into the pyramid!

Of couse not...and "rejoinder" IS cool.

I fear I hath not avoided more pointlessness within this very post. Hopefully life will continue

So, are you willing to pick up where we left off and procede?

I would hope at this point of my post that question would be unnecessary. What's your opinion?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm sure that when I'M arguing on here I look way more sane than you guys. I'm just positive.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm sure that when I'M arguing on here I look way more sane than you guys. I'm just positive.

Shhh. Adults are speaking.

 

[dmp]

Is this really true? Can you prove it?

...requires faith.