Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I expect a thicker skin from someone who has no problem denying the intelligence of large groups of people because you disagree with their perspective.
|
I know they're wrong. There's a difference. No 'perspective' exists that says there if tangible proof for the existence of god.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
That's one way to look at it. How is one way better than another and why must they conflict? Do you think it reasonable to believe that limitations to science exist? What should be done in situations where reason has no authority?
|
You mean what do we do in the absence of evidence or proof? We seek it out. We find the truth through investigation. We don't just guess. Science is only limited by what we don't know yet. As our understanding of the universe grows, these situations without reason will slowly sink into oblivion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Like i said above when you busted out your pot/kettle picture, i'm not a theist, so you can drop the "you all".
|
I wasn't including you in the "you all". The you all was intended for the theists reading.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I don't think that ELCA or LCMS are a particularly good example of the the uber conservative to uber liberal continuum. If the only generalization you make is that all theists believe in deities than that's fine, that's not a generalization. The places where i have a problem are when you make claims about the abilities of different theistic belief systems to absorb scientific information.
|
As I said above, science often runs contrary to the 1500 year old book called the Bible, or the Qu-ran, or the Torah. The example I gave above, evolution vs. creation, should make that clear. Evolution is by far the best explanation for the origin of life. The bible says that humans were created walking upright and talking one day. You must see how those two explanations are contradictory.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Do you not see the inherent contradiction in claiming that scientific reasoning is the only reasoning in the same paragraph that you claim that you don't need to study something because you have common sense? If this were a few centuries ago i could see you claiming that rats come from oilly rags. For as much as you herald scientific reasoning, you certainly seem prone to avoiding it.
|
Common sense is connected with science. Common sense is how we come to conclusions based on evidence. The only proof I need is the meanings of the words faith and reason. The definitions make them opposed. If you don't think they are opposed, then maybe you should use different terminology. As for the rats and rags thing, at least I would be trying. At least I could ask, "How does this work?" and make an effort to explain it. Sure it would wrong, and a few centuries ago I would be well aware of the functionality of the reproductive systems on mammals which makes your example tremendously weak, but the struggle for truth is what it's all about. It's not about accepting what others claim on blind faith. It's about thinking.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
You don't need to necessarily apply faith to reason, but it helps if you want funding. You can apply reason to faith. Neither necessitates the other and there are situations where one is better than the other.
|
So go right ahead and explain to me how the existence of god is reasonable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
For instance, can you prove that you love your family? How? You could claim that your actions are those of a person in love, but maybe you're just a latent sociopath.
|
Love is an emotion which is accompanied by biochemical reactions that can be measured. Yes, I absolutely can prove that I love my family.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Only an arrogant person would attempt to define reason for all of humanity.
|
I've had the discussion 1000 times, and no one has yet given me a reason to believe that god is real. The supernatural is by definition unprovable by natural law. How can you say something is reasonable when it cannot be explained or proven at all? Only someone who is honest with him or herself can try to explain reason in pertaining to theism or diesm.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
They are what they are. They are methods, the only opposition to be found between them is how they are used. They are no more contradictory than a stapler and a hammer.
|
They are, again by definition, opposed. Do I really have to link dictionary.com? Is this really going to turn into that kind of discussion? Look up faith then look up reason. It's as plain as day that they are opposed in that one uses proof, evidence, method, and the other is devoid of proof, evidence, method.