Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I'm pretty sure i know you're wrong, does that mean it would be a good idea for me to call you a delusional idiot?
|
Without evidence? No. With evidence? Well let's see it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Do you think that science can ultimately envelope all situations without reason? If so, how is this not a faith based position?
|
I'm saying that the more we learn, the less we don't know. Do you agree?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Like i said, you don't seem capable of seeing the distinctions between different theistic belief systems with respect to their abilities to absorb scientific information. Not all theists are of the strict interpretation variety.
|
Again, they all believe in the existence of god.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
No, logic is connected with science. Common sense is how people come to the conclusion that rats come from oily rags. Common sense is what people who can't be bothered with the science use to make decisions.
|
I'm still not sure what you're talking about with the oily rag thing. Science replaced that idea (an idea that was not shared by most of the scientific community) a long time ago, as science is always growing and expanding. Maybe we should change out terminology to logic vs. faith.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
How is theism not an honest effort at answering the question "how does this work"? Perhaps in a few centuries science will have an answer and your ghost can ride around on a ghostly high horse and hand out "i told you so's" to all the theist ghosts you come across.
|
Theism is based on answers that are thousands of years old. The Bible cannot expand. The Qu'ran cannot suddenly have a chapter on quantum theorem. The ascertion that we may eventually find out ghosts are real is just like the idea of god: no evidence, no reason. When evidence is presented, tested, and proven, then we can talk. I'll have still been the reasonable one, though, having not jumped to wild conclusions. There is a marked difference between science fiction and science fact.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
It follows logically from the assumptions on which it is based.
|
That's not much of an answer. Want to try again?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
No, you can't. Do you honestly think that some scientist could hook you up to some machine, ask you about your family and then say conclusively that you love them? How exactly does this test work?
|
Do I have to post a link again? Yes, love can be proven because certain combinations of chemicals released during love can be measured. It's as easy as drawing blood and taking a peak. I'm not up to date on the latest biochemical research, but this knowledge is decades old. Love is a biochemical reaction that can be tested for.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
It is reason based on faith. I suspect the faith part is what you have the problem with.
|
Reason based on faith is like an office building built on clouds.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I don't know if we can trust the dictionary, after all, they think theists are agnostics and that agnostics are atheists or something.
|
Dodge that argument much? Comon. If you want to make this about semantics, then when I pull out the dictionary you shouldn't roll your eyes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
If you're trying to point out that reason and faith are opposites, well, maybe. It's a trivial observation. Just because two things could be considered opposites does not mean that they are opposed in any sort of meaningful sense. A stapler and staple remover are opposites in their functions, but to claim that the ability to use them both could only be the result of some sort of inner turmoil is ridiculous. The notion of faith and reason engaged in a death match over the future of the human race is perhaps somewhat understandable, but the general trend seems to be moving in the opposite direction.
|
Reason and faith being in opposition would be trivial if the two were able to stay in their respective corners. That's not the case, as I stated in my response to Shani. They are opposed in a meaningful sense in that it's reasonable to allow homosexuals to have civil marriage, but it's a matter of faith that god thinks it's wrong. As reason has started growing again with Buddhism, the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment, and the 19th, 20th and 21st century, religion often found itself at odds with progress. When I say religion, I of course am referring to the organizations of the faithful (so no distinction can really be made). When the church condemns teachings and writings by Copernicus, Democritus, Anaxagoras, Epicurus, the entire Alexandria Library, Giordano Bruno, Ludilio Vanini, Galileo, Voltaire, Diderot, Darwin...the list goes on and on. You cannot just throw these examples out. The church set back atomic theory by hundreds of years when they burned the works of Democritus, for example.