Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Without evidence? No. With evidence? Well let's see it.
|
Well, i'm pretty sure you can't prove that you love anyone, so you're wrong there. I'll refrain from calling you names, though.
Quote:
|
I'm saying that the more we learn, the less we don't know. Do you agree?
|
I agree. What i'm saying is that there will always be limits to what science can explain.
Quote:
|
Again, they all believe in the existence of god.
|
You seem to think that they're strict interpreters too?
Quote:
|
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.
|
The oily rag came up as an example of what happens when people use common sense instead of the scientific method. It was an example of how your assertion that common sense is good science is incorrect.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I wasn't really serious about the ghost thing.
So theism isn't an honest effort at explaining how things got to be the way that they are?
There is evidence, it just happens to be a couple thousand years old and a little too fantastic.
Quote:
|
That's not much of an answer. Want to try again?
|
Look it up. It fits the dictionary's definition. Perhaps popular culture has bastardized the definition of reason too?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Maybe you should post the link again, or maybe you should just post a the text in question in a quote box. I guess i missed the part of the article where it was mentioned that you could send in a blood sample and they could tell you who you are in love with. I was too busy taking the matchmaking quiz. Really, how does it work(not the biochemical processes, but the actual test)? How could they be so certain that you aren't thinking about someone else when they take the sample?
Quote:
|
Reason based on faith is like an office building built on clouds.
|
I know, seems like it has the potential to be the best of both worlds.
It seems to me that any exclusive commitment to reason is necessarily based on faith because it cannot be proven that an exclusive commitment to reason will make you better off in the long run than a commitment to faith and reason.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I didn't dodge it, don't be so dramatic. I addressed it right after i said what you're referring to here.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You know that there are churches who actually favor things like gay marriage, religious tolerance and inclusiveness and even evolution. You cannot just throw these examples out. You and dawkins have really missed the boat on this; the relationship between religion and science has been getting less and less adversarial for a long time.