Arena for the Competitive > Main Event Callouts
Sex on the Beach.
Frolic_Fun:
Everyone has an opinion, but I think what you mean are people who are too cowardly to express their opinions in order to be "nice" and boring. I don't really consider that neutral, just spineless.
eris:
exactly
people who say they have no opinion are just afraid to let it out.
but I do think there are a few people out there ( not saying on this board) that REALLY ARE THAT BORING and just dont even think of such things.
Semicolon:
--- Quote from: BULLSHIT! on December 17, 2010, 01:57:52 PM ---
--- Quote from: Semicolon on December 17, 2010, 12:10:56 AM ---When you say "atheist beliefs", I will assume that you are referring to scientific beliefs. (If by "atheism" you mean "positive atheism", you should know that there is an equal amount of rational evidence for and against the existence of God.)
--- End quote ---
No, science and atheism aren't synonymous. There is NOT an equal ammout of evidence for and against god. There's zero (good) evidence for god(s), and lots of good evidence against. Deism is the only plausable god claim, anf even it lacks positive evidence in its favor.
--- End quote ---
I invite you to prove that God does not exist.
--- Quote from: BULLSHIT! on December 17, 2010, 01:57:52 PM ---
--- Quote from: Semicolon ---The scientific method does not exist in a vacuum. All scientific principles and experiments are ultimately based on a set of axioms that science basically takes on faith. Without a few basic assumptions, science does not work. For example, it must be assumed that the world is measurable, that the scientist in question is not hallucinating all of existence, that a supernatural entity is not manipulating the results of experiments, etc. You may believe that these are "absurdities", in which case I invite you to prove them false. Your prejudices about what "makes sense" are irrelevant to science. There are many scientific discoveries that do not follow common sense but are nonetheless true. Who is to say that the axioms I mentioned are not also true, even though they defy common sense?
--- End quote ---
The assumptions of science and religion can't be given equal footing simply because they're both called "assumptions". The assumptions of science are considered valid because they are repeatable, and have predictive power. The assumptions of religion are inherently unprovable.
--- End quote ---
All of the assumptions I mentioned are inherently unprovable. In addition, I never mentioned the assumptions of religion as they compare to science; I stated that all science is based on "faith" (which is different from religion). You have misrepresented my argument and then argued against the misrepresentation.
--- Quote from: BULLSHIT! on December 17, 2010, 01:57:52 PM ---
--- Quote from: Semicolon ---Mathematicians is infamous for engaging in this sort of faith-based behavior. There was a logician named Kurt Gödel who proved that there is the possibility that mathematics is self-contradicting. If an inconsistency like this is ever discovered, the certainty of every mathematical theorem in history would (probably) be torn to shreds. There is no guarantee that it will not happen. In effect, mathematicians everywhere are engaging in a giant act of faith by staking their work on the belief that this will never happen.
--- End quote ---
So 2+2=4 is just an act of faith?? Perhaps you should try this attempt at muddying the waters with someone who's weak minded enough to accept this as a valid argument. ::)
--- End quote ---
You clearly do not understand this mathematical theorem. Yes, 2+2=4, but there is no way to know if, someday, someone will prove that 2+2=5. This is a gross simplification, but it cuts to the heart of the theorem. For someone who trumpets the superiority of science, you have a peculiar willingness to automatically disregard a proven mathematical theorem just because it doesn't fit your worldview.
--- Quote from: Semicolon ---Your prejudices about what "makes sense" are irrelevant to science. There are many scientific discoveries that do not follow common sense but are nonetheless true.
--- End quote ---
This is one of those discoveries.
--- Quote from: BULLSHIT! on December 17, 2010, 01:57:52 PM ---
--- Quote from: Semicolon ---We all choose the axioms that we use to make sense of the world. If someone decides to choose as an axiom "God exists", you have no business criticizing this decision unless you can rationally prove that the axiom is incorrect.
--- End quote ---
BULLSHIT! it is always incumbent on the person making a claim to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. It is not incumbent on me to disprove it. Religion has a burden of proof on it that it can't meet. That's all that I need to "disprove" it.
--- End quote ---
Of course not. That is ridiculous. It is certainly applicable to scientific discoveries and theories, but it does not automatically apply to the entire world. Hold on to that thought, though.
--- Quote from: BULLSHIT! on December 17, 2010, 01:57:52 PM ---
--- Quote from: Semicolon ---Your implication that faith is inherently wrong is misguided and does not do justice to a logical philosophy.
--- End quote ---
You got this one 180 deg backwards. Faith is the antithesis of logical philosophy. It holds as a virtue, the denial of reality.
--- End quote ---
I have already stated that all philosophy requires faith in order to exist. In addition, it is possible (and necessary for everyday life) to take things on faith that are, objectively speaking, true.
--- Quote from: BULLSHIT! on December 17, 2010, 01:57:52 PM ---
--- Quote from: Semicolon ---What a person chooses to accept on the basis of faith alone, in an area where only faith can provide answers, is that person's decision. You should not dismiss faith so lightly.
--- End quote ---
Faith can't provide the answers for anything. It only creates an illusion of answers by providing a made-up answer where none exist. To quote Jiddu Krishnamurti, "freedom from the desire for an answer is fundemental to the understanding of the issue".
--- End quote ---
Faith cannot provide the answers to you. There are a lot of questions that cannot be answered through science alone.
[*]Why are we here?
[*]Is there a higher power than man?
[*]Do humans have souls?
[*]What happens to souls after people die (if they do exist)?
If you believe that faith cannot provide the answers to these questions, I invite you to state your proof.
--- Quote from: BULLSHIT! ---BULLSHIT! it is always incumbent on the person making a claim to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. It is not incumbent on me to disprove it. Religion has a burden of proof on it that it can't meet. That's all that I need to "disprove" it.
--- End quote ---
BULLSHIT: You have made several claims in your argument. You have claimed to have (or know of) good evidence that God does not exist. You have essentially claimed that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is incorrect (although it isn't clear if you even understand what the theorem says). You have claimed that faith can never provide an answer for anything. By your own rule, you must give sufficient evidence to support your viewpoint; otherwise, I will simply "disprove" it because you didn't meet the burden of proof. I await your reply.
eris:
All philosophy does not require faith in order to exist. ::) In some philosophies existance doesnt exist.
first off
and
--- Quote ---Faith cannot provide the answers to you. There are a lot of questions that cannot be answered through science alone.
•Why are we here?
•Is there a higher power than man?
•Do humans have souls?
•What happens to souls after people die (if they do exist)?
If you believe that faith cannot provide the answers to these questions, I invite you to state your proof.
--- End quote ---
this is METAPHYSICS. Metaphysics does NOT require faith.
Semicolon:
--- Quote from: eris on December 17, 2010, 02:52:44 PM ---All philosophy does not require faith in order to exist. ::) In some philosophies existance doesnt exist.
--- End quote ---
I think, therefore, I am. If a person does not exist, then how can that person then consider the philosophy?
However, if you are referring to the null philosophy of "nothing exists", then the statement that "existence does not exist" requires faith to believe, especially because of the counterargument above.
--- Quote from: eris on December 17, 2010, 02:52:44 PM ---
--- Quote ---Faith cannot provide the answers to you. There are a lot of questions that cannot be answered through science alone.
•Why are we here?
•Is there a higher power than man?
•Do humans have souls?
•What happens to souls after people die (if they do exist)?
If you believe that faith cannot provide the answers to these questions, I invite you to state your proof.
--- End quote ---
this is METAPHYSICS. Metaphysics does NOT require faith.
--- End quote ---
I never said that metaphysics could not provide the answers to those questions. BULLSHIT claimed that faith could not provide the answer to any question, and I disagreed. My assertion is that faith can provide the answers to those questions.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version