User Tag List

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 61

Thread: Science and Faith

  1. #31
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 62.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    24,023
    Thanks
    8,445
    Thanked: 23,107
    Rep Power
    21474866
    Quote Originally Posted by patrickt View Post
    Perhaps not, but they are.
    Nah. This just means you don't understand faith.

    You have faith every time you turn on the light switch. That's not science, it's faith.

    You should investigate the science of faith. You could begin for example, with the p300, which is a brainwave that accompanies surprising or nonsensical situations.

    For example, when someone is speaking to you, you have faith that they are trying to communicate something meaningful.

    But let's say you hear "I take my coffee with cream and dog".

    300 milliseconds after the word "dog", your brain will react. The reaction occurs because the word is nonsensical, in other words your "expectation" is being met with something completely different.

  2. #32
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 62.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    24,023
    Thanks
    8,445
    Thanked: 23,107
    Rep Power
    21474866
    Quote Originally Posted by patrickt View Post
    They pretty much do. A logical solution nullifies faith. Some Christian churches discourage even asking questions much less finding logical, reasonable, rational, and possibly correct solutions.
    Churches do that, not Jesus.

    Jesus was a scientist.

  3. #33
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 62.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    24,023
    Thanks
    8,445
    Thanked: 23,107
    Rep Power
    21474866
    Quote Originally Posted by Morning Star View Post
    Not true at all. Science makes no claim against a creator only that from what we have found a creator is not necessary.

    Faith and science are mutually exclusive ideologies. To believe in what has been proven is reasonable, to have faith in spite of what has been proven is not.
    Science is NOT an ideology, dammit.

    Science is something you DO, not something you believe.


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

    Swedgin (09-10-2019)

  5. #34
    VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Created Blog entry50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 38.0%

    S-N-A-F-U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    4,237
    Thanks
    2,007
    Thanked: 6,533
    Rep Power
    21474844
    The sovereign God of the universe is the "Alpha and the Omega" who created angel and man alike as a free moral agents with the ability to think for themselves. Following that, came science in diapers. <S>


    Last edited by S-N-A-F-U; 09-10-2019 at 06:14 AM.

  6. #35
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 6.0%

    CWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    537
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked: 364
    Rep Power
    3571423
    Quote Originally Posted by Morning Star View Post
    Not true at all. Science makes no claim against a creator only that from what we have found a creator is not necessary.

    Faith and science are mutually exclusive ideologies. To believe in what has been proven is reasonable, to have faith in spite of what has been proven is not.
    You apparently enjoy being wrong since you embrace it with such nonsensical gusto. Science is founded upon faith, the hope that all that there is can be explained by any means other than a Creator. You are an atheist because you choose to put your faith in science and hoping it will do just that.

    It is the object of religious faith that is repugnant to atheism. Not faith itself.

  7. #36
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 62.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    24,023
    Thanks
    8,445
    Thanked: 23,107
    Rep Power
    21474866
    Quote Originally Posted by CWF View Post
    You apparently enjoy being wrong since you embrace it with such nonsensical gusto. Science is founded upon faith, the hope that all that there is can be explained by any means other than a Creator. You are an atheist because you choose to put your faith in science and hoping it will do just that.

    It is the object of religious faith that is repugnant to atheism. Not faith itself.
    Again - AGAIN - science is not a belief system.

    If you choose to make it so, you are abusing it.

    And if you claim it "is" so, you are lying.

    However you are 100% correct on an important point: there are assumptions underlying the scientific method. One of them is the stability of natural laws. Scientists often designed experiments that depend on the results of previous experiments. We don't always replicate the previous experiment to make sure it's still so - often we just assume that it is.

    However in thousands of years of experience we have always discovered that natural laws are stable oh, that's why we usually "believe" that things will continue this way.

  8. #37
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 6.0%

    CWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    537
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked: 364
    Rep Power
    3571423
    Take that notion up with the heroes of physics, biology and science in general, that science is not based on belief. Scientific notables such as Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, Taner Edis, Victor Stenger, Steven Weinberg, Emile Zuckerkandl and Stephen Hawking all have taken a wide ranging attack on religious belief seeking to discredit it in exchange for accepting the notion that intellectually fulfilled atheism is spot on superior. All based on conjecture and hope.

    The objective is to prove God does not exist. And they have failed to do so. The moronic crutch? " you can' t prove a negative."

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to CWF For This Useful Post:

    Swedgin (09-10-2019)

  10. #38
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Overall activity: 29.0%

    Swedgin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    16,191
    Thanks
    8,197
    Thanked: 20,591
    Rep Power
    21474858
    Quote Originally Posted by Morning Star View Post
    Climate change has been a devastating blow to the credibility of real science.
    Well, they do sometimes use "Sciency" words.

    So, there is that......


    What gets me about this whole "Global Warming Debate," is that I have yet, to hear any REAL answers.

    When discussing it with a Global Warming Adherent, I often try to phrase the debate as "WHAT, can we do to help find new, and better energy sources?"

    The best I get is a regurgitation of talking points (and, quite often, a dumbfounded stare....)

    The reason for this is simple: They have absolutely NO idea on how to actually SOLVE this non-issue, without a massive redistribution of wealth.

    Hell, I bet the typical GWA would more likely, make the argument that GUN Control will help save the environment, rather than any practical discussion on "Green" energy sources.

    (And, "our side" is not much better as they often reject the entire concept of Solar power, outright.....)

    Lefties are thinking "What resources and rights can we take from others, to save the planet?" while I am thinking "What real policies could we put in place to help push the industrial and real market advancement of technologies, that may drastically reduce both the cost, and polluting effects of energy production?"

    There ARE things we can do, that will not empty our already empty Treasury....(OR tax/fee citizens into poverty....)
    Al Swearengen: What's your partner so mad about all the time?
    Sol Star: He's not mad.
    Al Swearengen: He's got a mean way of being happy.



  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Swedgin For This Useful Post:

    CWF (09-10-2019)

  12. #39
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 6.0%

    CWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    537
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked: 364
    Rep Power
    3571423
    Everything seems to hinge on politics, power, and the operators providing the funding in order to purchase policies favorable to them.

    Climate change is used as a political tool. Sure, it happens.

    But something else is a work. Every effect has cause that produced it. It is politically incorrect to investigate why a hurricane of such magnitude as Dorian would develop in spite of unfavorable conditions that it encountered day by day, become such a monster of death and destruction, and then sit on top of people for days. This was not natural at all.

  13. #40
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 62.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    24,023
    Thanks
    8,445
    Thanked: 23,107
    Rep Power
    21474866
    Quote Originally Posted by CWF View Post
    Take that notion up with the heroes of physics, biology and science in general, that science is not based on belief. Scientific notables such as Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, Taner Edis, Victor Stenger, Steven Weinberg, Emile Zuckerkandl and Stephen Hawking all have taken a wide ranging attack on religious belief seeking to discredit it in exchange for accepting the notion that intellectually fulfilled atheism is spot on superior. All based on conjecture and hope.

    The objective is to prove God does not exist. And they have failed to do so. The moronic crutch? " you can' t prove a negative."
    But these are just scientists with an opinion on religion, and their understanding of God happens to be very narrow.

    There are also plenty of scientists with an entirely different opinion on religion, and perhaps a deeper set of personal experiences.

    If you want to shut these clowns up, just ask them to define the words. If you ask one of these physicists with an opinion, to define the word God, I bet you it'll be 10 seconds from there to black holes. The whole point of spiritual existence is lost on these people, and I mean, ... hm... how can I say this -

    People who Venture opinions like this, have stopped asking questions. There is an arrogance involved, probably on both sides of the political back and forth - the people who state definitively there is no spiritual dimension, are being proven wrong even as we speak. Because their definition of the word spiritual is narrow. That and they don't know where to look, or what to look for.

    And also, the people who do have spiritual experience and "know" that God exists, often insist on "defining" God and assigning attributes to God (even reading God's mind from time to time), and all of this in my opinion is simply putting God in a box, trying to contain Him and control Him.

    The most important thing in my opinion is to keep asking questions, because if you truly have faith in the spiritual, then you must realize that it *REQUIRES* a physical basis. The mere fact that you can experience it is proof of this. Nothing happens in this world without a physical basis, and everything that happens has physical consequences.

    So, in my opinion, the most backward position that a religious person can take, is that these worlds are somehow separate.

    They can't be, they cannot be.

    They must be one and the same.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •