It wouldn't solve the problem, for the reasons I specified above.
-
Hey Guest,
As you know, censorship around the world has been ramping up at an alarming pace. The UK and OFCOM has singled out this community and have been focusing its censorship efforts here. It takes a good amount of resources to maintain the infrastructure for our community and to resist this censorship. We would appreciate any and all donations.
Bitcoin Address (BTC): 39deg9i6Zp1GdrwyKkqZU6rAbsEspvLBJt
Ethereum (ETH): 0xd799aF8E2e5cEd14cdb344e6D6A9f18011B79BE9
Monero (XMR): 49tuJbzxwVPUhhDjzz6H222Kh8baKe6rDEsXgE617DVS
DD8UKNaXvKNU8dEVRTAFH9Av8gKkn4jDzVGF25snJgNfUfKKNC8
It wouldn't solve the problem, for the reasons I specified above.
Well I never really wanted to get into a debate, at the start I think I just wanted to offer the OP my perspective, I think... So I'll let you have the last word : D
Fylobatica
Inactive
- Apr 1, 2018
- 365
that'd be a problem for newborns who die as soon as they are brought into this world, or young children that lose their life in a random accident before figuring out they're ready to think about things in life.
to me as well the concept of meaning looks like a fabrication, a way to cope, something not so definitive, something we could actually dislike and throw into the waste bin.
Even scientists interpret things based on bias and personal beliefs. I find it weird how people think that doing experiments to validate our current theories is in any way a foil for what may be out their as some "god" etc. Some people are desperate not to learn and want to take a book's word for it and feel safe...some people want to learn and figure out how the physical world works but think that somehow invalidates the former's beliefs. Those Bible readin' folks may be right...just because we can't prove it in a lab doesn't make it untrue...they might also be wrong. In the end nobody knows and science is not the enemy of "god" as so many edgy teenage atheists act.
it'd also be a problem for all sentient life in general that is not human, and lacks the ability to think about abstract things.
hmm, the protocol adopted by a believer and a non-believer is quite different. Personal belief VS peer-review of their studies, to minimize the peril of personal bias.
I don't think you're entirely wrong, as theology is perhaps more subjective than discussions about scientific evidence, but I think Theologians correlate back and forth and do indeed engage in plenty of peer-review and constructive criticism with one another. Forget about people going to church and having bible studies, I'm talking about well versed theologians who have PHDs in their field.
You keep missing the point. Both dogmas think they are correct. Neither really knows with regard to the question at hand. Both are doing it for the same reasons in the end. But since you seem more science focused you seem to need to prove it superior and more correct. All science is is observation and testing. It's never complete but so many people act like if we can't observe and test it at our current level than that is proof it doesn't exist. We seem to forget the past and growth.
oh my. Science isn't a dogma. The search for the most objective explanations of reality is always refined and sustained by new findings, unlike religion and personal beliefs.
It's most certainly a dogma when used as so many use it...including most in these threads. Very few people treat it as a process and most treat it as some declaration of final truth. Science may discover god one day yet most who argue against anything else out there existing claim that "truth" because science hasn't found it. We are so ignorant but so many people need to feel so smart and they always pretend they are objective.
well, asking them for what kind of proof do they search for, since it's all about linguistic games and interpretation of inert books, would be hilarious
religion can't give any solid proof, because of its intrinsic nature. People just have to wish for what they think is correct
the point is suspension of beliefs until substantial proof has been reached.
since most people are childish and want everything to be the sweetest paradise ever, it would be quite difficult, though. That's all I have to say, it's a matter of personal growth and maturity.
I think you guys are talking about two different things. People who use science that they themselves don't fully understand to back up their claims are using it as a Dogma (forgive me if I'm fucking this up), but Scientists themselves engaging in scientific study and discussion aren't following a dogma. I think that's what Asthenia was trying to say.
Last edited:
So it gives you a sense of superiority and "maturity" to believe as you do...and those with faith are "chidlish" Ironic. I am agnostic but this is why I stopped reading atheist/agnostic forums. The arrogance and assumptions whilst behaving just like the religious people they bemoan.
Theology is basically just philosophy about God. Do you not believe in philosophy?
telling other people that "everything is going to be fine and we will meet again and indulge in endless discoveries and fun after our mortal life" looks to me quite childish. They have no proof of that, and it could be seen as immoral, it basically could be giving false hope.
All kinds of debates about religion are pointless. Want to know if there's a 'precious afterlife'? Then just wait for it. Don't brainwash others, I'd say to those people.
There are about 10.000 philosophical branches to pick off a favourite fruit, that wouldn't solve the problem
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Could you please rephrase or clarify?
Well we're obviously trying to satisfy or relieve ourselves of -something-, whether it be curiosity, fear, or something else. Even if we'll never find the answer, people will never stop thinking and talking about it. One thing you guys might find rather amusing is that around my second semester in college I decided to major in religious studies because I thought I might find "the answers to everything." How young and naive I was, haha...
I couldn't agree more. It's very tedious dealing with people who are utterly convinced of their beliefs yet rarely have any persuasive arguments to offer in the latter's favor. At least in the developed world, a good chunk of the clerisy has come to so strongly associate atheism and naturalism with intelligence and "mature" thinking that they're unable to even begin to seriously consider the possibility that their views are wrong. This is despite the fact that the average difference in IQ between atheists and religious persons is slight -- in fact, some religious groups, such as Episcopalians, are typically found to have higher average IQs than atheists.
That aside, I don't tend to hear or see anything from atheists anymore beyond the same old tired garbage that was recycled endlessly on YouTube in the mid- and late 2000s: argument from evil, no evidence, spaghetti monster, wishful thinking, etc. Almost no effort is made to account for sophisticated responses to these arguments from intelligent philosophers and scientists, except by certain atheist/agnostic academics. And yet, in my experience, just about every time an atheist/naturalist ends up "defending" his views online, you'll see the same outstandingly haughty, sanctimonious attitude toward anyone willing to question their positions at all. They saw a video of a bloviating hack like Christopher Hitchens "destroying" a silly creationist once, at which point it became clear to them that the path to an unshakeable sense of constant intellectual superiority is atheism.
It's a sad spectacle, especially given that those putting it on usually can't stop obsessively invoking "reason" and "logic" every other sentence.
Last edited:
weren't you the one that in a separate thread posted that there was "sure proof of the afterlife"?
I think that some people here are just trying to suggest to slow down when it comes to certain "extraordinary" assertions and wait until further understanding is achieved.
well, gravity (and most importantly its impact on other physical laws) looks quite a thing...
It's a tool scientists use, but it isn't an empirical discipline, so it's not a science. At minimum, there's a perfectly respectable case to be made for the view that mathematics shouldn't be classified as a science because it isn't empirical. It is more akin to areas of inquiry such as logic and certain branches of philosophy (some would subsume logic under philosophy) than it is to science.
So I stand by what I said: proofs are found in mathematics, not science.
Uhm... Mathematical constants (the speed of light in a vacuum, permittivity of free space, the Planck constant, etc.) resonate with science quite a lot.
Also, I wouldn't throw a "5 sigma confidence level" away in the dust bin to navigate in endless uncertainty, some data provide actual proof of what might be found beyond, it's impossible to ignore.
I'm not interested in another pointless back and forth with you, especially when it's about basic definitions that are quite uncontroversial. Perhaps this webpage will help you, though note that the author sees mathematics as an "abstract" (i.e. non-empirical) science. I'm fine with one speaking of abstract sciences if they wish, but as far as I and many others are concerned, there's no point calling a discipline a science if it isn't empirical. In any case, he makes the critical and uncontroversial point that proofs are exclusive to mathematics: https://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html.
If you think I'm objecting to the idea that scientists make use of mathematics, then you're misunderstanding my comments. If you think that determination of the speed of light was a mathematical as opposed to physical discovery, you have a very peculiar understanding of mathematics.
Last edited:
the author can think whatever he wants. Mathematical constants can be discovered in a scientific background, since mathematics is meant to represent the reality in which we live. Science and mathematics are intertwined.
We have proof of this each and every single day. Reality is a byproduct of laws that can be represented mathematically. It's a bijective function, to stay on topic.
