DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 there should be a requirement, otherwise people could just believe anything....
Gene Frenkle Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 JOHN.......there is no "requirement" in religion of scientific evidence having to be present in any discussion. Thats one of the tenets of FAITH. ****, that is THE definition of faith...."beleiving somethging to be true without actual evidence of it being so. Yet you keep pounding your soft head on this half-assed assertion that one must REMOVE faith from religion for it to work. Could you please get a firm grasp...****...get ANY grasp on what faith !@#$ing even MEANS before you keep this nonseniscal pile of rubbish and schlock you THINK is a discussion going? Jesus !@#$ing Christmas. I'd say between the two of you, he has a better grasp on what faith really is, blasphemer!
Endzone Animal Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 The only difference I can come up with is that an empirically disprovable belief at least has the balls to make real concrete claims. An empirically unprovable belief is a much more common thing, devoid of any tangible value. Eating hot pockets will cure cancer. (we can fee hot pockets to cancer patients and see what happens) vs. There is an invisible, undetectable man in the sky watching over us all. (uhhhhh...nothing more to do here - make sure to fill the collection plate!) Or... Praying to God that your child survives surgery vs. Thinking about the evolution of the turnip while your child is in surgery (and secretly thinking the earth will have a better carbon rating if the kid dies!)
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 elaborate, im having a hard time following u. when something is unprovable then obviously we need to gather evidence or empiricism to make a choice on what is true... if something is disprovable then there is no reason to believe it. im equating that the malpractice ex and certain beliefs about god are under the same token of being unreasonable... they are both unjustified, they have no evidence. How do you gather empirical data on an unprovable???? You really, really are an idiot. i would appreciate if u could stop calling me names... i didnt do that , its immature. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop beign an idiot. Seriously...if you can't twig to the difference between "unprovable" and "disprovable", you're simply not equipped to participate in this discussion.
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 The only difference I can come up with is that an empirically disprovable belief at least has the balls to make real concrete claims. An empirically unprovable belief is a much more common thing, devoid of any tangible value. Eating hot pockets will cure cancer. (we can fee hot pockets to cancer patients and see what happens) vs. There is an invisible, undetectable man in the sky watching over us all. (uhhhhh...nothing more to do here - make sure to fill the collection plate!) Except that the value judgement in itself is empirically unprovable, hence "devoid of any tangible value". Hence, aside from being a really cool paradox, the value judgement itself is valueless by definition.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 elaborate, im having a hard time following u. when something is unprovable then obviously we need to gather evidence or empiricism to make a choice on what is true... if something is disprovable then there is no reason to believe it. im equating that the malpractice ex and certain beliefs about god are under the same token of being unreasonable... they are both unjustified, they have no evidence. The problem with your theory of evidence John is that their is no such thing as provable. It renders itself and infinite regression and therefore science is still unprovable... there is no such thing, so at some point you have to have faith in the unprovable to even exist or you are just in one helluv a case of denial... then in that case I suggest you find some good shrooms and come back and give us some more of your insight as to the provability of the scientific method.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Except that the value judgment in itself is empirically unprovable, hence "devoid of any tangible value". Hence, aside from being a really cool paradox, the value judgment itself is valueless by definition. DC Tom you must have had the same professor I had in college, but I am betting "John" still doesn't get that even he has to have faith in order to make the arguments he is making, whether he knows it or not, ironic isn't it.
Gene Frenkle Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Except that the value judgement in itself is empirically unprovable, hence "devoid of any tangible value". Hence, aside from being a really cool paradox, the value judgement itself is valueless by definition. Fair enough I guess, devoid of any physical relevance then. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Keep going, Tom....if you dare.......I cant take it anymore. No, you certainly can't!
Gene Frenkle Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 The problem with your theory of evidence John is that their is no such thing as provable. It renders itself and infinite regression and therefore science is still unprovable... there is no such thing, so at some point you have to have faith in the unprovable to even exist or you are just in one helluv a case of denial... then in that case I suggest you find some good shrooms and come back and give us some more of your insight as to the provability of the scientific method. Science is malleable. If something is accepted as science it means that to the best of our knowledge it is so. It must be repeatable by others and must stand up to continual scrutiny and testing. If it does so successfully it remains, if not it is either modified or abandoned in favor of a better theory. There is no need for suspension of disbelief. More confirmations lead to greater certainty, though one can never be certain of anything of course. Practicality one can be nearly 100% certain of many technically "unprovable" things. Religion is non-malleable for the most part. When something is discovered to challenge a religious belief, that belief is either re-interpreted or, as in the case of evolution, the science is attacked and challenged so that the religious belief may survive. Religion is stagnant because it it untestable and unbending.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Religion is non-malleable for the most part. When something is discovered to challenge a religious belief, that belief is either re-interpreted or, as in the case of evolution, the science is attacked and challenged so that the religious belief may survive. Religion is stagnant because it it untestable and unbending. See your definition of religion or belief I would argue is stagnant in it you imply that science and religion are mutually exclusive, I don't. I believe that science helps us better understand our creation and faith, despite the dogma and denial of some members of some religions. So don't lump all people of faith in with the rigid interpretation of creationism as espoused by the right wing knuckle draggers. And keep up the denial of your own faith in your scientific assumptions.
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 How do you gather empirical data on an unprovable???? You really, really are an idiot. by asking if there is any empirical data in the begining before something is either proven or disproven, which there wont be because it not proven, its faith...lol I'd appreciate it if you'd stop beign an idiot. Seriously...if you can't twig to the difference between "unprovable" and "disprovable", you're simply not equipped to participate in this discussion. again stop with the name calling. u dont sound smarter...
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 See your definition of religion or belief I would argue is stagnant in it you imply that science and religion are mutually exclusive, I don't. I believe that science helps us better understand our creation and faith, despite the dogma and denial of some members of some religions. So don't lump all people of faith in with the rigid interpretation of creationism as espoused by the right wing knuckle draggers. And keep up the denial of your own faith in your scientific assumptions. Personally, I consider science and religion to be mutually exclusive, on a basis of "that which is or can be empirically known is science, that which isn't or cannot is religion". I see no need, however, to consider them competetive. Quite the opposite, in fact...they're well-enough defined sets of knowledge that they should not be in conflict. Conflict only occurs where people try to make them overlap - evolution vs. creation, for example.
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 again stop with the name calling. u dont sound smarter... It's not name-calling, it's an observation. u [sic] actually are an idiot.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Science is malleable. If something is accepted as science it means that to the best of our knowledge it is so. It must be repeatable by others and must stand up to continual scrutiny and testing. If it does so successfully it remains, if not it is either modified or abandoned in favor of a better theory. There is no need for suspension of disbelief. More confirmations lead to greater certainty, though one can never be certain of anything of course. Practicality one can be nearly 100% certain of many technically "unprovable" things. The problem with your statement is that since science is a process of infinite regression and the length of that regression is unknowable and unprovable, you can not state with any certainty how far down the path you actually are and how much faith any one of your assumptions require. Therefore either according to your argument all knowledge is relative and unprovable or it cannot be fully known and therefore requires faith. Either way neither can explain your existence or for that matter mine... You could be just a pathetic recurring on-line narcissistic dream or just a way for me to waste time.
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 DC Tom you must have had the same professor I had in college, but I am betting "John" still doesn't get that even he has to have faith in order to make the arguments he is making, whether he knows it or not, ironic isn't it. when u say faith; are u talking about irrational belief or just day to day belief in having a positve attitude and yes gravity does exist... nothing is certain but the difference between the two is religious faith is irrational while other beliefs like gravity or evolution are (tested) and (proven through actual experience.) there is a difference. religion cant be tested, and is therefore is irrational to claim any empirical data on, like for example god hates homosexual behavior...this is a empirical claim of knowledge with no empircial data to support it. does anyone see a problem with this line of thinking....??????
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 there is belief with reasons and belief with no reasons, ie religion... that is the differnce in belief
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 The problem with your statement is that since science is a process of infinite regression and the length of that regression is unknowable and unprovable, Actually, the idea that science is an infinitely regressive process is an article of faith, as well. And not a very good one - I can think of some scientific theories that are exact and complete (QED, for one - accurate to well beyond what's even testable. Science is simply a method for creating descriptions of the observable world. Period.
Gene Frenkle Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Science is simply a method for creating descriptions of the observable world. Period. Science is more importantly a method for making accurate predictions about the observable world.
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 The problem with your statement is that since science is a process of infinite regression and the length of that regression is unknowable and unprovable, you can not state with any certainty how far down the path you actually are and how much faith any one of your assumptions require. Therefore either according to your argument all knowledge is relative and unprovable or it cannot be fully known and therefore requires faith. Either way neither can explain your existence or for that matter mine... You could be just a pathetic recurring on-line narcissistic dream or just a way for me to waste time. so how does this give us a reason to believe religion? science is in the ball game of saying i dont know and trying to evaulate things in reality, religion is in the game of saying god did this or god wants this....its the old god of the gaps argument. i have good reasons to believe gravity is real i dont have any reason to believe the spaghetti monster is real, not being able to disprove the spaghetti monster doesnt contribute to having a reason to believing it to be true. it just means there is no reason to believe it unitl evidence comes along for the spaghetti monster...lol
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 there are thousands of gods that i cant disprove their existence, does this give me a reason to believe they exist, of course not, this is why the onus is on the one making the claim not the one asking about the claim...
Recommended Posts