|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Evidence and Faith" | |||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Sure, and there's a whole field of study called Cosmology devoted to learning how planets are created. If the supernatural was involved is not something that physical evidence can determine. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Of course, by your own admission, you "hate" studies, so I don't know why you would have a problem with a doctor who ignores them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No. No science starts with the conclusion. Ascientist wonders about something she sees in nature. Has a "Hmmmm, that's interesting", or "I wonder if X happens becasue of Y" moment, let's say. This is speculation. They come up with one or several testable explanations for that phenomena. This is hypothesis-forming. This process is most often informed by the science of the past which current research springs from. Then, the hypothesis is tested against evidence from nature to see how accurately the explanation reflects reality. It is after all this is done that that any conclusion can be reached about the validity of the initial hypothesis. Science progresses by letting the evidence lead it to conclusions. Science never starts with conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Except if we speak out even though we know it will offend someone, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
A scientist wonders about something she sees in nature. quote: No. It is a question, which might be phrased, "Gee, I wonder why X appears as it does?"
quote: What about it? Starting with a conclusion in forensics might be something like, "Even though we haven't examined any of the physical evidence in this murder scene, we have already decided that Billy Bob did it." What forensic science actually does is, "A murder took place. We are going to reconstruct what happened based upon the physical evidence at the scene so that we can possibly determine who did what."
quote: Egyptologists don't spend their lives trying to determine if the pyramids exist, rat. They make "retrodictions" about what they are likely to find, and those retrodictions are based upon evicence. Sometimes their retrodictions are shown to be accurate, sometimes not.
quote: No, cancer is a disease. It is that above observation that I already mentioned that a scientist would make. Someone a while back looked at a funny growth on a person or animal and said, "Hmm, that's strange. I wonder why those things occur?" The answer to "Why?" is the conclusion, rat, and that ALWAYS comes AFTER investigation, not before.
quote: See cancer explanation above.
quote: Except it doesn't meet the criteria for a scientific theory, either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I can't see any difference between those two things. If I say something knowing that it will offend someone, then I intended to offend them, didn't I?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
They are claiming that they do real science.
They are actually doing pseudoscience. Pretend science, in other words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yeah, it was hard for some of us to realize that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't really exist, but its all part of growing up to realize that there's no such thing as magic. I know that sounds harsh, but there it truly no difference between belief in Santa and belief in gods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
If not, what is the measure used to determine belief validity? Come let us reason together. quote: Then everyone should be Buddhist. Buddhists don't start wars, practice "live and let live" for the most part, and are the happiest people. Buddhists seem to bear the best fruit, overall. And they don't believe in God/gods at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I never said there was a perfect religion. You said that we might be able to determine which was the best one by seeing which one "bore the best fruit". Buddhism produces the most peaceful, happiest societies, so if you consider the most peace and the most happiness to be the best fruit, then Buddhism is the best religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Religions have individual adherents. There are something close to 400 million Buddhists worldwide. There are regions and nations which are predominantly Buddhist, so it is certainly possible to discover something about how Buddhists treat other people, how they feel about life, etc. We can do this for Muslim, Christian, and other regions and coutries, too. Buddhists are the most happy. They are also the most peaceful. They bear the best fruit, if you think peace and happiness are good fruits.
quote: "I hit you because I love you" is something many a battered woman and child has heard. I bring this up to point out that "loving others" is a wide-open action. Many people have been killed, tortured or imprisoned in the name of the Christian god, and those doing the killing, torturing, and imprisoning truly believed they were doing so out of love and a desire to save souls. So, to say "love others" isn't saying anything. Well, Buddhists don't "love God", because they don't believe a personal god exists. Yet, they report being the most happy and are the most non-violent people on Earth. Perhaps "loving god" isn't important.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
There are regions and nations which are predominantly Buddhist, so it is certainly possible to discover something about how Buddhists treat other people, how they feel about life, etc. We can do this for Muslim, Christian, and other regions and coutries, too. quote: No, not really. That is simply a meaningless, silly, useless reductionist argument and the only reason it is brought up is when the debater wants to avoid the debate. In some places, there are a lot of Buddhist temples, and have been for thousands of years. Lots and lots of local people are observed praying at those Buddhist temples, and have done for thousands of years. The majority of the people in those areas, if asked, say that they are Buddhist. It is not unreasonable to conclude, then, that many, if not most of the people in that area are Buddhist. [rant]Why the fuck are you making me jump through hoops to get you to accept this, rat, for fuck's sake?[/rant] Buddhists are the most happy. They are also the most peaceful. They bear the best fruit, if you think peace and happiness are good fruits. quote: Oh? Suddenly you have no opinion on if peace or happiness qualify as "good fruit"? Gimme a break, rat. Jesus is referred to as the "Prince of Peace", isn't he? Something tells me you just don't want to admit that another belief system other than your own is better at delivering what it promises. Tell me, rat, if peace and happiness are not "good fruits", then what are, according to you?
"I hit you because I love you" is something many a battered woman and child has heard. quote: LOL! How else am I supposed to measure any religion other than by what people do? That is exactly what "knowing them by their fruit" means, isn't it? "Their fruit" = "what they do".
[quote]But if there is a devil, he will attack what is most threatening to him.[/qs] Er, huh? Irrelevant to our discussion. We were talking about measuring beliefs by the quality of their "fruit".
So, to say "love others" isn't saying anything. quote: Again, irrelevant. We were talking about measuring belief systems by their "fruit".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Or, look at predominantly Buddhist areas of the world, and look at how much more peaceful and happy they are than people are in other places where a different religion has been practiced. I mean, the central theme of Buddhism is liberation from suffering. If it is OK to judge Mother Theresa by her fruits, why is it not OK to judge Buddhists as a group for their fruits?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
If it is OK to judge Mother Theresa by her fruits, why is it not OK to judge Buddhists as a group for their fruits? quote: All you've done in this thread is tell me that we can't judge groups of religious people by their "fruits". You've just contradicted yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: They didn't, though. The majority of voters in that election voted for him. Only 63 million people out of 300 million, actually. That's only 20% of the population or perhaps a little more since not everyone living here is able to vote. Hardly a majority. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024