229Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThat is an absolutely extraordinary statement. Is mathematics another word for belief?Originally Posted by Stargate
That is an absolutely extraordinary statement. Is mathematics another word for belief?
Absolutely not. It's a calculation or a measurement.
Probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ok do you all believe in any other type of supernatural powers like do you all believe in spirits, Jinns etc ?
I’ve seen enough ghosts on youtube to convince me that they don’t exist.
Also, the supernatural term is nonsensical. If an apparently supernatural event occurs in nature then, it’s no longer supernatural, but a natural event that can be studied.
If that happens to me, the only thing going through my head will be, "Never eat the tuna sandwich at a gas station again..."
If you're on a diving board and you're blindfolded, do you jump head first into the pool simply because someone told you it is full of water? That is belief.
Belief is a fool's diving board.
Not even close.
How are any of those different than gods?
I'm keeping that.Belief is a fool's diving board.
If you can produce objective evidence that they are part of reality then I would consider it. (But, of course, they would no longer be supernatural.)
If they are not part of reality, then I'm not sure what basis you can have to say they exist (except as mental models).
And if they don't exist, why would you believe in them?
No one is walking down the street and saying out of the blue, "hey maybe there are magical beings living in oil lamps and able to grant not 2 but 3 wishes"ok do you all believe in any other type of supernatural powers like do you all believe in spirits, Jinns etc ?
The supernatural is mostly a question of fiction(stories, fables, superstitions,misunderstanding), which particular set fiction mostly depends on culture. This fiction in turn is a frame of reference for people to interpret what they see around them, which feeds the stories. Simple observation should be enough to realize that all religions are BS, it is man made fiction. I dont believe in ghosts, but I like ghost stories, I like the mythology and the narrative it can bring to works of fiction.
Do you believe in Harry Potter and Dr Who?
No. But ...Do you believe in Harry Potter and Dr Who?
... I dearly want a Tardis and a game of Quidditch.
Chances are the Doctor has a quidditch arena in his Tardis.
And the swimming pool is full of ignorance.
About the OP question.
As others have stated, what would qualify as a "sign from god" that could not be explained away through other means such as superior extraterrestrial race.
An elephant disappearing right before my eyes? Would that count? How about a woman getting sawed in half then reappearing as whole? if so, I know of several magicians whom qualify as "gods" Lets go more biblical, how about water being turned into wine? Have seen illusionists do that as well. Its nothing special. Makes me think jesus was nothing but a very clever and convincing magician & conman. One person says miracles, the other says mirrors.
So, what would qualify as a sign from god, How would you go about proving that it did indeed come from god and not another source, Even if you could find no explanation as to how said miracle occurred that still does not automatically correlate to "god did it" At best, all it means is "we do not know" and thus, further exploring must be done. Much like how the big bang happen, science doesn't say "we dont know, thus god did it" we simply say "we do not know" and keep searching for the answer.
So, firstly determining such a miracle was from god would be necessary.
Secondly I would ask, is this sign to be presented to just me personally. Or the world as a whole? If its just me, It would not matter. People would think i am delusional (which if i am seeing bullshit & thinking its legit, I probably am) If it is presented to the entire planet then It becomes more convincing but it is still difficult to prove it was from god.
Others have mentioned "what god is it from" I really dont care, I would prefer that such a god takes credit. If zeus decided to send down a miracle It would be helpful so that everyone could stop worshiping their false gods & fall in line with zeus.
Lastly, if there was a sign from god. I would like it to be world peace, end to hunger/poverty/disease/ect. Space travel would be nice too...magically, in the blink of the eye. Would it convince me? Eh, dunno. It would certainly place more possibility than the current non-existence of a god. Scientific inquiry would be necessary, but it would open the possibility of the supernatural.
What I see here is a lot of word jumping, I want to get to the heart of the matter but it seems we may have to begin to define what we interpret things to be. I am willing to meet half way since I am not a scientist in your terms, and only know so much in the scientific language.No one says we have to know everything, in fact there are really good physical and statistically reasons why many things will remain unknowable. It's not really part of this discussion. Belief is seldom a jumping pad to knowledge...if anything it's most often the opposite.
Huh?How do you get rid of anything once there is the opposite?
Not at all. Belief implies (at least how religious has monopolized the term) that empirical verifiable evidence isn't required. Probability doesn't lead to belief...it leads to likelihood of conclusions based on physical evidence or if it's a process in question until a better fitting hypothesis comes along.Science uses the term probabilities, is it not a another word for belief?
I am not sure if we can just change the objective of the thread and go off into defining belief. maybe we should open a thread to discuss this.
No, what you're seeing is YOU being asked about the nonsense that you post.
You're not a scientist. In ANY terms.I am willing to meet half way since I am not a scientist in your terms
Do you know of a better term to describe those things at present unapproachable by science?I’ve seen enough ghosts on youtube to convince me that they don’t exist.
Also, the supernatural term is nonsensical. If an apparently supernatural event occurs in nature then, it’s no longer supernatural, but a natural event that can be studied.
Of course, if they are in fact real, then it stands to reason that at some future time they will be approachable by science, but unfortunately that time is not yet.
A thing can be proven to exist beyond reasonable doubt and still be impossible to study using available tools. The interior of black holes, for example.If you can produce objective evidence that they are part of reality then I would consider it. (But, of course, they would no longer be supernatural.)
If they are not part of reality, then I'm not sure what basis you can have to say they exist (except as mental models).
And if they don't exist, why would you believe in them?
Yeah. I'm convinced of it, or at least some form of it.
How exactly it works is not something I could easily specify. So I couldn't say if any particular mythology is true like spirits or Jinns.
None! No! Nothing! It is infantile to do so.
Except that mathematics can "study" them...
No, of course not.
I am an atheist. I have no belief in anything supernatural, be it spirits, jinns, elves, fairies or gods.
Your original question was would an atheist believe in god if god really sent them a sign. The debate then became what qualifies as a sign, and how are we to know that the sign was actually from god, the alleged creator of the universe, rather than from some other source (super high tech aliens pretending to be god in order to play a cosmic joke on us, Derren Brown playing with our minds and secretly filming us for his next TV special, hallucinations, madness, etc).
Here is what I would not consider as evidence for god:
Me wishing for a sign and then going to sleep and then waking up on the other side of the world, or with a souvenir from another country
The hypnotist/trickster/showman Derren Brown actually did something similar to this to someone, apparently without their knowledge, for his TV show "Trick of Treat"... or DID he?
The point I am making is that even a seemingly quite extraordinary event might have a non-god explanation.
Here is what I would consider as evidence for god:
The creator of the universe actually coming before me, and showing me his works. The creator and destroyer of worlds actually showing me the act of creating or destroying worlds. The creator of life actually taking me around the universe he created and showing me either examples of the other life he has created in the universe, or alternatively somehow showing me that the rest of the universe is empty of life and we are his special project. And then he would have to somehow prove to me that I wasn't suffering from some sort of psychosis (which I might well be, after a journey like that!). Or prove that he wasn't a super advanced alien posing as god and coming before the world in order to dupe or exploit us in some way (aliens move in mysterious ways, after all).
For the scenario to prove the existence of god to me, and thus make me believe in god, it has to be beyond all doubt that I have actual evidence for god, not some other phenomena.
In fact, I think the only thing that might actually convince me were if he were to totally destroy the universe! And even then I'm not sure I would be totally convinced.
I suddenly have this image of God locked up in a secure hospital, hanging on to the bars and yelling, "But I am God."
Personal experience can be a rational reason to accept a truth. I'm talking in generalities here, forget the OPs premise for a minute. If I saw an insect get eaten by a fish, then that snake jumped back into the sea, I would have zero evidence but also zero reason to believe it didn't happen. If anyone says, 'that's different, that fits into what we know about fish.' You aren't hearing what aim saying. I'm not comparing it to any other instance. What I am saying is that personal experience can be a valid reason to accept something. In more bizarre instances, personal experience is something you shouldn't just ignore. Even if you shouldn't trust your senses implicitly.
Except that mathematics can "study" them...
Religions often have logical frameworks which you can use to study their concept of a god.
As I see it, all logic is equivalent. Numbers, "ones" and "zeros", boolean operators,.... you name it. Everything that happens in a human mind is reducible to an equation. Math just has the advantage that the reduction has already been made when you start.
Why would any of that be convincing to you? You're essentially saying you want him to show you a bunch of stuff, tell you he's the creator of it, and then make you believe he's not lying or using illusions.
Here is what I would consider as evidence for god:
The creator of the universe actually coming before me, and showing me his works. The creator and destroyer of worlds actually showing me the act of creating or destroying worlds. The creator of life actually taking me around the universe he created and showing me either examples of the other life he has created in the universe, or alternatively somehow showing me that the rest of the universe is empty of life and we are his special project. And then he would have to somehow prove to me that I wasn't suffering from some sort of psychosis (which I might well be, after a journey like that!). Or prove that he wasn't a super advanced alien posing as god and coming before the world in order to dupe or exploit us in some way (aliens move in mysterious ways, after all).
For the scenario to prove the existence of god to me, and thus make me believe in god, it has to be beyond all doubt that I have actual evidence for god, not some other phenomena.
In fact, I think the only thing that might actually convince me were if he were to totally destroy the universe! And even then I'm not sure I would be totally convinced.
Why not just skip to the last step, then? Just have him tell you and make you believe he isn't lying?
The last step is where most theists start. They get some kind of really strong feeling they're not being lied to. Reliance upon emotion isn't exactly scientific, but if it's the best tool available, then using the best tool available is the closest approximation to a scientific approach. Admittedly not very close, but closer than the next most scientific option.
And of course I disagree with their conclusion. I don't think the universe has a creator. I can't disagree with their methods, though, because I am unable to propose a better one. And I consider ability to propose a better mechanism to be the only valid basis to criticize theirs.
Yeah, if you call an untestable a priori assumption - with no application - a "logical framework".
Really?Everything that happens in a human mind is reducible to an equation.
I mean, really?
Get in touch with neurologists and social scientists. NOW! They're waiting to hear from you.
From a materialistic standpoint, you could argue everything that happens anywhere is an equation. It may not be totally predictable because of uncertainty, but it could be reduced to probabilities. That may not be what he means, though.Yeah, if you call an untestable a priori assumption - with no application - a "logical framework".Really?I mean, really?Get in touch with neurologists and social scientists. NOW! They're waiting to hear from you.Everything that happens in a human mind is reducible to an equation.
My trivial (and a bit light hearted) view about belief is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZjZI6eGtcM
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; April 15th, 2014 at 01:00 AM.
Math and and other forms of deductive logic equally suffer from the problem that their conclusions are only as good as the assumptions they start with. If you use bad deductive logic, you'll end up with a conclusion that contains less truth value than the truth value contained in the assumptions you started with. If you use good deductive logic, your conclusions will conserve the truth value. But you can't arrive at more truth value than you start with.Yeah, if you call an untestable a priori assumption - with no application - a "logical framework".
The "logical framework" is what you build on top of your assumptions. It's possible to have a really great logical framework built on assumptions that are just plain silly.
The conclusions you arrive at using that framework will be just as silly as the as the assumptions, of course. But if you had used a bad framework, then your conclusions would be even more silly than your assumptions.
Inductive logic, on the other hand, is a different animal. But I don't think we're discussing inductive logic.
I'm pretty sure most of them agree with me.Really?Everything that happens in a human mind is reducible to an equation.
I mean, really?
Get in touch with neurologists and social scientists. NOW! They're waiting to hear from you.
Just because something is reducible to an equation doesn't mean it's going to be a simple equation.
If a seemingly giant god like hand came down from parted clouds and plonked a new species of giraffe into existence, then I could opt for a term like unexplained phenomenon had just occurred over a supernatural one. As a term, I do think the supernatural belongs only in fiction, where you have to suspend disbelief.Do you know of a better term to describe those things at present unapproachable by science?
Of course, if they are in fact real, then it stands to reason that at some future time they will be approachable by science, but unfortunately that time is not yet.
Case in point. Steve Martin looks for a sign
I'm pretty sure most of them agree with me.[/quote]
Maybe you meant "Will eventually be reducible to to an equation".
Because we're nowhere near that currently.
Since this was in regard toThe "logical framework" is what you build on top of your assumptions. It's possible to have a really great logical framework built on assumptions that are just plain silly.
The conclusions you arrive at using that framework will be just as silly as the as the assumptions, of course. But if you had used a bad framework, then your conclusions would be even more silly than your assumptions.
Then yeah, it's not much of a "study" is it?Religions often have logical frameworks which you can use to study their concept of a god.
I do not know why your point is not the center point of gravity since everything evolves around I. The individual experience is what makes up the total experience. We perceive life on an individual basis, and on a planetary basis, even on a universal basis.
Oh, Stargate is posting nonsense again.
There's a surprise.
If you mean everyone has their own personal flow/perception of time and vantage point in the universe, sure, okay. But that doesn't mean I am the center point of gravity or that I am at rest and everything else is in motion around me. I suppose I could say I am the center point for the personal universe I perceive, since the universe looks the same in all directions from where I stand so there's no other reference point I know of, but that doesn't mean celestial bodies orbit me. And I could just as easily say I perceive a universe with no center.I do not know why your point is not the center point of gravity since everything evolves around I. The individual experience is what makes up the total experience. We perceive life on an individual basis, and on a planetary basis, even on a universal basis.
I'm not sure what you mean with the gravity thing. Even though I can only directly observe the universe from my vantage point, I can observe through data that my gravitational force is very low.
What the huh?
Observation is only a small part of science. Eliminating personal bias comes from the peer review process and, prior to that, collaboration of scientists among differing fields.
You may not think celestial bodies are not orbiting you , but if you could see it from a planet point of view your are doing the same thing other bodies are doing to you. maybe you cannot see everything evolving around you but you cannot remove yourself from the center, or can you?If you mean everyone has their own personal flow/perception of time and vantage point in the universe, sure, okay. But that doesn't mean I am the center point of gravity or that I am at rest and everything else is in motion around me. I suppose I could say I am the center point for the personal universe I perceive, since the universe looks the same in all directions from where I stand so there's no other reference point I know of, but that doesn't mean celestial bodies orbit me. And I could just as easily say I perceive a universe with no center.I do not know why your point is not the center point of gravity since everything evolves around I. The individual experience is what makes up the total experience. We perceive life on an individual basis, and on a planetary basis, even on a universal basis.
I'm not sure what you mean with the gravity thing. Even though I can only directly observe the universe from my vantage point, I can observe through data that my gravitational force is very low.
Well that makes no sense.
Personally, I've never been a big fan of the moon.
I don't get it. Just because from the right vantage point it may look as though things are orbiting around me and I am the center of them, doesn't mean they actually are.You may not think celestial bodies are not orbiting you , but if you could see it from a planet point of view your are doing the same thing other bodies are doing to you. maybe you cannot see everything evolving around you but you cannot remove yourself from the center, or can you?If you mean everyone has their own personal flow/perception of time and vantage point in the universe, sure, okay. But that doesn't mean I am the center point of gravity or that I am at rest and everything else is in motion around me. I suppose I could say I am the center point for the personal universe I perceive, since the universe looks the same in all directions from where I stand so there's no other reference point I know of, but that doesn't mean celestial bodies orbit me. And I could just as easily say I perceive a universe with no center.I do not know why your point is not the center point of gravity since everything evolves around I. The individual experience is what makes up the total experience. We perceive life on an individual basis, and on a planetary basis, even on a universal basis.
I'm not sure what you mean with the gravity thing. Even though I can only directly observe the universe from my vantage point, I can observe through data that my gravitational force is very low.
The word "relativity" comes to mind.
But it seems like he is making the jump from that to 'each person is the center of gravity in their perceived universe.' I admitted that you could say you are the center of your own universe since you are the observer. If you wanted to say that, whatever. But that doesn't mean you are actually the center of gravity and everything is orbiting you.
Last edited by SowZ37; April 15th, 2014 at 06:54 PM.
Oh, I wasn't agreeing with him. My point is that observation is relative to the observer. To be honest, I don't even have a clue what Stargatge is talking about most of the time.
Thanks all of you for your replies.Keep posting I will ask you about situation-2 in some time.
Maybe you cannot see yourself as the center point and everyone circling around you. Can you see yourself as moving on a constant cycle? All you do the whole of your life is circle around a point? We humans behave the same way our planet does, how could we not when we are made from the by the same laws that governs the planet. We are in ourselves like magnets attracting one another and influencing one another.But it seems like he is making the jump from that to 'each person is the center of gravity in their perceived universe.' I admitted that you could say you are the center of your own universe since you are the observer. If you wanted to say that, whatever. But that doesn't mean you are actually the center of gravity and everything is orbiting you.
No we don't.
What?how could we not when we are made from the by the same laws that governs the planet.
Well I did once know a guy who was nearly fat enough to have his own noticeable gravitational field, but, apart from him, your claim is nonsense.We are in ourselves like magnets attracting one another and influencing one another.
Any "attraction and influence" we have on each other is NOT due to the same laws that dictate "attraction and influence" between celestial bodies.
I agree somewhat, however, I think we use force more today that ever before. As I see it science is not the peoples science, it is a secret language that the majority of people do not understand. Using science in this way can become a tool for dictatorship and scientific genocide.
I suspect every single historian would disagree with you.
Anyone can study science. Scientific information is public. There are many writers, journalists and scientists who work to make it accessible to anyone who is interested.As I see it science is not the peoples science, it is a secret language that the majority of people do not understand.
I can't imagine how. (But as you are wrong, it is irrelevant.)Using science in this way can become a tool for dictatorship and scientific genocide.
I am not wrong, most people on the planet do not understand the scientific method and cannot follow it. Most times they just follow what is being told to them without understanding the basics of science. If this is not a peoples thing but only belonging to a chosen few, this could lead to scientific dictatorship and consequently genocide.I suspect every single historian would disagree with you.
Anyone can study science. Scientific information is public. There are many writers, journalists and scientists who work to make it accessible to anyone who is interested.As I see it science is not the peoples science, it is a secret language that the majority of people do not understand.
I can't imagine how. (But as you are wrong, it is irrelevant.)Using science in this way can become a tool for dictatorship and scientific genocide.
Just like how mathematics became a tool for dictatorship and mathematical genocide?
I knew it! Calculus and algebra are tools for oppression, but no one believed me!
Even if we accept this unsupported claim, it is their choice. Science hasn't imposed ignorance on them.
As anyone can choose to learn science (and there are many experts willing to help them) then it doesn't belong to the "chosen few". After all, the "chosen few" made the choice to learn, themselves. Nothing is stopping you, or anyone else, following them.If this is not a peoples thing but only belonging to a chosen few, this could lead to scientific dictatorship and consequently genocide.
I don't even know what "scientific dictatorship" means. Dictators are interested in personal power and wealth, not science.
Hence the concept of education.
But you are. Again.
See comment below.most people on the planet do not understand the scientific method and cannot follow it.
Arrant nonsense.Most times they just follow what is being told to them without understanding the basics of science. If this is not a peoples thing but only belonging to a chosen few
Science does NOT "belong to a chosen few".
People who don't know science don't know because they personally have decided they're more interested in something else.
Science is open to anyone.
You might well argue that swimming is only "for the chosen few" on the logic you're using.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 16th, 2014 at 11:12 AM.
Because I'm not and everything doesn't.
I see myself living within many different cycles.
I do? What point is that?
Do what now?
What?! To be involved in the sciences you don't have to know a secret handshake. We're not the Freemasons. I got involved by first being interested and then pursuing academics in science. That's it. Everything about science is out there in the open for the public to examine freely.
What I have seen you complain about most often is that your particular brand of pseudo-science is not accepted as mainstream. That is a much different issue.
It does not have to be, yet it can become just that.Just like how mathematics became a tool for dictatorship and mathematical genocide?
I knew it! Calculus and algebra are tools for oppression, but no one believed me!
I think what you are not understanding is the fact that when you think with people in mind the outcome is quite different than when you think with a chosen few in mind. The atomic weapon was thought of with people in mind, so it can take out as many as it was designed for.Even if we accept this unsupported claim, it is their choice. Science hasn't imposed ignorance on them.
As anyone can choose to learn science (and there are many experts willing to help them) then it doesn't belong to the "chosen few". After all, the "chosen few" made the choice to learn, themselves. Nothing is stopping you, or anyone else, following them.If this is not a peoples thing but only belonging to a chosen few, this could lead to scientific dictatorship and consequently genocide.
I don't even know what "scientific dictatorship" means. Dictators are interested in personal power and wealth, not science.
The tools dictators mainly turn to is the tools that the masses do not understand. I do not hope for a minute that you think science as we now know it could not turn on you as we already surmise it could be doing.
Science has no will. Science has no inherent good/evil quality. Nuclear fission, for instance, is not evil. Using it to incinerate people could be judged that way if one so chose.
I don't like that you personify science.
The 'chosen few' chose themselves, by getting an education.
You could try that, but I'm not sure it would work for you.
I don't think you know what science is, or how it works. (I sometimes wonder if you know what thought is.)
In the case of science, the mass can learn to understand it.The tools dictators mainly turn to is the tools that the masses do not understand.
Please explain your assertion that scientific knowledge is restricted to the "chosen few". If you cannot justify this, then please admit you are mistaken (or lying).
Who is the "we" that surmise this? On what basis do you reach that conclusion? Which scientists do you think are conspiring against you? What harm is being done to you? Are scientists injecting these irrational thoughts into your brain?I do not hope for a minute that you think science as we now know it could not turn on you as we already surmise it could be doing.
QFFR pending a possible psychiatric assessment on your sanity.It does not have to be, yet it can become just that.Just like how mathematics became a tool for dictatorship and mathematical genocide?
I knew it! Calculus and algebra are tools for oppression, but no one believed me!
You might as well claim that carpentry is a weapon of mass destruction. Or that clowns are plotting to take over the world.It does not have to be, yet it can become just that.I knew it! Calculus and algebra are tools for oppression, but no one believed me!
(Actually, looking at some of the things going on, that last one might be true.)
Most of the population is math illiterate. Not entirely by choice, and not entirely by design, and not entirely by any failure of the educational system. But instead by genetics. The ability to be good at math is an inborn genetic trait, just as athletic ability is inborn.In the case of science, the mass can learn to understand it.
Please explain your assertion that scientific knowledge is restricted to the "chosen few". If you cannot justify this, then please admit you are mistaken (or lying).
You can cultivate it to a degree, and improve on what you start with, but just as there are very few people who could ever be Shaquille O'Neil, there are very few people who could ever become Niels Bohr or Albert Einstein.
Growing up in a religious community I have met quite a lot of dumb people, and I've seen how hard they worked at it. I've also won math contests myself while getting an F in my actual math courses (due to failure to do my homework.) I'm quite certain my advantage over those other kids was 100% genetic and had absolutely nothing at all to do with my work ethic. And as arrogant as what I just said sounds...... the knowledge that I didn't work to achieve it has always humbled me a little bit, since it means I know I don't deserve it. If I had earned it, I would feel a bit more entitled to my victories.
Do you have a reference for that? I haven't heard that before. I'm sure there is a genetic component (there is in most things) but you make it sound like it is purely genetically determined.
But even if it were, I still don't see how a dictatorship is going to oppress their citizens with differential equations. Especially when the traditional methods of secret police, torture, propaganda, etc. are so well established (and, from their point of view, so much more fun).
There is an equivalent thread on another forum about "proof of UFOs". That has been going on for nearly a year with no agreement of what would be convincing. SO I guess this one is doomed to run and run, as well.
So what?
"Not good at maths" != "maths illiterate".
Friends Really thank you for your posts .But I think the thread is going in a different direction from where it is supposed to.I don't understand what you all people are talking about Mathis,relativity etc.Please be on the topic.I am going to start a new thread about topic related to atheism.Please help me as you did this time.Thanks a lot.
Well, I'm an atheist but science has nothing to do with it. I have faith that deities don't exist. Like, I'll stick to this position regardless of evidence, just as one might stick to any other promise or commitment, or delusion.
I'll second that. I don't see what science has to do with it. It is a matter of belief or faith.
There are religious and atheist scientists. There are religious people and atheists who know nothing of science.
I am researching religion with help of science and will believe only after enough research.
lol@youtube ghosts.I’ve seen enough ghosts on youtube to convince me that they don’t exist.
Also, the supernatural term is nonsensical. If an apparently supernatural event occurs in nature then, it’s no longer supernatural, but a natural event that can be studied.
Cool, don't go pinching other peoples ideas though eh?
That seems futile. Surely the whole point of religious faith is that it doesn't depend on science. That is why it is called "faith".
I never understood why people have been trying to prove the existence of their god(s) or the correctness of their religious doctrines for several centuries.
If you have faith, why do you need evidence for? If you have evidence, why do you need faith for? Those two concepts seem mutually exclusive.
I'd think it was useful to have both faith and evidence.That seems futile. Surely the whole point of religious faith is that it doesn't depend on science. That is why it is called "faith".
Useful how? If you are looking for scientific evidence to support your belief then your faith must be rather weak.
Well you tell me how or where you can get a strong faith then? Where does faith come from?Useful how? If you are looking for scientific evidence to support your belief then your faith must be rather weak.
I'm probably not the best person to ask. But there are quite a few people of faith on the forum. Maybe one of them can tell you. (I guess they will tell you it comes from their god, or maybe deep inside. But I'm guessing.)
Then you're in a bit of a pickle.
Science can tell you about religion (i.e. the practise itself) but it can't tell you anything about "god".
Science is highly unlikely to lead to belief.
Are you a scientist?Then you're in a bit of a pickel.
Science can tell you about religion (i.e. the practise itself) but it can't tell you anything about "god".
Science is highly unlikely to lead to belief.
No. He's a duck. I have heard that there will be a culling near his area soon. He may want to find pastures new.Are you a scientist?Then you're in a bit of a pickel.
Science can tell you about religion (i.e. the practise itself) but it can't tell you anything about "god".
Science is highly unlikely to lead to belief.
Aaand that's relevant how?
How is that relevant?Are you a scientist?Then you're in a bit of a pickel.
Science can tell you about religion (i.e. the practise itself) but it can't tell you anything about "god".
Science is highly unlikely to lead to belief.
A scientist, is in my opinion, likely to believe. I know Dywyddyr isn't a believer but he doesn't often express scientific facts, but more often just argues logic.How is that relevant?Are you a scientist?Then you're in a bit of a pickel.
Science can tell you about religion (i.e. the practise itself) but it can't tell you anything about "god".
Science is highly unlikely to lead to belief.
I think it would work for you if you removed the brain from your feet to your head. On the other hand, maybe you do not have A BRAIN IN YOUR FEET, that would be quite sad for your followers.
Interesting. Why do you think that?
I would have thought religious belief was independent of being a scientist or not.
But it seems we are both wrong:
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMany studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population.
It would be better for you if you supplied some support for your ridiculous claims.
What kind of scientist and why on Earth would we be more likely to believe in God than any other person?A scientist, is in my opinion, likely to believe. I know Dywyddyr isn't a believer but he doesn't often express scientific facts, but more often just argues logic.How is that relevant?Are you a scientist?Then you're in a bit of a pickel.Science can tell you about religion (i.e. the practise itself) but it can't tell you anything about "god".Science is highly unlikely to lead to belief.
Strange my man, you are very supportive of the helpless.It would be better for you if you supplied some support for your ridiculous claims.Why don't you let him answer for himself? I am hoping the brain in his feet is still giving him some sort of support.
I see Stargate has resorted to trolling when his nonsense is pointed out... Again...It would be better for you if you supplied some support for your ridiculous claims.
Not supported by the facts.
Why are so Many of Scientists Atheists? | POPSUGAR Social
Biological/Medical Field: 32% believe in "God", another 19% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 41% do not believe in either.
Chemistry: 41% believe in "God", another 14% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 39% do not believe in either.
Geoscience: 30% believe in "God", another 20% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 47% do not believe in either.
Physics/Astronomy: 29% believe in "God", another 14% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 46% do not believe in either.
(Mind you, this is for the US, I suspect that Europe would show a higher proportion to the right of that chart...)
Or even...
Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7% believed in God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts.
A) Then you should read more of my posts.I know Dywyddyr isn't a believer but he doesn't often express scientific facts, but more often just argues logic.
B) Because "scientific facts" are only a Google search away. I "argue logic" in an attempt to get people into thinking 1. Which just happens to be one of the foundational elements of science.
C) Like I, and Strange, said it's hardly relevant but, yes, by a number of criteria I am (or was) "a scientist".
1 Or dissuade them from not thinking.
I am trying to help you by pointing out that you have repeatedly claimed that science is some sort of weapon of repression, which is obviously not true.
Despite the obvious errors in your claim being pointed out, you simply repeat it.
So again, please admit you are wrong and stop repeating false claims.
I am trying to help you by pointing out that you have repeatedly claimed that science is some sort of weapon of repression, which is obviously not true.
Despite the obvious errors in your claim being pointed out, you simply repeat it.
So again, please admit you are wrong and stop repeating false claims.No Strange, not so at all, but let me explain it so you can understand what you fail to grasp. Science is dangerous when the masses do not understand how it works. In the final analysis dictators use the tools that people do not understand to cause pain and suffering depending on what they think is right. You keep making the mistake to think I do not have the right to say what I say. But I have also been on the planet much the same as you have, I have my story to tell regardless of how much you think you know. Please tell me that dictators do not operate the way I am saying, and that science can be a tool for war on the people if they do not understand it and can comprehend where its going.Does a piece of stone have memory? Does water have memory?
And let me point out some of your false claims, that there is no reason to accept because you provide no evidence. As you keep repeating them, despite them being untrue, you are now deliberately lying.
Evidence required that:Science is dangerous when the masses do not understand how it works.
(a) science is dangerous and
(b) it is more dangerous if some people choose not to understand it
Evidence required thatIn the final analysis dictators use the tools that people do not understand to cause pain and suffering depending on what they think is right.
(a) dictators use tools people do not understand (I am sure that dictators make sure that the people know very well that they are being watched and are likely to be tortued or killed).
(b) science can be used by dictators for this purpose
Wrong. You obviously have the right to say it (while the moderators allow it). However, this is a science forum and therefore obviously untrue statements will be challenged. If you cannot provide any evidence you should stop making false statements.You keep making the mistake to think I do not have the right to say what I say.
1. I have told you this repeatedly. You have chosen to ignore it, which is both dishonest and rude.Please tell me that dictators do not operate the way I am saying, and that science can be a tool for war on the people if they do not understand it and can comprehend where its going.
2. It is your claim, you need to support it. (Or withdraw it.)
As you are famous for talking nonsense and saying things that are clearly not true, I will not accept these claims of yours without ... wait for it ... evidence.
I cannot see how I should provide evidence when it is my opinion that science could be used to manipulate people, I did not say it is happening as yet. No one understood the consequences of the rockets Hitler used in the second world war, today we put atomic bombs on the rockets and fire them into peoples back yards, that is evidence enough, although I am sure you are going to reject it because that is your game.And let me point out some of your false claims, that there is no reason to accept because you provide no evidence. As you keep repeating them, despite them being untrue, you are now deliberately lying.
Evidence required that:Science is dangerous when the masses do not understand how it works.
(a) science is dangerous and
(b) it is more dangerous if some people choose not to understand it
Evidence required thatIn the final analysis dictators use the tools that people do not understand to cause pain and suffering depending on what they think is right.
(a) dictators use tools people do not understand (I am sure that dictators make sure that the people know very well that they are being watched and are likely to be tortued or killed).
(b) science can be used by dictators for this purpose
Wrong. You obviously have the right to say it (while the moderators allow it). However, this is a science forum and therefore obviously untrue statements will be challenged. If you cannot provide any evidence you should stop making false statements.You keep making the mistake to think I do not have the right to say what I say.
1. I have told you this repeatedly. You have chosen to ignore it, which is both dishonest and rude.Please tell me that dictators do not operate the way I am saying, and that science can be a tool for war on the people if they do not understand it and can comprehend where its going.
2. It is your claim, you need to support it. (Or withdraw it.)
As you are famous for talking nonsense and saying things that are clearly not true, I will not accept these claims of yours without ... wait for it ... evidence.
A) Balls.
B) If that were actually true then, in short, it's their own f*cking fault.
Pure drivel.
The reason they were used was because of the foreseen "consequences"
Then there is no reason for anyone to believe you. <shrug>
Also, you have failed to answer the point that science is open and available to anyone.
1. No one fires atomic bombs (into people's backyards or anywhere else).No one understood the consequences of the rockets Hitler used in the second world war, today we put atomic bombs on the rockets and fire them into peoples back yards, that is evidence enough, although I am sure you are going to reject it because that is your game.
2. That is nothing to do with science. It is politics (assisted by technology). As with most things, some scientists will think it is a good idea, some will think it is a bad idea and some will think it is very complicated. Science has no opinion.
Your educational level appears to be that of a high school dropout. Your knowledge of science is non-existent. Your reaction to science appears to be that of fear and intimidation. If you had stayed in school and paid attention to what you were being taught, instead of playing video games and watching TV, you too could be one of the 'chosen'.Strange my man, you are very supportive of the helpless.It would be better for you if you supplied some support for your ridiculous claims.
If you are what the classroom turned out I am glad I remained a dunce. I do not play games period. I do very well thank you, I have my own business, I have my own home, I also have a very creative family and I am filled, I do not ask anymore of life even if you think I was a drop out. I do not even have a TV, and thank you if you are a chosen one I am wondering who choose you? There was a deliberate mistake. You sound like a simpleton and every now and then Strange has to come and bail you out. You see at least Strange is clever and benevolent at the same time and you should be grateful you have him on your side.Your educational level appears to be that of a high school dropout. Your knowledge of science is non-existent. Your reaction to science appears to be that of fear and intimidation. If you had stayed in school and paid attention to what you were being taught, instead of playing video games and watching TV, you too could be one of the 'chosen'.Strange my man, you are very supportive of the helpless.It would be better for you if you supplied some support for your ridiculous claims.
If you're happy being stupid, you're going the right way.If you are what the classroom turned out I am glad I remained a dunce.
Oh noes.
Shoolyard fight!
Don't be so afraid, you should have realized by now that I am joining you in wearing the dunce cap.
No you know, The fights of the fools, we fight even when there is nothing to fight about. I do not want any simple fool to come and take my title away.
I would still say a scientist who believes is a lot more believable than a scientific atheist who says he doesn't.Interesting. Why do you think that?
I would have thought religious belief was independent of being a scientist or not.
But it seems we are both wrong:
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMany studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population.
| « Interesting musing by Einstein wrtiting to a young girl | Is religion dated a dinosaur of the past » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
