wtf. You b****ed about irrational numbers. not postulations regarding the afterlife. You're quite possibly the silliest person on this board. You try to act like some overbearing father figure 80% of the time. The other 20% you're just a run-of-the-mill attention w**** with a bad attitude. When called out on the absurdity of your stupid posts and hypocrisy you resort to acting like a spoiled teenager. You go from "faux maturity" to "childish b****ing" in about two posts when confronted on anything. It's bizarre. All the more so because you're really just an aging pseudo-hipster who should know better. It's like you've learned nothing your whole life, and try to make yourself feel better by acting like you know everything. Grow up.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I expressed my viewpoints on here. I expressed how science isn't infallible. This comes across to you as silly. I'm done with the personal insults. If you have a different viewpoint, that is fine, but you need to grow up, dude. It is my opinion. Nothing more.
You're moving the goalpost around a lot. First it was science = religion. Now its science = fallible. Your logic that just because science can't explain everything, therefor it shouldn't be trusted, is ridiculous. The whole point of science is that it CAN be wrong. And we keep searching, and evolving, and finding. THAT is why I trust science. Because it is a philosophy of discovery. Instead of religion, a philosophy of ignorance. If you're so anti-science, turn off your computer, go impound your car, and stop smoking those cigs, because guess what... science made those things. But I guess they can't be trusted.. wuh woh!
By complaining about irrational numbers? That is silly. End of story. Science is not infallible. Who ever said it was? The distinction as regards the topic of this thread is that science would never, ever claim to be infallible. Those "debunked theories" are just proof of that. They're not weaknesses or proverbial chinks in the armor - they're precisely the point of what science represents. Of course it ain't perfect: egos and bad data can subvert the process - but that process is the primary distinction. It has nothing to do with viewpoints. You said some silly things. You got called out for them (repeatedly) and acted like a martyr. Get a grip - b****ing about debunked science theories is not a viewpoint. It's a half-assed prognostication that this somehow indemnifies the religious from needing to "trust" the observations of science. It fails for the aforementioned rationale. It also fails because if one's faith is predicated on percieved failings in alternative ideologies, it really isn't "faith".
Donny, Wow if you believe in religion you are ignorant? So if we don't agree with your way of thinking we are ignorant? You are closed to all viewpoints other than your own and call anyone who doesn't agree with them ignorant. I am sure science, without a shadow of a doubt, has proven the theory of "if you don't agree with Donny you are ignorant". Who is really the ignorant one here?
Religion is a philosophy of ignorance because it does the exact opposite of discovery. It silences doubt, it discourages question, evidence is meaningless, experimentation and hypothesis are heresy. Religion is a philosophy of ignorance. If you believe that makes you ignorant as well, then that is a discussion you can have with yourself.
you may be focused upon abuses generally generalizations are too general doubt is useful to discovery questions encourage investigation evidence fuels continuance experimentation provides reference hypothesis leads to understanding all of these apply to both religion and science, but religion and science are 2 different disciplines with overlapping boundaries
You did not just describe religion. You described the antithesis of it. Science and religion are not in any way similar, both in theory and in application. Sorry.
"Philosophy of Ignorance" is kind of an oxymoron. If something is to be studied and researched even for the sake of perpetuating stagnant thinking, I don't think it can be labeled as pure ignorance. Philosophy is a quest for a higher knowledge.
I'm a doubter. I doubt all the time. That's why it's faith. Mother Theresa was a doubter. Her entire life was spent in service of God, nonetheless. There are countless verses in the Bible where God is questioned or doubted by the particular author writing. On the cross, Jesus asked, "Father, why have you foresaken me?" Science isn't seeking to answer questions that obviate my faith. I look at the Big Bang Theory, for instance, and see God in that. That's faith. The Bible is not a science book....but I find God in science books. There are those who have hard and fast beliefs who resist change in their belief systems for years and years...sometimes they change...sometimes they don't. That seems to me to be true of humans, whether they are believers, atheists or agnostics. But my faith isn't based in what is in or not in a fossil record or a cosmic explosion that happened eons ago....my faith is based on God in my life right now. It makes no difference to me whether we were created through this theory or that, except that I believe we're ultimately uncovering God's handiwork.
Or overcoming it! Beautiful. And this also shows quite nicely how science differs from religion. In science, theories are strengthened by percervering in the face of alternatives. Unlike science, religious metaphysics can't be falsified by emperical observation. This is why comments like Fatty's are so frustrating--they display a complete lack of understanding the methods of science. The falsification of scientific theories serves, rather than indicts, the scientific method.
What I love about how Maher presents his ideas in this film is all he's saying is he doesn't know. He's not trying to deride anyone's beliefs, but he just wants to know why people believe what they do and why, in large part, they make such drastic decisions on things based solely on "faith." Clearly, in the past we have seen Bill take the religion subject and just go nuts. But in this film, he's not so much trying to prove that the various faiths he addresses are wrong, but more that he just wants to find clarity on it. I thought the film was great, but that's me. I consider myself an agnostic, as well, who doesn't have the answers. As I live in Utah, I really wish Bill would have dealt a little bit more time with the LDS faith, because that's also a little bizarre. I cracked up, though, when they were escorted off the premises when he was talking in front of the temple.
As an agnostic that routinely prays, I've come to the conclusion that I don't have faith, but I do have hope.
I'm questioning what you're saying because it somewhat doesn't make sense. I understand you saying you pray although you're agnostic I get that. An agnotist simply beleives they just don't know. The thing I question is about you saying you have no faith. You really have to admit if you pray you have some faith that's the purpose of you praying. Maybe it's just a little but youhave some.
