You are not like me. I was simply pointing out to you that what you claim which is science is based on logiacl facts and is easier to believe, is simply ignorance on people's part about knowledge in general and more importantly about facts themselves. Then you say that you don't need to belief as a requirement for science, which I am trying to show you that is incorrect. You do have to believe that the logic is correct logic for anything. You cannot escape belief. The point that you still seem not to fully get is that faith is present in both science and religion. If you believe, for example, that there is no god, you have to have faith that the facts that you used to come to your conclusion are static and will not change. The stronger your convictions are equates to the stronger your faith is in those facts. If you then come back to me and say, well, I have no problem believing in god if god comes out of the sky and shows his face, which i hear a lot of people say, which tends to support the idea that seeing is believing. Fine. But all to often the seeing is believing gets attached to far flung theories such as the big bang and what not because of simply being attached to science. Believing that I am keying on a keyboard right now is not equatible to believing in the big bang. The keyboard is as close to an absolute as you can get whearas the big bang is about as far on the faith spetrum as you can get and might as well be a believ in god himself. Why, believe of the quality of knowledge to come up with such a theory is so volitale as to be soothsaying.
You chose Coldplay over the Astros. You've surely upset the baseball Gods. That'll be three Hail Caballos and a Pete Rosary for you, sir.
yeah, when i bought those tickets i was unaware that carpenter and oswalt would be squaring off against one another with the astros just 2 back of the redbirds for first place. but don't think for a second that i wasn't updating the Astros application on my blackberry every 15 seconds. it was my older son's first concert....we got in the car and he said: "first concert....astros beat the cardinals....greatest night ever!"
Awesome. You know tomorrow is Lil' Puma webkins night. With the knew "kids are free" offer at MM, that's a pretty good deal. Throw in Johan Santana getting knocked out early by the 'Stros and that's priceless. It's my birthday today and I can hardly contain the excitement. WOO HOO!!!
Thanks! You know we never went to lunch. We'll have to do that. I'll shoot you an email sometime soon.
There is so much wrong with this post that I'm not sure where to start, so I'll just say this: science does not rely on belief. The only thing that matters in science is whether or not a well-formed hypothesis is supported by observation. The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted not only due to the quantity of evidence supporting it, but the diversity of sources for that evidence. God fails as a scientific concept first and foremeost because it is invariably ill-defined.
Ok, this is riddled with merging belief and knowledge. Belief is not a preceptor to knowledge. I think you're completely spot on with is the atheists. They have the same belief resolve as someone who believes in God. To say they accept science more than religious people is a farse. First and foremost, science never accepts something into fact that has not been proven. The lack of God has not been proven, but they accept it as fact. Faith is NOT present in science, however, it is present in Philosophy. Why is string theory failing to get the physicists behind it? Because a great deal of it is based on belief. A PhD in physics once told me String theory is nothing more than a philosophy, if it actually explained something with math and physics then we'd call it a science (poorly paraphrasing Anthony Pittuco). There are a lot of things I know are true but I don't believe. Look at Ron Artest being a Laker, I know its true, I'm still in disbelief. Belief is not a preceptor for knowledge. However, knowledge is not a preceptor for belief. I believe God exists, but I don't know, therein lies my agnostic-ness. It's what I'd like to know, but never will. Why is it so hard for people to keep these two worlds separate?
Classical burden shifting. To prove something doesn't exist is almost impossible. Until it is proved, it cannot be accepted as fact. Of course, the evidences so far presented are not convincing.
Actually it's fallacy of ignorance. I agree, it's not fair, but at the same token, in science the burden of proof is on the people making the assertion. To make it fair, I'll strike up a deal: if you assert God does not exist, the burden of proof is on you. If I came out tomorrow and said gravity doesn't exist it is just an extension E&M, the burden is on me and it will be an uphill battle. The thing is, if you have a plethora of evidence, and say God doesn't exist, and that is your BELIEF, I'll leave you alone. If you say you KNOW God doesn't exist, I want you to show your work. The same goes for the opposite as well. If you say you KNOW God has spoken to you, I'll ask you if his voice sounds like James Earl Jones. I'll want a tape recording and a written transcript, plus, I'll want a picture of you and God hanging out, and on a piece of paper God has written on it "myspace.com/The_Real_God". See, it's now fair because the burden goes both ways when talking about fact. But, if it's belief, you're safe.
But now you're just being pedantic. If you assert that anyone who labels him/herself as an atheist believe that there is absolutely 100% no god then the word has lost it's utility. Do you believe purple prancing invisible unicorns are all around us? If not, can you prove for 100% certainty that there are not purple prancing invisible unicorns? I would call myself an atheist in that I think it is very unlikely there are purple prancing invisible unicorns all around us and I have seen no evidence for them. If you can't call yourself an atheist on this issue then there is no utility for the word itself.
That's the answer. You're a villain because our God (which you don't think exists) said you are. It's like Pete's Magic Dragon who only Pete can see calling you a d-bag. World population breakdown below. 75% of U.S. is Christian according to Wikipedia.
actually the Christian God is a spirit the spirit is a term used to describe the conscious state that includes will, imagination, perception, understanding, emotion, and intellect, it is the cognitive inner person that is separate from the physical body. the spirit functions even if limbs or organs are removed as long as life and consciousness remains physical laboratory methods are not suited or designed to detect the existence of the spirit since God is a spirit He would have to be known using methods that would effectively observe the human spirit also When arguing about God's existance be sure the evidence is being tracked using the correct methods. Most of the argument exists because people want to detect God using inappropriate means
Ok, belief and knowledge are not the same! I hate that they are being equivocated when they aren't equivocal. Do I believe there are Purple Unicorns dancing around? No. Of course not. Do I know there aren't Purple Unicorns dancing around? No, I do not. All I can say is that with a high probability I BELIEVE they do not exist. Do I have evidence to prove otherwise? No. Take physics for example. Unless clearly stated that something can't happen, it will happen at some point in time. There is no law in physics that says if I run as hard as I can at a wall I won't go through it leaving the wall completely in tact, like a Ghost. There are physicists who say it is a 1 and a billion billion chance of it happening. Science asserts that unless otherwise proven it can't happen, it can happen. It doesn't mean the probability is in your favor. I wouldn't hold my breath on having a ghost like jump through a wall. Knowledge is tricky. There is very very little we actually know. To know, in a philosophical sense is to rely on your empirical senses and come to a conclusion based on them alone. I know I woke up this morning, I know I watched TV, I know I turned in my homework, I believe God watches out for me. See it seems like all those things flow together, but they don't. I believe in God, but I still consider myself an agnostic. Literally translated, agnostic means without knowledge. Do I know God, heck no. I won't till I die, assuming I'm right in my belief.
Do you have any evidence that things like consciousness, emotion, etc. are seprate from the physical body? Because there is plenty of evidence that they emerge from purely physical processes. How does it function? How is the spirit's functioning distinguished from physical processes? Why are physical means inappropriate? What would an appropriate means look like? Has anybody ever produced verifiable evidence from such means?
(bolding mine) Just curious: why is the concept of god any less absurd than that of prancing purple unicorns?
Your point is much of philosophical debate. To me the key is whether you believe this world is designed by a super nature and it oversees us humans. I think we start out what we know and expand our knowledge from teachings of scientific methods. What I know is that right now there is no convincing evidence showing God exists. Do I assert it as absolute truth? No, because that is an assertion bigger than what human being can grasp at this point. There are just so many things we don't understand in the universe. Until it is proved true, I do not accept as fact. Whether you call this agnostic or atheist, to me it is not that important.
