|
Question for atheists and agnostics
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 22 2017, 10:15 PM (1,792 Views)
|
|
Cal
|
May 12 2017, 04:56 PM
Post #31
|
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
- Posts:
- 5,259
- Group:
- Member
- Member
- #6,087
- Joined:
- April 25, 2011
- Gender
- Female
- Favourite Anime
- hentai
- What Browser do you use?
- hentaibrowser
- Favourite Manga
- hentai
|
- Yu Narukami
- May 12 2017, 03:48 PM
- Cal
- May 12 2017, 03:30 PM
- Yu Narukami
- May 12 2017, 09:17 AM
- Cal
- May 11 2017, 11:12 PM
- Tinny
- May 11 2017, 11:04 PM
- Quote:
-
However, one must weight personal experiences against scientific theory/laws.
I'm not sure I understand, what exactly do you mean by this specific statement? How does science go against personal experience?
I'll try to explain it better by proposing a question. If you have an experience that contradicts a scientific law or theory which do you side with? Which do you assume is 'true'?
The only issue is that humans are prone to false experiences. Hallucinations and illusions exist, and they can appear to contradict scientific laws and theories, but would you lend them any credence? Comparing scientific theories with personal experiences requires you to confidently, 100% believe that the experience happened in reality.
You're assuming the experience is false though, I'm not. If you have an experience that contradicts a scientific law and you naturally assume it was a false experience you are creating a fallacy. Your judgments based on your experience would be justified as not true by following the logic of the questioned method only, instead of logic itself from a raw form. The very thing that dictates the scientific method is the experiences/results we get during experimentation.
That's the thing, during experimentation. What kind of experience are you talking about? Presumably, if it's a religious one, it's some kind of intense, personal experience with a Deity, in which case you can't really experiment with that.
For the sake of the argument any experience. The base of this discussion gets back to whether or not an experience makes you challenge a scientific law or ignore it. Science itself would want you to challenge it based on it's own premise of being ever-evolving.
- Quote:
-
Which is the scientific method? What's specifically wrong with it then?
It's not that it is 'wrong'. It is simply that you cannot always use the same logic to disprove something that has already has been used to prove something.
- Quote:
-
Also math is entirely man made, at least at certain levels and regarding axioms.
You contradicted yourself. I'm not sure which thought you would like a rebuttal on?
- Quote:
-
Also regarding the while personal experience vs auteur, science is in done ways many people's experience and experiments to figure out and explaining phenomena, such as things falling downward.
I can't follow this. Your pc may have auto-corrected some grammar/words for you?
|
|
| |
|
* Yu Narukami
|
May 12 2017, 05:24 PM
Post #32
|
Izanagi!
- Posts:
- 12,330
- Group:
- Retired Staff
- Member
- #6,446
- Joined:
- July 3, 2011
- Gender
- Not Specified
- Country
- None
|
- Cal
- May 12 2017, 04:56 PM
- Yu Narukami
- May 12 2017, 03:48 PM
- Cal
- May 12 2017, 03:30 PM
- Yu Narukami
- May 12 2017, 09:17 AM
- Cal
- May 11 2017, 11:12 PM
- Tinny
- May 11 2017, 11:04 PM
- Quote:
-
However, one must weight personal experiences against scientific theory/laws.
I'm not sure I understand, what exactly do you mean by this specific statement? How does science go against personal experience?
I'll try to explain it better by proposing a question. If you have an experience that contradicts a scientific law or theory which do you side with? Which do you assume is 'true'?
The only issue is that humans are prone to false experiences. Hallucinations and illusions exist, and they can appear to contradict scientific laws and theories, but would you lend them any credence? Comparing scientific theories with personal experiences requires you to confidently, 100% believe that the experience happened in reality.
You're assuming the experience is false though, I'm not. If you have an experience that contradicts a scientific law and you naturally assume it was a false experience you are creating a fallacy. Your judgments based on your experience would be justified as not true by following the logic of the questioned method only, instead of logic itself from a raw form. The very thing that dictates the scientific method is the experiences/results we get during experimentation.
That's the thing, during experimentation. What kind of experience are you talking about? Presumably, if it's a religious one, it's some kind of intense, personal experience with a Deity, in which case you can't really experiment with that.
For the sake of the argument any experience. The base of this discussion gets back to whether or not an experience makes you challenge a scientific law or ignore it. Science itself would want you to challenge it based on it's own premise of being ever-evolving. - Quote:
-
Which is the scientific method? What's specifically wrong with it then?
It's not that it is 'wrong'. It is simply that you cannot always use the same logic to disprove something that has already has been used to prove something. - Quote:
-
Also math is entirely man made, at least at certain levels and regarding axioms.
You contradicted yourself. I'm not sure which thought you would like a rebuttal on? - Quote:
-
Also regarding the while personal experience vs auteur, science is in done ways many people's experience and experiments to figure out and explaining phenomena, such as things falling downward.
I can't follow this. Your pc may have auto-corrected some grammar/words for you?
Can you replicate that experience? Can you assess it in a scientific, realistic manner and get results from it? It's easy enough to say 'any kind of experience', but you have to be at least a little specific.
|
|
|
| |
|
Cal
|
May 12 2017, 05:40 PM
Post #33
|
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
- Posts:
- 5,259
- Group:
- Member
- Member
- #6,087
- Joined:
- April 25, 2011
- Gender
- Female
- Favourite Anime
- hentai
- What Browser do you use?
- hentaibrowser
- Favourite Manga
- hentai
|
- Quote:
-
Can you replicate that experience? Can you assess it in a scientific, realistic manner and get results from it? It's easy enough to say 'any kind of experience', but you have to be at least a little specific.
Again we are at the point of if using the scientific method is the best way to disprove something that has been proven by the same method.
I'm not sure whether to dive deeper in this topic or swim away. I've enjoyed the mental exercise either way though. I feel like making a topic on about whether math was a human creation or a discovery.
|
|
| |
|
Rockman
|
May 13 2017, 12:47 AM
Post #34
|
hoighty-toighty
- Posts:
- 11,070
- Group:
- Guardian
- Member
- #48
- Joined:
- December 17, 2004
- Gender
- Male
- Country
- United States
- What Browser do you use?
- Firefox, when it isn't crashing.
|
- Cal
- May 11 2017, 10:31 PM
It's dumb to say 'there is no God'.
When you do this the burden of proof for the existence or non-existence of God or a deity 100% lays with the person making the statement.
From a scientific standpoint the argument for or against a deity strongly supports non-existence. However, one must weight personal experiences against scientific theory/laws.
I personally believe in God. I used to not. In case anyone is wondering based on my answer..
Likewise it's dumb to say that your God is the one true God.
Just because you perceive a thing to be true, 7 billion other people perceive the exact same thing in a different manner. The God you believe in is not the same God that the majority of your Religion believes in. It's definitely not the God that other Religions believe in.
So who is right? The answer is that no one is. Therefore we rely on the scientific method to cure small pox. Saying that your personal experience trumps scientific method in such an example is what leads to outbreaks. "It is my personal experience that vaccinations cause autism because I saw something once (insert experience here)." Said the Anti-Vaxxer. And thus this happened. http://time.com/27308/4-diseases-making-a-comeback-thanks-to-anti-vaxxers/
This exact example can be used with Religion. For instance:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16763280
Missed you Cal. Tell your wife I said hello. 
|
JAke is a copyright of Spazo and Pickle Flavored Fudge Pops inc.
|
| |
|
Cal
|
May 13 2017, 01:49 PM
Post #35
|
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
- Posts:
- 5,259
- Group:
- Member
- Member
- #6,087
- Joined:
- April 25, 2011
- Gender
- Female
- Favourite Anime
- hentai
- What Browser do you use?
- hentaibrowser
- Favourite Manga
- hentai
|
- Rockman
- May 13 2017, 12:47 AM
- Cal
- May 11 2017, 10:31 PM
It's dumb to say 'there is no God'.
When you do this the burden of proof for the existence or non-existence of God or a deity 100% lays with the person making the statement.
From a scientific standpoint the argument for or against a deity strongly supports non-existence. However, one must weight personal experiences against scientific theory/laws.
I personally believe in God. I used to not. In case anyone is wondering based on my answer..
Likewise it's dumb to say that your God is the one true God. Just because you perceive a thing to be true, 7 billion other people perceive the exact same thing in a different manner. The God you believe in is not the same God that the majority of your Religion believes in. It's definitely not the God that other Religions believe in. So who is right? The answer is that no one is. Therefore we rely on the scientific method to cure small pox. Saying that your personal experience trumps scientific method in such an example is what leads to outbreaks. "It is my personal experience that vaccinations cause autism because I saw something once (insert experience here)." Said the Anti-Vaxxer. And thus this happened. http://time.com/27308/4-diseases-making-a-comeback-thanks-to-anti-vaxxers/This exact example can be used with Religion. For instance: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16763280Missed you Cal. Tell your wife I said hello.
Stop crushing my arguments and well thought out reasoning with proper debate tools accompanied with efficient examples. Damn.
--
I used to would have laughed at someone saying this (and I'm not saying it as a debating point) but I have found comfort and even guidance from my God who I see as 'the' God. Everything depicted in your argument is correct, Engineer. However, even if naivety clouds me I have to be honest and say that God is real. The same way I'm real. The same way my wife and family are real. Faith with spiritual reassurance can supersede anything I've ever experienced or learned.
Again, I'm sharing this to justify my own beliefs, not anyone else.
|
|
| |
|
Rockman
|
May 13 2017, 02:27 PM
Post #36
|
hoighty-toighty
- Posts:
- 11,070
- Group:
- Guardian
- Member
- #48
- Joined:
- December 17, 2004
- Gender
- Male
- Country
- United States
- What Browser do you use?
- Firefox, when it isn't crashing.
|
- Cal
- May 13 2017, 01:49 PM
- Rockman
- May 13 2017, 12:47 AM
- Cal
- May 11 2017, 10:31 PM
It's dumb to say 'there is no God'.
When you do this the burden of proof for the existence or non-existence of God or a deity 100% lays with the person making the statement.
From a scientific standpoint the argument for or against a deity strongly supports non-existence. However, one must weight personal experiences against scientific theory/laws.
I personally believe in God. I used to not. In case anyone is wondering based on my answer..
Likewise it's dumb to say that your God is the one true God. Just because you perceive a thing to be true, 7 billion other people perceive the exact same thing in a different manner. The God you believe in is not the same God that the majority of your Religion believes in. It's definitely not the God that other Religions believe in. So who is right? The answer is that no one is. Therefore we rely on the scientific method to cure small pox. Saying that your personal experience trumps scientific method in such an example is what leads to outbreaks. "It is my personal experience that vaccinations cause autism because I saw something once (insert experience here)." Said the Anti-Vaxxer. And thus this happened. http://time.com/27308/4-diseases-making-a-comeback-thanks-to-anti-vaxxers/This exact example can be used with Religion. For instance: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16763280Missed you Cal. Tell your wife I said hello.
Stop crushing my arguments and well thought out reasoning with proper debate tools accompanied with efficient examples. Damn. -- I used to would have laughed at someone saying this (and I'm not saying it as a debating point) but I have found comfort and even guidance from my God who I see as 'the' God. Everything depicted in your argument is correct, Engineer. However, even if naivety clouds me I have to be honest and say that God is real. The same way I'm real. The same way my wife and family are real. Faith with spiritual reassurance can supersede anything I've ever experienced or learned. Again, I'm sharing this to justify my own beliefs, not anyone else.
And that's your human right. All we can do is provide you the tools to make the decision for yourself. Simply making the decision, regardless of the choice, is important.
|
JAke is a copyright of Spazo and Pickle Flavored Fudge Pops inc.
|
| |
Doggo Champion 2k17
|
May 15 2017, 01:08 PM
Post #37
|
- Posts:
- 7,931
- Group:
- GTFO
- Member
- #6,380
- Joined:
- June 20, 2011
- Country
- United States
- Favourite Anime
- here comes
- What Browser do you use?
- o shit waddup!
- Favourite Manga
- dat boi
|
Atheists do not claim that there absolutely is no god. The general stance is that there is not enough proof to ascertain that a god exists.
Agnosticism simply means "without knowledge." It's a position for those that don't understand what the term atheism actually means. I'm not judging those who identify as agnostic; I simply disagree with their interpretation of the terms and always have.
|
|
|
| |
|
* Mitas
|
May 15 2017, 01:57 PM
Post #38
|
It truly was a Shawshank redemption
- Posts:
- 12,129
- Group:
- Retired Staff
- Member
- #2,993
- Joined:
- December 16, 2007
- Gender
- Male
- Favourite Anime
- DBZ
- What Browser do you use?
- Google Chrome
- Favourite Manga
- DBZ, Full Metal Alchemist
|
Although I lean towards there not being a God, I always identified as an agnostic because I simply don't care whether there is or isn't a god. I always felt like the term was a middle ground for those that didn't identify strongly either side of the argument.
|
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|
4:57 PM Jul 13