Is it just me or has this site become a Believer/Atheist warzone? (page 19)

Witness My Fury

Eh?

Just ribbin you mrhome, but seriously... eh?

LOL EdenOne

jgnat

mrhome, the CERN atom smasher is exploring the limits the other way. That, however, is not infinitely reducable.

So, who built the telescope and the atom smasher?

Fractal Broccoli

rawe

Hi Mrhhome,

"There exist a great deal which will never be explained by science given its finite nature. What are we supposed to do with it? Ignore it? Deny its existence?"

Science is rooted in materialism, the "I believe what I can measure" sort. You are very right, this does put limits on what we can know and discover. What is routinely done with the unknown is putting forward a hypothesis, then seeking ways to easily kill the hypothesis. The Higgs Boson had to wait in the hypothesis state for years until a big enough instrument could be built to directly test for its existence.

If of course a hypothesis is so unbounded to anything in nature it is not even possible to define how it could be killed off as wrong, then such ideas will need to live in the realm of philosophy.

Cheers,

-Randy

DJS

I don't really call it a war. Atheist has facts and science as weapons, albeit to support theories in some cases. Theists have imaginary friends and . . Theists have imaginary friends. That isn't really a war, and why I don't partiicipate. People are free to 'believe' anything they wish, but it is ridiculous to try to enter scientific/rational discussions with nothing other than one's 'belief.' They don't belong in such discussions but participants on this site routinely do so. Peace out (smart ass alert).

Band on the Run

I was dismayed to hear that members were recruited by PM. Simon can deal with it. It reminds me of the WT.

tec

Oh please, Band. Were you equally dismayed to have recieved invitations to other forums that you took part in? ( I won't list them) Or are you just being hypocritical here?

Peace,

tammy

mrhhome

We are in agreement rawe. What is the difference between philosophy and religion?

rawe

Hi Mrhhome,

"We are in agreement rawe. What is the difference between philosophy and religion?"

Philosophy is literally "love(philo) of wisdom(sophy)", whereas religion typically involves defined ritual connected to worship. In re-reading my post, I'm not sure if I should have used the word philosophy there. I was expanding on Cofty's "not even wrong" three-word post. A tentative hypothesis is a useful scientific tool, but only if it can be proved wrong. There must be some way to kill the hypothesis. Thus, you'll sometimes see the comment that an idea is "not even wrong" in the sense there is no way to kill the hypothesis. I'll let Cofty correct me here if he was thinking about something else.

Ideas about God often fall into the category of "not even wrong." For example, we can measure things like how many people believe in the God of the Bible. A simple well constructed survey could answer that question. But is there a way to answer the question of what sex is God? If we assume he is male, can we answer the question of does he have a penis and what is it used for? Attempts to answer such questions will wind up disconnected from anything measurable in the real world. If we hypothesize God has a penis and thus he is male, how exactly could we construct a test to show such is wrong -- i.e. kill the hypothesis?

In any regards, the study of the nature of knowledge, or philosophy, has many legitimate pursuits and I don't mean to say such is unscientific.

Cheers,

-Randy

FlyingHighNow

That isn't really a war

What is war, is the boasting, the nastiness, the name calling, the exchanges of mile long, bulleted tit for tat back and forths, from either side. It's childish. It adds nothing to the forum. Need every expression of belief or of non belief in any kind of topic or thread be met with nastiness from either or both factions? Example, on a thread discussing Evolution or the Big Bang, need fundamentalists pop up to argue whether God exists or not? Need they pop up to try to save everyone who does not hold their same views or beliefs? Second example: on a thread discussing the beauty and varities of trees, need every comment about Evolution or the wonders and genius of God be met with nastiness and name calling from anyone?

To me, to suggest that someone is not saved because of their disbelief, different belief, or condemned to hell for same reason, is unwise, ineffective and insulting. Equally ineffective, hurtful and insulting is to tell call someone's god The Flying Spaghetti Monster or to tell the person he or she is delusional and listening to voices in their heads that don't exist. Name calling doesn't help, nor does it convince the person that you are addressing, of your viewpoint. Name calling just makes the person the butt of your jokes and an object of laughter to you and others. Name calling can bring deep hurt and rifts that, otherwise, are so easily avoided.

The truth is, theists can't prove atheists wrong. Atheists cannot prove theists or diests wrong either. The battles might be deafened to a tiny roar if people would agree to disagree, in a respectful way.

mrhhome

FlyingHighNow,

I think that you put much more restrictions on the evangelist than the atheist.

If an evangelist states that they believe XYZ is required for salvation, it is not their fault if it hurts someones opinion. They are stating their belief. If you do not agree with their position, why do you care?

Calling someone names is just plain rude. I hold to my previous position. Over the years, I generally see atheist engaging in more name calling.

Is it just me or has this site become a Believer/Atheist warzone?

Share this