Agnosticism

[ozymandias]

Im sure they did



Atheists/Agnostics are the spoiled rich kids. (no diss intended). Until they get a gun pointed at them by all shorts of characters, they haven't seen anything.

And again, *many* atheists have had that. Atheists come from all walks of life. They are scientists, scholars, students, soldiers, cops, firemen, accountants, administrators, poor, rich, starving, well fed, mugged, muggers, you name it, there is probably an atheist that has done it.

For all I know Atheists= OWS crowd

OWS? What does that stand for?

[ozymandias]

^^^^

Take the mother nature challenge?

What's the mother nature challenge?

Until then you categorize in the Atheists side of the role-play.

I am an atheist, but the fictional parody you wrote does not reflect my views of the world, nor any atheist I have ever met.

Also, I have taken upper-level science courses. Their was a time when I was a science major. So, it's your turn Mary.

I doubt that. If you did, then it was not from a reputable source, since you cannot even accurately describe science, or the scientific viewpoint, let alone the atheist one.

[کیش]

^^^^

It seems Science is your religion..

Buddy, I have took Science courses in Stonybrook University, one of the top science universities in NY. Just cause I don't sweat Sciences balls don't mean I dont know it.


What's the mother nature challenge?

It's a retreat, to the forests, mountains and caves; By yourself. Are you up for it? Or are to scared. Take your favorite science for dummies book, and a copy of the scriptures for time-passers. After you complete your readings, mediate for a while on what you read.

Whatever conclusion you would come up after this, will get my topmost respect. Whatever you come up with.

[ozymandias]

^^^^

It seems Science is your religion..

Buddy, I have took Science courses in Stonybrook University, one of the top science universities in NY. Just cause I don't sweat Sciences balls don't mean I dont know it.


What's the mother nature challenge?

It's a retreat, to the forests, mountains and caves; By yourself. Are you up for it? Or are to scared. Take your favorite science for dummies book, and a copy of the scriptures for time-passers. After you complete your readings, mediate for a while on what you read.

Whatever conclusion you would come up after this, will get my topmost respect. Whatever you come up with.

Oh, I routinely go camping alone. My wife's work schedule makes it hard for her to come along. I've never taken a 'holy' book when I was alone. I usually am with others when I take the bible on a hike.

For the record, I *have* read the bible, multiple times, and it is not hard to see the flaws in it. I am still on my first read-through of the Koran (multiple parallel translations makes it slow going) and it's no better so far.

[کیش]

Oh, I routinely go camping alone. My wife's work schedule makes it hard for her to come along. I've never taken a 'holy' book when I was alone. I usually am with others when I take the bible on a hike.

For the record, I *have* read the bible, multiple times, and it is not hard to see the flaws in it. I am still on my first read-through of the Koran (multiple parallel translations makes it slow going) and it's no better so far.

You really need to go alone, to get the spiritual feeling. When you go with buddies, it's mostly a fun hiking hang out trip.


When your by yourself, its a whole different ball game.

[ozymandias]

You really need to go alone, to get the spiritual feeling. When you go with buddies, it's mostly a fun hiking hang out trip.


When your by yourself, its a whole different ball game.

That may be -- but that only explains the placebo effect of religion, and yet again does not show actual evidence. That 'feeling' is not proof, and is a measurable, scientifically explainable feeling -- and I doubt it would lead me to the same conclusions for me as it did you.

When I am in the wilds, I think how majestic they are. I think of how old they are, how amazing they are, and how much mankind needs to preserve them for future generations. I feel a desire to understand the massive forces needed to create them, and the vast time scale needed for them to form -- and I am amazed at all that science has revealed to us about how the world works.

In the woods alone, or at home in bed, the religious books still have the same logical flaws and inconsistencies.

[Asli]

Because that is the point of science. Reject that which is known to be untrue and replace it with something better, until something still better comes along.



Sadly, that's not true. If it were, all scientists would be religious.

Therefore, you can't rely on science for everything. It itself does not have the answers--it needs to falsify to be sure--there are other means to getting an answer much faster. For example, people don't need to have a DNA test to make sure that their father is their father, in most cases.

Science has many limitations. That said, it does not mean that I am against science.

Moreover, don't paint all scientists with one brush.

[faye]

Then they would be able to prove their faith scientifically. They can't, ergo it is blind faith.

i wasn't talking about faith, i was talking about knowing, which is an experience. rationality and science worship is also a limited belief, ergo faith.
can you prove scientifically, that scientific proof is the only valid way of knowing what is true?

[ozymandias]

Therefore, you can't rely on science for everything. It itself does not have the answers--it needs to falsify to be sure--there are other means to getting an answer much faster. For example, people don't need to have a DNA test to make sure that their father is their father, in most cases.

Indeed -- but if the DNA evidence, and the blood types did not match up, science can answer that question still. Science is very much about finding the best answer that fits all the facts.

Science has many limitations. That said, it does not mean that I am against science.

Moreover, don't paint all scientists with one brush.

Don't worry -- I'm not painting them with one brush. I'm simply making a point that many, if not all, scientists have questioned, and most answered the questions 'what are we doing here' -- it's not a new, or novel question, and their are many more answers than simply 'religion'.

[ozymandias]

i wasn't talking about faith, i was talking about knowing, which is an experience. rationality and science worship is also a limited belief, ergo faith.

What in the world is science worship? Is that like a Cargo Cult? I have never heard this term before.

can you prove scientifically, that scientific proof is the only valid way of knowing what is true?

Pretty much, yeah. Name one other possible way to know what is true without using science and logic. The only way humans have to validate these other claims is with science and logic. In fact, anything that goes against science and logic either causes new science to be created to better fit the facts, or disproves those claims.

[faye]

science worship is my categorisation of your attitude, lol. what, you gonna put our experiences, our knowing, under a microscope? good luck with that effort.
when you know, you know you know.

[ozymandias]

science worship is my categorisation of your attitude, lol.

Ah. It is miscategorizations such as that that erect unneeded road blocks into the conversation. There is nothing at all close to worship in what science minded people do.

what, you gonna put our experiences, our knowing, under a microscope? good luck with that effort.

Microscopes would be but one minor tool. Physiology and psychology are far more important to the physical side. These will use some microscopes, but more statistics and chemistry.

I'm not planning on doing any such analysis of your experiences -- with the exception of people that make the mistake to think that their subjective experience of something constitutes 'proof' of their belief. In that case, it's not so much analyzing them as informing them as to their mistake, and why their 'evidence' is insufficient to convince a non-believer.

when you know, you know you know.

This sword cuts both ways.

[faye]

oh. my subjective experiences are proof enough for me but you want to inform me that i am mistaken?? ho ho ho...... i don't wish to prove anything about my experiences to anyone else. you choose to believe and i choose to believe, what we believe.
these days reality is being considerd a hologram, by some of science, innit?

[Asli]

Indeed -- but if the DNA evidence, and the blood types did not match up, science can answer that question still. Science is very much about finding the best answer that fits all the facts.



Don't worry -- I'm not painting them with one brush. I'm simply making a point that many, if not all, scientists have questioned, and most answered the questions 'what are we doing here' -- it's not a new, or novel question, and their are many more answers than simply 'religion'.

Yes, but before DNA testing was a available the world was not at a standstill. Therefore, I am pretty sure that you did not need a DNA test to prove your father is your father.

Moreover, don't mix religion with the existence of God.

Life ends with death, but that cannot be the end of existence.

[faye]

ozmosis, unneeded roadblocks can also be erected by those who have closed minds and adhere to a dogma, which they believe to be the only true truth, such as science.
so you will 'inform them as to their mistake'. who will be informed of their mistake and how does the informant know that the one who has not yet been analysed is mistaken?
early days for getting the sword out, ozmosis. the science of psychology might take that to symbolise agression. you certainly can't be chopping up peoples 'knowing', with a sword. brain matter you could.