Dolph would you agree that knowledge is gained through asking questions? I just cant understand how someone could read a book and take it as fact, there's no questions asked when it comes to some religion - your always wrong. I love reading Tolkien, but I know its just fiction.
BBC standing up to scientology
- Thread starter mosfet
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Mik3 said:
Okay, lets examine that statement for a second. Tolkein IS fiction, but in Tolkein we have a series of themes that are repeated throughout history. We have heroes, villains etc. etc. and the reason we create theses characters over and over again is because we use them to learn about ourselves. Tolkein may be fiction, but its use to us may not be.
Chrisp7 said:
That's because you're looking at the issue in a very narrow fashion, as your statement below shows
That's one definition of Faith, not the whole thing though. Again, you're taking logical positivism in conjunction with science as a means to provide absolute proof, given that you can't prove that position to be valid, I'd say you're presenting it on faith. You're doing exactly what I said, assuming absence of evidence is the same thing as evidence of absence, and assuming that the scientific method is (a) the only provider of evidence and (b) capable of providing the evidence.
To use a very simple example, if I try and measure sound waves with a light sensor, I'm going to get a zero reading. Does that mean that the sound doesn't exist? No, it means you aren't using the correct tool for the job. Your stance is akin to saying a light sensor must be the correct tool for the job, and if it produces no evidence, there's nothing there.
Mik3 said:
Absolutely, it's why I don't follow such a religion. However, I see it as a reason to challenge rather than insult. Views should always be questioned, and only by that can they be refined, that's why I dislike those who cite science as the answer to everything, because although science questions, it's always within it's predefined areas and methods, and there is always the possibility those methods may not yeild a factual result, only a predictively accurate one (seeing as that's what science and the scientific method was designed to do).
Raz said:
Good question and I have no answer, I think most schools teach it and they forget to mention its just a theory, there's a lot of evidence supporting it, however there's no way to prove it.
P.S. I apologize for my first comment it this thread, it was arrogant.
Last edited:
Raz said:
In science, the theory is as close to a fact as you can reasonable get. However, most people forget the qualifiers that go with any scientific theory. To use evolution as an example.
Evolution is currently the simplest predictive theory for the current state based on our believed starting conditions and current data.
What this means is that evolution is the simplest way the current situation could have been acheived, given our current understanding. It says nothing about this being how it actually was achieved.
Dolph said:
You original statement is paradoxical and nonsensical and I will explain again why:
I am assuming nothing and never mentioned an assumption or faith or proof. As I previously mentioned, Atheism is merely 'non belief' and has nothing to do with faith. Stop putting words in my own mouth.
Chrisp7 said:You original statement is paradoxical and nonsensical and I will explain again why:
I am assuming nothing and never mentioned an assumption or faith or proof. As I previously mentioned, Atheism is merely 'non belief' and has nothing to do with faith. Stop putting words in my own mouth.
Ahhh, you're trying to use the expanded version of atheism, favoured generally by atheist philosophers to pump up their claims about the number of atheists in the world, rather than the generally accepted one.
http://www.answers.com/topic/atheism gives rather more classical definitions of atheism.
If your ideas are solely rooted in non-belief, then they would be more like nontheism than atheism, as atheism classically involves either some form of denial or evidence based argument as to why god (small g deliberate) doesn't exist.
If you're going to take the true scientific idea, you can of course say that god is irrelevant, but that's agnosticism, rather than atheism.
Last edited:
Stick Atheism in my dictionary and it comes up with "the theory or belief that God does not exist".
Chrisp7, why don't you believe there is a God? Do you have proof that we are alone in this global reality we have named Earth?
Chrisp7, why don't you believe there is a God? Do you have proof that we are alone in this global reality we have named Earth?
Businesses are owned, so my question to you would be who owns Scientology and likewise who owns the Church of England for it too owns property and shares?yak.h'cir said:
Why is that a distinguishing feature that separates cult from religion in this case. How does paying for the mystical secrets make them any different from those revealed freely. Other religions have secret knowledge revealed to the faithful or priests or high priests.scorza said:
Its not a pyramid scheme, thats a different con.
Dolph said:
I didnt bring up Atheism you did
Infact I have not once mentioned my own 'beliefs' in this thread, merely countered your original statement saying that atheists 'blindly believe' which is obviously a paradoxical statement.Stag said:
It is not up to 'non believers' to prove that we are alone, it is up to believers to prove to 'non believers' that there is a god/belief.
Stag said:
I believe the belief in God was created by people in society to inforce fear and control others, and to invade other countries, and to explain to the masses unexplainable events.
Because religion has been around for so long, it is part of our "belief" but just because the idea has been there for thousands of years bears no proof of existance of a all power being. Fancy words, "god works in mysterious ways" and other BS spoken by religious followers has no proof at all. IMO religious people are gullible people.
Suspended
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 5,426
- Location
- Cambridge
Not true. Atheists assert the non-existence of deities. Theists assert the existence of one or more deities.Chrisp7 said:I am assuming nothing and never mentioned an assumption or faith or proof. As I previously mentioned, Atheism is merely 'non belief' and has nothing to do with faith. Stop putting words in my own mouth.
The position that you seem to be thinking of is agnosticism, which asserts either that (i) we currently do not know whether deities exist and so the only sensible position is to suspend judgement, or (ii) it's impossible to know whether deities exist, and so the only sensible position is to suspend judgement.
Atheism encapsulates the very definite belief that something does not exist, and given the lack of proof available, is very much a faith-based position.