Science vs. Faith

[gallo]

Quote by: pikatore How many different ways does it have to be put to you?

Apparently, more than you have. I am more in agreement with Kamehameha34 than you.

I'm not sure of your intent in trying to hang labels of "belief" on agnosticism. It rings of "atheism is faith," as constantly asserted by theists.

I am an agnostic in the classical sense. I neither believe nor deny the existance of a god or many gods. I have no knowledge of such matters because I have never seen evidence, one way or the other.

A "belief" is an assertion of some sort of truth. I make no assertion, either for or against.

If you wish to believe in some god, then you may do so. If you wish that I should, then present some evidence to support the assertion.

Of course, the very term "agnostic" means "without knowledge." What did you think it meant?

[pikatore]

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

dictionary.com

THAT is what I THOUGHT it meant. you need to reevaluate what you label yourself as.

[pikatore]

Quote by: gallo I am an agnostic in the classical sense. I neither believe nor deny the existance of a god or many gods. I have no knowledge of such matters because I have never seen evidence, one way or the other.

I'm telling you, you ARENT agnostic in the CLASSICAL sense.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Zhav Belief without evidence is the province of agnosticism.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Agnostics hold that, due to the complete lack of evidence...

Your arguments never were very good on this subject, Kame. Let's get back to the thread.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric Your arguments never were very good on this subject, Kame. Let's get back to the thread.

I think that, in the least offensive way possible, you are contexually retarded.

Let's analyze that quote:

Agnostics hold that, due to the complete lack of evidence...

Ok, so agnostics hold that there is a complete lack of evidence for something. What would that be?

For or against theism.

Due to no evidence, for or against theism, it's irrational to come to a conclusion.

You're suggesting that agnostics believe in spite of a lack of evidence, as in, believing in something with a lack of evidence.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I think that, in the least offensive way possible, you are contexually retarded.

Are TRYING to get banned?

You're suggesting that agnostics believe in spite of a lack of evidence, as in, believing in something with a lack of evidence.

No, that's wrong. Agnostics believe god is possible. That "god" is an option on the multiple choice test. There is no evidence god is possible. Thus, you hold a belief without evidence... as we agreed. Stop trolling.

[rez]

Kam is just proposing a bunch of what if's and then presenting his little hypothetical situations as a way to show himself as the more logical person. I could careless about his silly what if's because it stops me from thinking about what is.

Kam, your little thought experiment leads to a dead end, just like the rest of the supernatural explanations.

[gallo]

Quote by: pikatore 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. dictionary.com THAT is what I THOUGHT it meant. you need to reevaluate what you label yourself as.

Sites like dictionary.com are OK to give the uninformed an idea, but that isn't quite it. If that's what you thought it meant, then you have missed to mark.

Quote by: pikatore I'm telling you, you ARENT agnostic in the CLASSICAL sense.

Then, in the original sense. Since you don't know me, I'm telling you that you are wrong.

There is a difference between speaking complexities, and speaking words that poke the air, and lose thier meaning, and turn what was before a clear discussion into a murky, degenerative slugfest.

Indeed! Why?

[pikatore]

Quote by: gallo Sites like dictionary.com are OK to give the uninformed an idea, but that isn't quite it. If that's what you thought it meant, then you have missed to mark.

Sites like dictionary.com, & wikipedia.com, are credible enough sources. And btw, I am not uninformed, I knew what agnosticism was from the very beginning. I just put forward a source to show you that your definition of classical agnosticism is incorrect.

Dont insult me by acting like i dont know what you are talking about, as I am the one who is throwing the dictionary at you.

Quote by: gallo Then, in the original sense.

That's no excuse for using terms incorrectly out of ignorance.

From now on, when you introduce a word that has a meaning different to what is generally accepted by the rest of the world, you let me know. Until then, I want you to read the damn dictionary, and do a bit of research.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric Are TRYING to get banned?

For a statement of fact?

No, that's wrong. Agnostics believe god is possible.

Incorrect. Do you quite understand what "I don't know" means?

Saying "I don't know" to a question doesn't imply "..but it's possible." That's a seperate claim.

Stop inventing straws to grasp.

Stop trolling.

O' irony.

[Jack]

The topic is Science vs. Faith. Could we get back on track, please?

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[shawmutt]

I've been in science classes for the past seven years, and let me just say--I hate science. A 101 and maybe 201 course teaches all that is known about the sciences, after that the theories and speculations get wilder and wilder, understood by few and repeated by many (the word "sheeple" comes to mind). We are in the medium area of science--the bigger or the smaller an object of study gets the less accurate it is. More precise, perhaps, but that doesn't mean more accurate.

Many "scientists" are no better than "theists" when it comes to understanding the world around them. Trying to equate science and religion is the first mistake. Not looking up the word "theist" in a dictionary is the second.

Give a monkey a brain and he'll think he's the center of the universe.

[pikatore]

Quote by: shawmutt I've been in science classes for the past seven years, and let me just say--I hate science. A 101 and maybe 201 course teaches all that is known about the sciences, after that the theories and speculations get wilder and wilder, understood by few and repeated by many (the word "sheeple" comes to mind). We are in the medium area of science--the bigger or the smaller an object of study gets the less accurate it is. More precise, perhaps, but that doesn't mean more accurate.

A laughable thing to say. True scientists ARE the skeptics, ARE the ones that keeps trying to learn more, refute existing theories, and search for a deeper understanding of the world around them. Science is not built on lies or deception.

The terms precise and accurate are in that context purely mathematical terms. How can you apply them to the field of science itself? I think you either a) have trouble with the coursework, and are just taking it out on this forum, or b) have never been to school before, since most classes involve having multiple students, and a single teacher.

Quote by: shawmutt Many "scientists" are no better than "theists" when it comes to understanding the world around them.

Complete and utter rubbish, not to mention a sweeping generalisation that doesnt belong in a debate.

Quote by: shawmutt Trying to equate science and religion is the first mistake. Not looking up the word "theist" in a dictionary is the second.

Equate science and religion? How do you mean?

Theism is quite a broad term, and it's not a hard one to understand. How is that relevant?

Quote by: shawmutt Give a monkey a brain and he'll think he's the center of the universe.

You mean like Jesus did? Sorry, I'm getting a bit confused. And by the way, monkeys DO have brains :)

[Maybe-not]

Why is this a debate? It can be scientificaly proven, that Religion fails. ()