Saying i dont believe doesnt mean i know for a fact that such a thing doesnt exist. Its just a belief.
In fact, i would say there is a fine line between 6 and 7, and you could argue they could almost be grouped together.
no, but the point is, saying you are number 7 is saying you have knowledge that proves his lack of existence - but you're right when you think about it this way rather than the way it was intended you are treading through a grey area of philosophical debate
I'm interested to know why you believe in many gods, and what your general beliefs are?
I'd say I'm a 4 then. I'm a polytheistic Hindu... although I follow Hinduism more as a tradition than as a religion, meaning I don't think that the physical world is an illusion and that man's soul is merely a part of god, I eat beef when it looks delicious, and I will not worship my husband and devote my life to him once I get married. I question my faith from time to time, and I often wonder, why do people pray to God only in times of need? Shows how selfish people are doesn't it?
Haven't got time at the moment to read through what looks like an intriguing debate, but I will say I am 6.9 recurring.
I'm pretty sure that there is no 'god' (no need to capitalise it) but then again, I cannot prove nor disprove this, so I have to account for a slight uncertainty.
one of the most sensible responses we've had - if you're mind is as clever as your response, you'd probably really enjoy reading the last 4 pages from scratch - you wouldn't believe the views some people have about science and concrete fact!
I'm interested to know why you believe in many gods, and what your general beliefs are?
I'd say I'm a 4 then. I'm a polytheistic Hindu... although I follow Hinduism more as a tradition than as a religion, meaning I don't think that the physical world is an illusion and that man's soul is merely a part of god, I eat beef when it looks delicious, and I will not worship my husband and devote my life to him once I get married. I question my faith from time to time, and I often wonder, why do people pray to God only in times of need? Shows how selfish people are doesn't it?
It does indeed la femme.
Whats interesting to me is that you appear to be admitting to being an agnostic non-practising polytheistic hindu - I like that lol
By design, science is IMMUNE to those effects. A scienTIST may be dishonest, but SCIENCE is ALWAYS honest, because it must be within all designated constants and variables, be repeatable, observable and thus be confirmable by peers. It can be tried and tested over and over by an unlimited number of different testers, whilst still facing the test of unlimited time.
This is a veeery long debate, but...
Your concept of science reliability was fully accepted until the first few decades of the XXth century. After that, I'm afraid that tons of scientists have contributed to the debate stating that there's no such thing as a neutral science, and that interests are always interfering, whether the scientist is aware of it or not. Most scientists accept that nowadays. But positivism still exists (you're a living proof of it) even though it's a paradigm that's been thoroughly refuted ages ago.
Here's when you show your faith in positivist science, by saying that science is always honest and is immune to interests or social context, etc. One counter-example: the creation of the atom bomb.
DavesUrMan wrote:
No scientist EVER goes by his feelings - his own beleifs are not able to interfere in the experiment, otherwise it is not an experiment. He may or may not be happy with the result, but the result is there due to perfect impartial unbiased testing.
There's your faith in positivist science again... Scientists have been saying otherwise for the past 80 years or so.
See my previous paragraph. It's ok if you're a positivist though.
DavesUrMan wrote:
Science is based solely upon the actual findings throughout rigorous experimentation. Newton for example didn't just decide the LAW that 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. He didn't just tell his wife thats what the family has to beleive in and write a book with no evidence and just state it as fact. He went on to scientifically and experimentally prove it, and whats more, it has been peer reviewed for 341 years again and again and again. Further, I can't just say, 'I don't believe in this law, I don't have any faith in it', without giving actual reasons why. I would have to disprove this SCIENTIFIC LAW beyond all doubt to be taken seriously.
And before Copernicus, astronomers reviewed for even more years the ptolemaic theory that the earth was the stationary center of the universe. It was science at that time. And they reasserted that because they were immerse in a certain paradigm that was ruled by those laws (see Thomas Kuhn). After Copernican revolution (or whatever that's called in english), the rules changed. Same with Newton. Only when there are too many questions, anomalies that the paradigm can't solve, there's a revolution and a change of paradigm. Who says this paradigm we live in is definitive?
DavesUrMan wrote:
How can anything that promotes delusion be positive? Regardless of its individual effects? What if it turns out we are all actually 'in the Matrix' and the government knows about it, and we're wasting our lives believeing in something that is fake, whilst we have real lives to be getting on with.
I don't need to make a list about the atrocities and terrors of religeon over the centuries, but I'll give you literally the tip of the ice-berg. Stop me if you don't understand what I'm getting at. At least 10 CRUSADES, children crusade, spanish inquisition, twin towers, london bombings, iraq war, al-qaeda, witch-huntings, supression of scientists and free will, AIDS in africa due to heresy of condoms, etc
Weapons, bombs, missiles, weapons of mass destruction, contamination, etc... all of them are the result of the progress of science. Maybe your objection to this will be that science is always honest and neutral and that it's not the scientists fault but of those who use those discoveries to do wrong. If that's what you think, well, see my first paragraph.
DavesUrMan wrote:
I don't know what you're getting at by the word pedantic, but statistically speaking, those who have not gained further or higher or even basic education are found to be more religeous and have a far lesser understanding of even basic scientific principals such as gravity, gaining energy through food, power supply, etc. This is a generality.
I'd really like to see those statistics. It sounds like a huge generalization, and I'm really not sure about its representativity.
So I guess we should agree that countries in which 90% of the population say that they believe in god are full of "less enlightened" people.
Most people in the world believe in a god, gods or whatever, one way or another. Many scientists are religious people. Should we say that most people in the world are less enlightened than those who don't believe in god? That's what I mean by pedantic. You put yourself in a higher position, saying that religious people live in delusion, like you know better. I might be wrong though, but that's what I understood from your posts.
DavesUrMan wrote:
I have to say, I hope to goodness that your english is awful. I hope you have no idea what you were saying in the whole of the above, and I think most scientists and even non-scientists and even religeous people would agree with you, a self-claimed scientist (of sorts - social) would agree. I hope you meant to say the opposite of everything you have said and accidentally missed out the negatives in the sentence structure.
Well, judging by your response, I think I might have conveyed my thoughts just fine :oP
I must tell you though, that having discussions about religion and science in a language I don't speak fluently is not my strength and it's not something I enjoy doing much.
So I say let's just agree to disagree and I'll happily move on to other conversations that don't require that much effort on my part :o)
As I believe there are no deities, That said I would lean towards 7 but as I cannot say for certain as I don't actually know for certain as nothing has been proven about the existance of said God/gods. I have been known to be wrong before so I'm gonna dial it back a bit to 6.
wow, I am not so sure I want to get into a huge argument about this, but I am also surprised that there are not more ppl on the other side of the scale. so in the interest of balance I will post. I would say I am a 1.5 cuz no one can KNOW for all certainty that God does exist, that is why it is called FAITH. But yes, God is a very important part of my life, and I find nothing wrong w/ that.
ok ok iam a 6.9 recurring . Bloody pedantic lot. :)
hahaha, Gladders if you want to be a seven then be a seven !!
Personally I was just thinking what sort of hellish scale gives up to Seven, then when you pick seven, everyone says you can't be a seven it's impossible !!
ok ok iam a 6.9 recurring . Bloody pedantic lot. :)
hahaha, Gladders if you want to be a seven then be a seven !!
Personally I was just thinking what sort of hellish scale gives up to Seven, then when you pick seven, everyone says you can't be a seven it's impossible !!
Dubz
exactly, something so complex as faith cannot be squeezed into a scale of 1 to 7.
what a lot of b******s
wow, I am not so sure I want to get into a huge argument about this, but I am also surprised that there are not more ppl on the other side of the scale. so in the interest of balance I will post. I would say I am a 1.5 cuz no one can KNOW for all certainty that God does exist, that is why it is called FAITH. But yes, God is a very important part of my life, and I find nothing wrong w/ that.
the reason is probably in the nature of the questions.
ok ok iam a 6.9 recurring . Bloody pedantic lot. :)
hahaha, Gladders if you want to be a seven then be a seven !!
Personally I was just thinking what sort of hellish scale gives up to Seven, then when you pick seven, everyone says you can't be a seven it's impossible !!
Dubz
exactly, something so complex as faith cannot be squeezed into a scale of 1 to 7.
what a lot of b******s
ok ok iam a 6.9 recurring . Bloody pedantic lot. :)
hahaha, Gladders if you want to be a seven then be a seven !!
Personally I was just thinking what sort of hellish scale gives up to Seven, then when you pick seven, everyone says you can't be a seven it's impossible !!
Dubz
exactly, something so complex as faith cannot be squeezed into a scale of 1 to 7.
what a lot of b******s
You took the words right outta my mouth!
:)
Faith isn't complex - its the belief in something despite the absence of any evidence. It doesn't matter what the scale is, you can use decimals so it could be 1 to 7 million - it doesn't matter - most people will fit easily between 1 and 7 - you either believe in a god, you don't, or you're absolutely on the fence. The extra points on the scale are just easier for defining.
wow, I am not so sure I want to get into a huge argument about this, but I am also surprised that there are not more ppl on the other side of the scale. so in the interest of balance I will post. I would say I am a 1.5 cuz no one can KNOW for all certainty that God does exist, that is why it is called FAITH. But yes, God is a very important part of my life, and I find nothing wrong w/ that.
Why does it surprise you that ther are not more people on the theist end of the scale?
Also, what reasoning do you give for 1.5 out of curiosity? As in what evidence are you basing such a strong belief on?
