[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
What is a scientific “truth” that would be different than just plain truth.
Oh do please indulge us on what science supports atheism and refutes religion…If you have been around, you know you cannot just leave the above statement to stand on it’s own. You made the statement, you need to prove it.[/quote]
Most science refutes religion. Stop getting your knickers in a twist, he said nothing of it refuting God.[/quote]
Yet Hume was bloody brilliant, except for the fact he kept tripping over his own arguments and proving himself wrong. His principles of unequivocal proof I use all the time.[/quote]
Aye, he reminds me of the Indian proverb…
“He who speaks, does not know; he who knows, does not speak.”
“When the mouth opens, all are fools.”
Self destructing statements…[/quote]
Hume? I have a man crush on him. I should say where he failed was his attempts to disprove God’s existence is often where he’d end up painting himself in to a corner. His epistemology was revolutionary. He hit the nail on the head in many cases. It was his absolute dedication to stringent logic where tripped himself up. I actually admire him for that, even though he managed to disprove his own augments for atheism with it, he held fast to the logic even though it damaged his agenda. It caused him to bounce between atheism agnosticism all his life.
Yet Hume was bloody brilliant, except for the fact he kept tripping over his own arguments and proving himself wrong. His principles of unequivocal proof I use all the time.[/quote]
Aye, he reminds me of the Indian proverb…
“He who speaks, does not know; he who knows, does not speak.”
“When the mouth opens, all are fools.”
Self destructing statements…[/quote]
Hume? I have a man crush on him. I should say where he failed was his attempts to disprove God’s existence is often where he’d end up painting himself in to a corner. His epistemology was revolutionary. He hit the nail on the head in many cases. It was his absolute dedication to stringent logic where tripped himself up. I actually admire him for that, even though he managed to disprove his own augments for atheism with it, he held fast to the logic even though it damaged his agenda. It caused him to bounce between atheism agnosticism all his life.[/quote]
Aye… using metaphysics to attempt to disprove metaphysics… but what other choice does the atheist have?
It is imperative that atheist scientists understand that they are not qualified to pontificate on answering the questions of ‘Why?.’
"Science does not have the right to give to me my reason for being. But I am going to take scienceâ??s view because I want this world not to have meaning. A meaningless world frees me to pursue my own erotic and political desires.â??
excerpt from Ends and Means, Aldous Huxley (an atheist)
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
What is a scientific “truth” that would be different than just plain truth.
Oh do please indulge us on what science supports atheism and refutes religion…If you have been around, you know you cannot just leave the above statement to stand on it’s own. You made the statement, you need to prove it.[/quote]
I was talking to my brother on the phone, who is a geological/marine scientist and asked him why he thinks religion/god is flawed(he’s told me heaps of things over the years , ie the age of the rocks and all the layers etc etc) - he replied “fuck off, religion is bullshit”, and hung up the phone. I lol’d.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
What is a scientific “truth” that would be different than just plain truth.
Oh do please indulge us on what science supports atheism and refutes religion…If you have been around, you know you cannot just leave the above statement to stand on it’s own. You made the statement, you need to prove it.[/quote]
Most science refutes religion. Stop getting your knickers in a twist, he said nothing of it refuting God.[/quote]
Proof? Or should I just take your word for it?[/quote]
You live your whole fucking life without proof! (except for that dusty old book called the bible) it’s pretty good as far as fictional novels go.
Ehh… things seemed to have become a pissing match… Maybe we should go back the ‘is there objective truth’ question.
I think that the possibility might exist, but from a human practical standpoint no. This is because what we know, think, and feel about the world is always changing. 2000 years ago, our concept of the physical universe was drastically different. 2000 years, there were some things that were moral that are not moral now and vice versa. ‘Truth’ the way I see it is changing, situational, and dynamic regardless of the field (science, religion, philosophy, etc).
Einstein’s theory of relativity changed a lot of Newton’s ideas and other theories that everybody ‘knew’ have turned out not to be so, so I’d say no. The scientific model as we know it is only about 500 years old. Maybe in the future, we’ll have an even better model for discovery of the natural world.
good call - models and theories apposed to that which can be proven are probably different though. (ie earlier I said something the age of the earth, I think thats pretty well established. carbon dated etc etc)
Arranged marriages. In America, it’s illegal to force someone’s daughter to marry someone she doesn’t want to. Way back in the day, it was the daughter who was frowned upon for not wanting to. Also, it was okay for the husband to have sex with the woman when he pleased even if it was against her will. Today even in marriage, that’s called rape and punishable by time in prison.
Ancient Sparta. Infanticide was not only okay, but expected if your infant had a defect.
Suicide under certain circumstances in some Asian cultures is ok, but not in the US.
So right there, I’ve covered rape, murder, and suicide. (not to mention, what constitutes murder can be a blurry line at times and can depend on one’s perspective i.e. political assassinations, etc)
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Arranged marriages. In America, it’s illegal to force someone’s daughter to marry someone she doesn’t want to. Way back in the day, it was the daughter who was frowned upon for not wanting to. Also, it was okay for the husband to have sex with the woman when he pleased even if it was against her will. Today even in marriage, that’s called rape and punishable by time in prison.
Ancient Sparta. Infanticide was not only okay, but expected if your infant had a defect.
Suicide under certain circumstances in some Asian cultures is ok, but not in the US.
So right there, I’ve covered rape, murder, and suicide. (not to mention, what constitutes murder can be a blurry line at times and can depend on one’s perspective i.e. political assassinations, etc)
[/quote]
So, if you somehow managed to get yourself a time machine and travel back to ancient Sparta, there would be nothing wrong with your throwing an asthmatic baby over the side of a cliff. Is that what you are saying?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Arranged marriages. In America, it’s illegal to force someone’s daughter to marry someone she doesn’t want to. Way back in the day, it was the daughter who was frowned upon for not wanting to. Also, it was okay for the husband to have sex with the woman when he pleased even if it was against her will. Today even in marriage, that’s called rape and punishable by time in prison.
Ancient Sparta. Infanticide was not only okay, but expected if your infant had a defect.
Suicide under certain circumstances in some Asian cultures is ok, but not in the US.
So right there, I’ve covered rape, murder, and suicide. (not to mention, what constitutes murder can be a blurry line at times and can depend on one’s perspective i.e. political assassinations, etc)
[/quote]
So, if you somehow managed to get yourself a time machine and travel back to ancient Sparta, there would be nothing wrong with your throwing an asthmatic baby over the side of a cliff. Is that what you are saying?
[/quote]
you wouldnt throw an asthmatic baby over a cliff, youre way scared!
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Einstein’s theory of relativity changed a lot of Newton’s ideas and other theories that everybody ‘knew’ have turned out not to be so, so I’d say no. The scientific model as we know it is only about 500 years old. Maybe in the future, we’ll have an even better model for discovery of the natural world. [/quote]
Just cuz I am a fan of newton I am going to post this excerpt from the book a history of pi defending newtons laws.
“Contrary to widespread belief, Newton’s laws of motion are not contradicted by Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity. Newton never made the statement that the force equals mass times acceleration. His Second Law says F=d(mv)/dt and Newton was far to cautious a man to take the m out of the bracket. When mass, in Einstein’s interpretation, became a function of velocity, not an iota in Newton’s laws needed to be changed. It is therefore incorrect to regard relativistic mechanics as refining or even contradicting Newton’s laws: Einstein’s building is still anchored in the 3 Newtonian foundation stones, but the building is twisted to accommodate eletromagnetic phenomena as well. True Newton’s law of gravitation turned out to be (very slightly) inaccurate; but this law even though it led to Newton to the discovery of the foundation stones, is not a foundation stone itself.” written by Petr Beckmann
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
Are facts that have been proven by science qualify as objective truths? Im just curious.[/quote]
Disregarding the title of the video the points brought up by William Lane Craig here in response to Peter Atkins address your question.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Arranged marriages. In America, it’s illegal to force someone’s daughter to marry someone she doesn’t want to. Way back in the day, it was the daughter who was frowned upon for not wanting to. Also, it was okay for the husband to have sex with the woman when he pleased even if it was against her will. Today even in marriage, that’s called rape and punishable by time in prison.
Ancient Sparta. Infanticide was not only okay, but expected if your infant had a defect.
Suicide under certain circumstances in some Asian cultures is ok, but not in the US.
So right there, I’ve covered rape, murder, and suicide. (not to mention, what constitutes murder can be a blurry line at times and can depend on one’s perspective i.e. political assassinations, etc)
[/quote]
So, if you somehow managed to get yourself a time machine and travel back to ancient Sparta, there would be nothing wrong with your throwing an asthmatic baby over the side of a cliff. Is that what you are saying?
[/quote]
you wouldnt throw an asthmatic baby over a cliff, youre way scared![/quote]
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
Are facts that have been proven by science qualify as objective truths? Im just curious.[/quote]
Disregarding the title of the video the points brought up by William Lane Craig here in response to Peter Atkins address your question.
Is there a second part to that video? Because I guessing he would have torrrn up the rebuttal…at the end I heard a “but you’re missing the point” so that doesnt really address anything to me…(i hate it when people don’t let the person arguing for atheism rebut, then think the theist made awesome points).
Also, I don’t think any scientist has ever denied the need for assumptions, but its taken out of context there imo
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
Are facts that have been proven by science qualify as objective truths? Im just curious.[/quote]
Disregarding the title of the video the points brought up by William Lane Craig here in response to Peter Atkins address your question. - YouTube [/quote]
Is there a second part to that video? Because I guessing he would have torrrn up the rebuttal…at the end I heard a “but you’re missing the point” so that doesnt really address anything to me…(i hate it when people don’t let the person arguing for atheism rebut, then think the theist made awesome points).
Also, I don’t think any scientist has ever denied the need for assumptions, but its taken out of context there imo [/quote]
Well the point William Lane Craig brought up was that science cannot account for everything including itself. If you are interested in the debate here it is.
