Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
zaayrdragon said:
If I say that they keep changing the "facts" on freon, and each time they say its fact and then it changes yet again. Then it never was or is "fact" Maybe current theory would be more accurate but No they always state it is a fact.
So how could that fact it remain if it always changes there is nothing to remain??
As for science being superior by what you stated I understand;
Science can say whatever it wants. Science can change the theory any time by adding or subtracting information. It can also make a law but if something is added or subtracted the law can be adjusted. So making a adjusted law.
So science just changes to suit the situations? by adding or subtracting different information? That would mean there is no such thing as a science fact then . . . which would make it more convient than superior.
This is a interesting observation.
Z
Variable Constant
Iacchus - you are an idiot. The apple exists.
In this and at least another thread, you said "So how is it that we can be so damn sure of ourselves, and come to find out later we're wrong? What does that suggest to you? That it's all a matter of belief perhaps?"
When are we supposed to find out we're wrong?
It has nothing to do with belief - if one is presented with something that appears to be an apple, and meets other criterion relevant to applehood, then one may reasonably accept that it is, in fact, an apple; however, if we then discover it to be scented wax, then we know it to be a scented wax apple. Nonetheless, the apple still exists, but our understanding of what it was was incorrect. This has nothing to do with faith.
Faith would be if someone held out an empty hand and said, "Behold, I have here an apple." If you then claim there is an apple there, you are exercising faith.
But, obviously, you and Rad are so brain-dead, so indoctrinated in your faith, that simple facts are beyond you.
It's a wonder you can operate the alleged computer in front of you!
In this and at least another thread, you said "So how is it that we can be so damn sure of ourselves, and come to find out later we're wrong? What does that suggest to you? That it's all a matter of belief perhaps?"
When are we supposed to find out we're wrong?
It has nothing to do with belief - if one is presented with something that appears to be an apple, and meets other criterion relevant to applehood, then one may reasonably accept that it is, in fact, an apple; however, if we then discover it to be scented wax, then we know it to be a scented wax apple. Nonetheless, the apple still exists, but our understanding of what it was was incorrect. This has nothing to do with faith.
Faith would be if someone held out an empty hand and said, "Behold, I have here an apple." If you then claim there is an apple there, you are exercising faith.
But, obviously, you and Rad are so brain-dead, so indoctrinated in your faith, that simple facts are beyond you.
It's a wonder you can operate the alleged computer in front of you!
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Iacchus said:
You are incorrect sir- and don't shout. It's not civil.
Z
Variable Constant
If man were a creature of belief... wouldn't atheism be impossible?
Or are you implying that even an atheist believes?
Of course, since you assert that there are no such things as 'facts', then, by your warped view of things, we have no choice but to be 'believers'. However, creating a such a determination essentially 'factors out' the determination - if EVERYTHING is belief, then we can dispense with belief entirely; in other words, assuming everything is belief, then we can dispense with ideas of belief entirely. We can then look at belief in the real, vs. belief in the unreal.
If we then assert everything to be unreal (as you so did earlier), then we can again dispense with this factor; and we can then look at belief in the unreal things that we can perceive, vs. belief in unreal things that we cannot perceive.
This process can continue ad infinitum, of course, but it still classifies a notable difference between 'fact' and 'fantasy' - and still places religion nicely outside the realm of 'fact'.
However, since I think your idea that everything is a belief in unreal things is utter and complete nonsense, I don't have this problem - I can clearly see real vs. unreal and know which one is true.
Or are you implying that even an atheist believes?
Of course, since you assert that there are no such things as 'facts', then, by your warped view of things, we have no choice but to be 'believers'. However, creating a such a determination essentially 'factors out' the determination - if EVERYTHING is belief, then we can dispense with belief entirely; in other words, assuming everything is belief, then we can dispense with ideas of belief entirely. We can then look at belief in the real, vs. belief in the unreal.
If we then assert everything to be unreal (as you so did earlier), then we can again dispense with this factor; and we can then look at belief in the unreal things that we can perceive, vs. belief in unreal things that we cannot perceive.
This process can continue ad infinitum, of course, but it still classifies a notable difference between 'fact' and 'fantasy' - and still places religion nicely outside the realm of 'fact'.
However, since I think your idea that everything is a belief in unreal things is utter and complete nonsense, I don't have this problem - I can clearly see real vs. unreal and know which one is true.
As I have already stated, this is not what's in dispute.zaayrdragon said:
And what if we were actually inside the holodeck on Star Trek, would you be able to dispute whether any apples in there were real or not?
And how long did it take them to figure out the world wasn't flat?
Yes, exactly! And, whether this is something which is done deliberately or not, it would seem to explain why Atheists are so adamant about not acknowledging it exists or, addressing it at all. So, if man were religious like I say, then it's certainly not hard to imagine how any notion of a god(s) might come into being.zaayrdragon said:
How ironic huh?
And who knows, maybe this is what the original dispute in the Garden of Eden was all about? The fact that you have knowledge of something (i.e., knowledge of good and evil) does not make it real? But, that it's the tangibilty of the experience (within our awareness) that makes it real. In other words by placing emphasis on the external facts (knowledge), you lose sight of your original or true self which, is within you. The temptation you see, being to reach outside of one's self, to the illusion that external reality represents.
Of course does that mean we should blame Atheists for all of this? No. Because they are merely dramatizing the original choice (or, lack thereof) which was made in the first place.
Of course does that mean we should blame Atheists for all of this? No. Because they are merely dramatizing the original choice (or, lack thereof) which was made in the first place.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Iacchus said:
Bloody hell, now your fantasies aren't even internally consistent.
Hate to tell you this but all we have is our internal being. And, to the extent that we are not true to this (ourselves), we are not real. You see it's not the fact that the apple exists that makes it real (otherwise it's just a fact you see), it's what you do with the apple that makes it real. In which case it becomes a matter of intent which, is what the true self entails, and, has nothing to do with external reality.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Iacchus said:
Doot-doot doodle-oodle doot-doot do-do...
From the thread, Limits of Science ...
But, if there was no you internally to experience it, what difference does it make? Does a dead body experience pain? So what is it about the body that's missing that allows it to do so? In religious terms, this would be called a soul.dmarker said:
Z
Variable Constant
Well, Iacchus, you are entitled to your opinion on the subject. As are we all.
I'm quite comfortable where I am. I believe in God and soul, but also in a solid reality which we perceive. I believe God and soul are outside of perceptable reality - possibly even outside reality as a whole - but firmly believe that facts remain true, regardless of our perception - that facts remain 'outside' us and remain true.
Of course, I also believe in intangible dragons, faeries that drink wine eat candy and hide my keys, and dream entities that lead me on vision quests - but that's another argument altogether.
I'm quite comfortable where I am. I believe in God and soul, but also in a solid reality which we perceive. I believe God and soul are outside of perceptable reality - possibly even outside reality as a whole - but firmly believe that facts remain true, regardless of our perception - that facts remain 'outside' us and remain true.
Of course, I also believe in intangible dragons, faeries that drink wine eat candy and hide my keys, and dream entities that lead me on vision quests - but that's another argument altogether.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Iacchus said:
Explain to the nice people how "collective unconsious" relates to "intangible dragons, faeries that drink wine eat candy and hide my keys, and dream entities" for the nice people, and show just how profoundly ignorant and deluded you are about Jung.
If you'd be so kind.