Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
An experiment, by definition, is an attempt at falsification. So, experiments themselves aren't falsifiable, but the theories they try to test, are.Is there such a thing as an unfalsifiable experiment? Believe in God, which is not an empirical concept, and be changed?
Finding fault was the criticism.
My views are fault is no beuno.
IndeedHowever, in the absence of evidence, we don't know what the truth actually is. That's what science is for.
I've seen very few atheists on CF say they believe there are no gods. We're always having to clarify that our position is non-belief, not belief.
Even Buddhism, Wicca, and Scientology?I've seen very few as well, but that is the topic of the OP, is it not? Also Mr. Sequitur seems to be confused over the difference between strong and weak atheism, at least that was the impression I got from his post with his confusion over what he calls the "null position".
But that is kind of tangental to Mr. Sequitur's irritation to the theist he was exchanging with when the theist made the statement about "Truth". I think many atheists are confused about Truth. They confuse it with truth. Truth with a capital "T" has to do with faith, while truth with a small "t" has to do with proof. Faith is the whole point of religion.
IndeedHowever, in the absence of evidence, we don't know what the truth actually is. That's what science is for.
Now that it has been show to be faulty, is it still sufficient for you? Do you continue to believe anyway?well like I said, the evidence was a logical theory. And that was sufficient (for me anyways).
Faith may be the problem with religion. Of what value is this 'Truth' if it is not demonstrable?I've seen very few as well, but that is the topic of the OP, is it not? Also Mr. Sequitur seems to be confused over the difference between strong and weak atheism, at least that was the impression I got from his post with his confusion over what he calls the "null position".
But that is kind of tangental to Mr. Sequitur's irritation to the theist he was exchanging with when the theist made the statement about "Truth". I think many atheists are confused about Truth. They confuse it with truth. Truth with a capital "T" has to do with faith, while truth with a small "t" has to do with proof. Faith is the whole point of religion.
Faith may be the problem with religion. Of what value is this 'Truth' if it is not demonstrable?
Faith may be the problem with religion. Of what value is this 'Truth' if it is not demonstrable?
A poor analogy. The love for music and sunsets is not being used for the basis of decisions for public education and governing of countries.That is up to the individual, isn't it. What is the value of your love for your love of your favorite music? What is the value of quietly enjoying a beautiful sunset? I've known people who have been actually moved to tears upon grasping a simultaneous linear equation. What is the value in their reaction to that? Could it be demonstrated in the same way with you?
Love, beauty and gods are all Truths that are not always demonstrable.
To believe in something is to affirm it as true. To say "I believe there are no gods" is to affirm the truth of the claim, "There are no gods". This is a position which requires evidence, exactly the same as the claim "There are gods" requires evidence.
In the absence of evidence, we affirm neither statement. The weak atheist rejects both claims, until such time that evidence is presented.
I've seen very few as well, but that is the topic of the OP, is it not? Also Mr. Sequitur seems to be confused over the difference between strong and weak atheism, at least that was the impression I got from his post with his confusion over what he calls the "null position".
But that is kind of tangental to Mr. Sequitur's irritation to the theist he was exchanging with when the theist made the statement about "Truth". I think many atheists are confused about Truth. They confuse it with truth. Truth with a capital "T" has to do with faith, while truth with a small "t" has to do with proof. Faith is the whole point of religion.
For one thing it wasn't an analogy, was it? It was a demonstration of the subjectiveness of Truth with a capital T. If your argument against religion is because it is used in government, then I would say that's another argument that I wasn't aware of.A poor analogy. The love for music and sunsets is not being used for the basis of decisions for public education and governing of countries.
I got that part.I just detest any statement that can be thrown our there, that "trumps" anything, if the statement itself can work for anything or if it's used, like in 3rd grade ("No you!"), as a last word.
Very weak to do so, in my opinion.
It was in response to the claim of a religious 'Truth'-with-a-capital-T.For one thing it wasn't an analogy, was it? It was a demonstration of the subjectiveness of Truth with a capital T. If your argument against religion is because it is used in government, then I would say that's another argument that I wasn't aware of.
Where did that thread begin?
Or were you just tossing it out there as a tangent?
I got that part.
But my original question stands: what did either of you expect from that exchange?
Nonetheless, they're religions in which people have faith.I don't believe those deal in deities, do they?
You've yet to explain what 'Truth' is, so I don't know.However they do, to a certain degree deal with Truth, do they not?
What part confused you?Ok...
*confused*
It was in response to the claim of a religious 'Truth'-with-a-capital-T.
Perhaps 'value' was not the word I should have used; to rephrase: Of what significance is a religious 'Truth' that is not demonstrable?
I suppose it would have significance to the individual who embraces it as a Truth.
if it is not relevent, no. Same with Astrophysics and government.Should such a thing be applied to biology?
What part confused you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?