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.
Yeah, I realize that the link would be favorable to you,as scientists like to think they abide by that list of commands, however, that is the ideal...and all humans fall horribly short of these.
Makes no difference .. If I ask you to describe your reality, you'll be using language .. which then (re)creates your reality for me, via the meanings of your words.
You just demonstrated that!
The difference is objective testing. I'm yet to see this process in action in establishing 'religious realities'. The terminologies used are not operational, and the processes are not aimed at producing usefulness for those who don't necessarily adopt the same fundamental beliefs.And yet when you talk about Christians,who are myriad in number...over thousands of years...you don't seem to have the same rationalization. How long has the theory of evolution been around and how many witnesses in favor...not many at all...relatively speaking.
And how have these Christians worked to eliminate their personal biases from their conclusions?
Go back and look at what started this sub-conversation.So...what's the problem?
SelfSim said:Do you not see that both terms 'real world' and 'reality' convey meanings which are agreed upon by (english speaking) humans?Tone said:I take this back...Convention is the "real world", but the real world is not necessarily reality.
If this were not so, then how could we possibly understand eachother?
How could I possibly understand what you write at all, if this were not so?
Can you point out a specific instance of where science has failed to do this?
Okay. How do I repeat the tests that a Christian has done to verify their religious faith?
So? How does that support what you have to say?Any group of people who get together and have a list of guidelines knows that they are not followed to a T...it is impossible for us social beings to be 100% objective.
The difference is objective testing. I'm yet to see this process in action in establishing 'religious realities'. The terminologies used are not operational, and the processes are not aimed at producing usefulness for those who don't necessarily adopt the same fundamental beliefs.
Go back and look at what started this sub-conversation.
What I said is entirely consistent with this current point:
Relationships require communication via language ..
So? How does that support what you have to say?
Ok .. your opinion then.All I'm saying is that science is by no means the objective endeavor that many of its fans display it to be.
Relgion is based on beliefs. Beliefs are not objectively testable .. your response is diversionary.Christianity has been in the crucible of objective testing for centuries...
Are ideas ever voted on, instead of tested?Possibly. But if that is the case, I would need to see an explanation for why so many tests have shown it to be true, particular when scientific testing often is done to find holes and weaknesses in the ideas being tested.
Are ideas ever voted on, instead of tested?
I don't see how this answers my question.
Relgion is based on beliefs. Beliefs are not objectively testable .. your response is diversionary.
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?