DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
How do you objectively differentiate truth from fiction, if not through empirical evidence?
Upvote
0
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.
Those who don't understand that the scientific method falls short of actually trying to find truth... it merely tries to find truth under its own flawed rules.
Your random "You're ignorant if you don't believe as I do" shouts do little to help.
Ok, it is clear to me now.
You must believe what you say is true, because your fundamentalist belief structure is wholly reliant on it being true and you must protect it at all costs.
Have fun with trying to convince people, you can destroy well evidenced science, that most Christians already agree with.
Atheism, by definition, is the hardened belief that there is no deity. If you tell other people that you are an atheist, then that's what they are going to think you mean, because that's what the word means.
If believe strongly that bigfoot absolutely does not exist, that is a belief I have.
No, they're trying to force children to hear that such belief is wrong.
It is the very scientific method which doesn't allow for anything supernatural that is flawed. I'm not saying it doesn't have good things to offer, just that it is flawed when it makes such an enormous presupposition.
Hey Brian,
For myself, and as a Christian, I would much rather think that the Nature of Science is predisposed to "Methodological Naturalism" than the "Philosophical Naturalism" proposed and upheld by New-Atheist upstarts (like Dawkins).
Where do you come up with the term; "hardened" from?
Atheism is non belief in Gods, period.
Ain't that tough.
Oh, that was predictable.
Who is trying to protect their beliefs at all costs now? Seems like anyone trying to show that another person might be right is removed immediately. That is what I meant by cultish.
Who is trying to protect their beliefs at all costs now? Seems like anyone trying to show that another person might be right is removed immediately. That is what I meant by cultish.
Dawkins or any single individual has no bearing on what is taught in science class.
Look at the history of science and how it has evolved.
If someone wants to prove something to be wrong, all they need to do is provide the objective evidence, that it is wrong.
No one is stopping anyone, from proving evolution to be wrong.
Actually, the point was made in your own post.
Making religious assertions are not attempts to prove anything. They are merely faith based assertions. Proving stuff is something you do with evidence. Which none of the peeps you talk about are doing or even trying to do.
If you wish to 'accuse' me of valueing actual evidence over faith-based claims, i plead GUILTY with pride, honnor and intellectual dignity.
Except scientists who refuse to allow even the idea to be introduced.
Except scientists who refuse to allow even the idea to be introduced.
At the end of the day, science works on empirical evidence.
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?