Irony

Originally posted by windmill
I'm saying athiests and Christians get angry at each other when dealing with science and a lot of the good that could be found is never found.Logically it is good to have two sides of the fence otherwise no movement would persist.In anger the iq should drop....not always but overall movement will be found at a negative.

Originally posted by windmill
I'm saying athiests and Christians get angry at each other when dealing with science and a lot of the good that could be found is never found.Logically it is good to have two sides of the fence otherwise no movement would persist.In anger the iq should drop....not always but overall movement will be found at a negative.

Originally posted by Starrman
But aren't you are making the mistake of assuming that science is practiced by Christians or Atheists, when the fact is that sceince should be a process of empricism, regardless of faith or the lack of it?

Originally posted by abejnood
BS. I'm athiest and some of my best friends are Christians. I get along perfectly fine with them. Athiests and Christians do not hate each other... they simply provide two different veiwpoints on God. Being an athiest means
nothing about the person themselves, and their relationships with other people. Also, as I was saying, it is just two different veiw ...[text shortened]... derstanding, but not in Genesis and the Six days and the works in the Bible. Science is my God.

Originally posted by windmill
You and your friends have understanding....yet i think that is a minority situation.Humans are selfish by nature and learning to deal with opposing arguments is something that lacks around here.

Originally posted by abejnood
You can say that again.

Originally posted by Starrman
But aren't you are making the mistake of assuming that science is practiced by Christians or Atheists, when the fact is that sceince should be a process of empricism, regardless of faith or the lack of it?

Originally posted by Coletti
Why restrict "science" to empiricism? Shouldn't science be about discovering and understanding truth - knowledge?

If you say the knowledge IS empirical - that is a statement of faith - an axiom that can not be proven from a priori knowledge. In such - you would make "science" a matter of faith.

Originally posted by Coletti
Why restrict "science" to empiricism? Shouldn't science be about discovering and understanding truth - knowledge?

If you say the knowledge IS empirical - that is a statement of faith - an axiom that can not be proven from a priori knowledge. In such - you would make "science" a matter of faith.

Originally posted by Coletti
Why restrict "science" to empiricism? Shouldn't science be about discovering and understanding truth - knowledge?

If you say the knowledge IS empirical - that is a statement of faith - an axiom that can not be proven from a priori knowledge. In such - you would make "science" a matter of faith.

I had always read that based upon the evidence, inculding astronomical events, the rule of various Kings and such that Jesus was born between 7BCE and 4BCE in May or Sept - with 7BCE in Sept being the most likely date. However, this is all speculation, as the "star" could have been a figment used by the author of the Book of Matthew to "bring home" the the prophecy of the King of the Jews and we actually have no evidence upon which to base his birth, other than the Rule of Herod the Great, who died in 4BCE. As Jesus' birth was before Herod's death in 4BCE, there were the killing of all males two years and younger - that would surmise that Herod believed Jesus to be about 2. And Herod's death followed about a year after this decree.... which would at least narrow it down to between 7BCE and 5BCE. Add to that the fact that the word child is used and you can narrow out infants (under 12 months) so narrowing the birth year to 7 or 6BCE.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Would you say that math, which utilizes axioms and postulates, is a
matter of faith?

If so, then the term has no meaning, for all things are a matter of
faith.

Then we have to invent terms which distinguish between 'mathematical
faith' and faith in unprovable assumptions about the nature of an untestable
and unobservable concept (like a Supreme Being), and we're back where we
started.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Starrman
Science as a process needs to be as empirical as possible so that the discovering and understanding of truth is free from bias. Faith is always a matter of bias, to include it in the scientific process is to muddy the search for truth.

I should point out that if science did yield proof of god's existence, atheists should (unless their atheism is a ma ...[text shortened]... verse was true, I have to believe that theism has no place in the scientific process whatsoever.

Originally posted by Coletti


Euclidean geometry is an interesting case. The "fifth postulate" was unprovable, and had to be assumed true for it to work. I think Gödel's incompleteness theorem showed that all mathematical systems have at lease one unprovable axiom.

Originally posted by Coletti
So even mathematics is a matter of faith at some point. Not all things are a matter of faith, but all systems depend on the assumption of something unprovable. Since this is true - one can not disregard any particular world-view based solely on it requiring faith - this is true for ALL world-views - including empiricism.