Originally posted by OdBodThose numbnuts are no different than those that deny God and still would
You still keep missing the point, those numbnuts hijack religious belief systems and use them.
ruin the lives of others who believe in Him. As soon as you are willing to
use force to make someone act against their will you have become like
them just to a different degree. People behave this way, it is human nature
you see those in religion and out of it all doing the samethings for different
reasons.
Originally posted by KellyJayActually, you are quite wrong in assuming I believe I have a clear understanding on what the Universe is. I know we have so much more to learn. This means I am always open to new ideas and not tied down to the concept of an absolute belief. At least a scientific approach is in the business of accumulating information on an ongoing basis, rather than relying on fixed old texts.
Duh, if any of this could be proved there would be no need for faith.
Your logic and reason can take you to a place where you have to believe
the results of your findings, even knowing you may not have all the data
required, or if you got a clear understanding on those things you are basing
you findings on. You believe you grasp the universe as is, so you are also
walking around in faith, you just dislike the word so you try to deny that.
14 Mar 15
Originally posted by OdBodLook, even I embrace science, as far as it goes to explain the "How?" of everything.
Actually, you are quite wrong in assuming I believe I have a clear understanding on what the Universe is. I know we have so much more to learn. This means I am always open to new ideas and not tied down to the concept of an absolute belief. At least a scientific approach is in the business of accumulating information on an ongoing basis, rather than relying on fix old texts.
But I daresay that taking a scientific approach to faith will never get you there. Eventually, a leap must be made to a different kind of knowledge.
Originally posted by OdBodThis is a non sequitur right from the very beginning making it neither logical or reasonable. Ironic really.
The religious way of thinking endorses and encourages belief in absolute truths and the abandonment of logic and reason in favor of faith. By legitimising this kind of thinking, religion must bare a large part of the blame for the existence of extremists who use this kind of thinking to further their cause.
Originally posted by SuzianneAt present you are correct, but that may change in time. Science has and does continue to change the way we view our Universe. One thing is certain, new discoveries will radically change our thinking and may impact on matters of faith.
Look, even I embrace science, as far as it goes to explain the "How?" of everything.
But I daresay that taking a scientific approach to faith will never get you there. Eventually, a leap must be made to a different kind of knowledge.
14 Mar 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is the error people like googlefudge make.
This is a non sequitur right from the very beginning making it neither logical or reasonable. Ironic really.
When you shut down the conversation by calling your opponents' position ludicrous, and even "dangerous", then all progress is lost.
It is far better to converse with those holding a different opinion than simply to opine more loudly.
14 Mar 15
Originally posted by SuzianneAre you referring to the OP or Robbie's?
This is the error people like googlefudge make.
When you shut down the conversation by calling your opponents' position ludicrous, and even "dangerous", then all progress is lost.
It is far better to converse with those holding a different opinion than simply to opine more loudly.
15 Mar 15
Originally posted by SuzianneIt's just it wasn't clear whether you were agreeing with him about the OP and adding your own comments or disagreeing with him for dismissing OdBod's position as a non sequitur.
Who did I quote?
I was speaking to Mr. Carrobie.
I'm trying to work out what I think about this. I'd take Od Bod's statement as being a question - implicitly followed by the word discuss.
15 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYes, I've already had my discussion with Odbod on his OP. It's up to him if he wants to continue.
It's just it wasn't clear whether you were agreeing with him about the OP and adding your own comments or disagreeing with him for dismissing OdBod's position as a non sequitur.
I'm trying to work out what I think about this. I'd take Od Bod's statement as being a question - implicitly followed by the word discuss.
However, all Robbie had to say to him was: "This is a non sequitur right from the very beginning making it neither logical or reasonable. Ironic really."
Calling Odbod's OP a "non-sequitur" or "neither logical or reasonable" is just trying to shut him down at the outset with no discussion. That's what I was calling Robbie out for doing. I was telling him, it's much better to discuss than just to shout out your own opinion more loudly. I thought I was pretty clear.
Originally posted by OdBodI still maintain that the scientific method cannot be applied to matters of faith. Those of faith get this, but those whose entire repertoire of knowledge consists of the scientific method and ONLY the scientific method, will never find faith, no matter how long they look, as long as they insist on using the application of the scientific method as their only tool to search for it.
At present you are correct, but that may change in time. Science has and does continue to change the way we view our Universe. One thing is certain, new discoveries will radically change our thinking and may impact on matters of faith.