|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
 Posted - 03/12/2006 : 12:04:12
|
Before I believe that the subscribers to this forum are REALLY skeptics (and not TRUE BELIEVERS), I'll need a lot more proof.
THoR
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
 Posted - 03/12/2006 : 12:15:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Before I believe that the subscribers to this forum are REALLY skeptics (and not TRUE BELIEVERS), I'll need a lot more proof.
THoR
 The pointlessness is amusing, but really? As a genuine skeptic, I demand proof that my fellow skeptics are not... skeptics. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 19:54:16 [Permalink]
|
If you bother to read the bottom of this page:
quote:
to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact,
Your posts, especially the delightfully entertaining one about "eternal 'me' particles", indicates that you are diametrically opposed to skeptism, critical thinking, science and logic.
Unless your definitions are different. There are quite a few posters around here who like to take words and change the defintions to suit their own arguments/worldviews. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 20:17:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Before I believe that the subscribers to this forum are REALLY skeptics (and not TRUE BELIEVERS), I'll need a lot more proof.
THoR
Subscribers? I didn't know one 1st of all had to be a subscriber. I thought it's a web site, sort of like any web site that anyone can view and or post on. Speaking of posting..... I didn't know one had to be a skeptic to post.
If that's the case it's like the blind leading the blind or even worse, like any one of those radio talk shows where the callers are for the most part in agreement with the host and it's just a lot of 'I agree' or 'you are so wonderful, because you agree'. What's the point of that?
Proof? Can't people just exchange thoughts and ideas. The idea of being a skeptic, I thought, is to question everything. So what sort of proof would one need? In other words, someone put out an idea, someone else says, I wonder if that's really the case. It's two people thinking together about what could be. It's exchanging ideas, how does that cause a need for proof? |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 20:27:55 [Permalink]
|
| I second Dave W.'s question. I've been on this forum for about a year now, and I found most people here to be philosophical agnostics of various sorts (and if there's one thing an agnostic cannot be called, it's a believer), and the political/ethical opinions vary pretty widely, sometimes leading to full-blown arguments. And one does not need faith to trust in the scientific method and logic. That they are useful and consistent tools for discovering objective truth is obvious. Everyone believes in them up to some degree. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 22:42:06 [Permalink]
|
Cmon THoR], get off your ass and get me that mathematical description of a "me" particle.
You insist that the various "me" particles are no different than other particles, and we have volumes of data describing all of those that we know exist, and a mathematical description of several that we haven't "seen" yet.
Time to put your money where your mouth is.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 00:33:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
one does not need faith to trust in the scientific method and logic. That they are useful and consistent tools for discovering objective truth is obvious. Everyone believes in them up to some degree.
Faith is belief.
Science is not exactly fact. At least not from what I understand. When a mathimatical problem is shown in science (like in physics, E=MC 2 and all that junk), it's based on an axiom which is not proof.
As you've said, belief...faith, not fact. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 01:12:49 [Permalink]
|
Snake wrote: quote:
Faith is belief.
Science is not exactly fact. At least not from what I understand. When a mathimatical problem is shown in science (like in physics, E=MC 2 and all that junk), it's based on an axiom which is not proof.
As you've said, belief...faith, not fact.
Did I say science was fact? I said it was a useful tool for discovering objective truth (facts). And it is. The mathmatical equasions like E=MC2 are theories that do indeed need proof, but the way we find the proof for such scientific theories is through scientific experiments. That entire process is what science is.
Belief is not always faith. Hell, faith is not always faith. It all depends on context. The two words are synomyms. The word "belief" is more often used in secular contexts, such as "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow." The word "faith" is more often used in religious contexts", such as "I have faith that Jesus was the son of God and God Himself." One is based on science, and the other is based on spirituality and revelation. But both words are used in both contexts.
My point is, when I typed "Everyone believes in them (science and logic) up to some degree." I was using "believes" in the secular, not religious context. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 03:05:04 [Permalink]
|
FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. -- Ambrose Bierce
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 08:44:25 [Permalink]
|
Snake said:
quote:
Science is not exactly fact.
Science is a process that lets us discover facts.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 10:53:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Before I believe that the subscribers to this forum are REALLY skeptics (and not TRUE BELIEVERS), I'll need a lot more proof.
THoR
What's your point? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2006 : 16:51:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
If you bother to read the bottom of this page:
quote:
to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact,
Your posts, especially the delightfully entertaining one about "eternal 'me' particles", indicates that you are diametrically opposed to skeptism, critical thinking, science and logic.
Unless your definitions are different. There are quite a few posters around here who like to take words and change the defintions to suit their own arguments/worldviews.
Au contraire - I am not the one mired in the minutiae of the bean counters, gobbling up their far fetched interpretations without question. I pose my ideas as just that, an alternate perspective - not gospel. If they offend you, you should examine why you find them so threatening. Methinks you are not so firm in your beliefs...you waver. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2006 : 16:55:54 [Permalink]
|
THoR said:
quote:
I pose my ideas as just that, an alternate perspective
You mean to say you present unevidenced nonsense that can't even withstand minimal scrutiny.
Still waiting for a description of those "me" particles.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
