So you're talking about agnostic theism? Or believing in a deity but not claiming it to be 100% true? Because if you're willing to retract a belief that something is true, then you never had faith in that something in the first place. The subject never had faith that his spouse had never cheated if he changes his mind when evidence is presented otherwise. Because faith does not require evidence. He may have believed it to be an extremely possibility, but it wasnt faith.Not quite. There's a difference in believing something without scientific evidence and believing in something despite evidence to the contrary. One might have faith that a spouse is loyal. This is subject to change if evidence were presented to the contrary later on. Nonetheless, one still believes that one's spouse will not cheat, even without proof.
Opiate didn't specify creationism and instead proceeded to generalize not only one but all of religion.
Science never regards anything as true. It only supports ideas with evidence. Thats why it doesnt require faith. Its agnostic athiesm, not gnostic athiesm.Originally Posted by MajorPain
One of the biggest problems with science is that what was once regarded as absolute truth is no longer true because of new data or testing methods. Evolution has never been proven and there always seems to be new data that just creates more questions than answers.
I can't believe this happened. The memories of that thread... My god. I'm in tears.Originally Posted by fallengorn
For those curious: A trip back in time to NeoGAF, 2008.
Holy. Fuck. I'm dying.Originally Posted by fallengorn
For those confused, it's a reference to this thread. Can't believe it's been over 5 years already.
EDIT: whoops, already posted
Originates here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=340455 (turned into a photoshop thread when OP posted this image of himself)Originally Posted by Thursday War
i dont get it
Almost spat out my water when I saw the new shop in this thread..Originally Posted by AgentWhiskers
Holy. Fuck. I'm dying.
For those confused, it's a reference to this thread. Can't believe it's been over 5 years already.
EDIT: whoops, already posted
I also find this behaviour strange. Science is simply science; things are believed in when the evidence stays the same, and then obviated when new and contrary evidence appears. To me, science is just a phenomenon, an aspect of society. Those who excessively praise science (even more confusingly when concurrent with an attack on religion) are praising an occurrence and nothing more.Interesting how some people treat science itself almost like a kind of faith. They take time to praise science and denigrate religion preemptively almost as if to make themselves feel better about their beliefs instead of commenting on how interesting the discovery itself is like a normal human being.
"Look, I let go of an object and it fell to the ground! Gravity and physics are so awesome and proven and therefore better than X"
So what?
Still fascinating how little we know and how many things there are which we cant explain (yet)
Observations, such as you suggest above, are only a low level step in the scientific method. The objective of the scientific method is to create theories with predictive qualities.Originally Posted by TheJohann
"Look, I let go of an object and it fell to the ground! Gravity and physics are so awesome and proven and therefore better than X"
So what?
So what you ask?
Scientific theories provide predictive clarity that allow us to develop and extend our abilities as a collective species much more rapidly and with much more efficient consumption of resources than naive trial and error.
For example, 747 airliners would never exist without "science".
But I don't disagree with any of that. What I find strange, however, is that people would put science on a pedestal whenever the topic of religion comes up. Nobody is claiming that religion created 747 airliners instead of science. Science and religion are both just societal phenomena, so why should one be "better" than the other?Observations, such as you suggest above, are only a low level step in the scientific method. The objective of the scientific method is to create theories with predictive qualities.
So what you ask?
Scientific theories provide predictive clarity that allow us to develop and extend our abilities as a collective species much more rapidly and with much more efficient consumption of resources than naive trial and error.
For example, 747 airliners would never exist without "science".
I guess it's down to the whole religion shitting on science for thousands of years thing.Originally Posted by TheJohann
But I don't disagree with any of that. What I find strange, however, is that people would put science on a pedestal whenever the topic of religion comes up. Nobody is claiming that religion created 747 airliners instead of science. Science and religion are both just societal phenomena, so why should one be "better" than the other?
| Thread Tools | |