When it comes to religion, are you a hypocrite?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Degree of evidence available. In some questions, such as whether evolution is true, we have of evidence to help us draw our conclusions. Presently, scientific evidence proving either the existence or non-existence of God(of course it is impossible to prove a negative in the case), without as much to work with we are forced to rely more on reason. It depends on the amount of evidence available.

inner conviction=reason? hardly. u've changed the context entirely.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by yavoon


inner conviction=reason? hardly. u've changed the context entirely.

Reason, or inner conviction. It becomes more and more acceptable to base your beliefs on that which is other then reason the less evidence you have.

[Drake Tungsten]

Supposing they had said the invisible unicorn who lives on the Moon instead of the Lochness Monster. Would that make it better?

No. The abilities and location of the unicorn and Nessie are still so different as to make the comparison laughable.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Reason, or inner conviction. It becomes more and more acceptable to base your beliefs on that which is other then reason the less evidence you have.

reason and inner conviction have nothing to do w/ each other. except perhaps that most ppl who have inner conviction don't find it unreasonable. but otherwise they're completely disparate terms and lumping them in is just silly.

I would propose logically that it is never acceptable to base beliefs on that which is illogical. u simply cant say "i dont know so I"ll pick one." and find that to be anything but a gigantic logical target.

[Spiffor]

Yavoon:

Do you think logic is the only source of truth ?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Yavoon:

Do you think logic is the only source of truth ?

that and hormones.

[Spiffor]

Simple enough

[Shi Huangdi]

"reason and inner conviction have nothing to do w/ each other. except perhaps that most ppl who have inner conviction don't find it unreasonable. but otherwise they're completely disparate terms and lumping them in is just silly."

They are both alike in that neither use scientific evidence.

"I would propose logically that it is never acceptable to base beliefs on that which is illogical. "

OK, that is your belief. But it isn't a contradiction in my beliefs that it is ok under some circumstances for someone not to use logic.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"reason and inner conviction have nothing to do w/ each other. except perhaps that most ppl who have inner conviction don't find it unreasonable. but otherwise they're completely disparate terms and lumping them in is just silly."

They are both alike in that neither use scientific evidence.

"I would propose logically that it is never acceptable to base beliefs on that which is illogical. "

OK, that is your belief. But it isn't a contradiction in my beliefs that it is ok under some circumstances for someone not to use logic.

haha now we get to define what contradictions are and aren't? aren't we the malleable one.

reason and logic form the foundation for all of science. u mean empirical evidence? logic can use empirical evidence, sherlock holmes? at any rate an inner conviction is not constrained by logic and I think that was made specifically clear in the question. and beyond that there is no reason to tie it to logic, cuz if u did then it could be attacked from the outside.

[Shi Huangdi]

"haha now we get to define what contradictions are and aren't? "

Do you understand what a contradiction is? Having your beliefs being wrong does not mean there are a contradiction in them. A contradiction implies that a belief is not consistent with itself.

"reason and logic form the foundation for all of science. u mean empirical evidence? logic can use empirical evidence, sherlock holmes? at any rate an inner conviction is not constrained by logic and I think that was made specifically clear in the question. and beyond that there is no reason to tie it to logic, cuz if u did then it could be attacked from the outside."

First off, use capitalization. It makes your posts easier to read it makes you look more intelligent.

"reason and logic form the foundation for all of science. "

No they don't, the scientific method is based on empiricism.


"logic can use empirical evidence, sherlock holmes? "

Agathon or elijah can correct me if I am wrong on this point, but while you can make logical judgements on statements related to empirical evidence, logic is not about empirical evidence.

The scientific method is based upon making various hypotheses about events, testing them, and going with the theory that best explains the pheonomona in question.

"at any rate an inner conviction is not constrained by logic and I think that was made specifically clear in the question. and beyond that there is no reason to tie it to logic, cuz if u did then it could be attacked from the outside"

What is your point? Not even the test claimed it was a contradiction to believe relying on inner convictions is OK. It certainly is not a contradiction to believe it is OK to hold illogical beliefs in some circumstances.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"haha now we get to define what contradictions are and aren't? "

Do you understand what a contradiction is? Having your beliefs being wrong does not mean there are a contradiction in them. A contradiction implies that a belief is not consistent with itself.

"reason and logic form the foundation for all of science. u mean empirical evidence? logic can use empirical evidence, sherlock holmes? at any rate an inner conviction is not constrained by logic and I think that was made specifically clear in the question. and beyond that there is no reason to tie it to logic, cuz if u did then it could be attacked from the outside."

First off, use capitalization. It makes your posts easier to read it makes you look more intelligent.

"reason and logic form the foundation for all of science. "

No they don't, the scientific method is based on empiricism.


"logic can use empirical evidence, sherlock holmes? "

Agathon or elijah can correct me if I am wrong on this point, but while you can make logical judgements on statements related to empirical evidence, logic is not about empirical evidence.

The scientific method is based upon making various hypotheses about events, testing them, and going with the theory that best explains the pheonomona in question.

"at any rate an inner conviction is not constrained by logic and I think that was made specifically clear in the question. and beyond that there is no reason to tie it to logic, cuz if u did then it could be attacked from the outside"

What is your point? Not even the test claimed it was a contradiction to believe relying on inner convictions is OK. It certainly is not a contradiction to believe it is OK to hold illogical beliefs in some circumstances.

how do u logically justify holding illogical beliefs in some circumstances but not others..that even makes me laugh.

I don't care how intelligent I look, thats whats great about a forum, I not arguing for money or anything.

u don't find the scientific method a logical way of determining the most likely cause for an event? even math is based on logic. and math pervades all of science. its hard to even separate the two sometimes. its completely ludicrous to say science doesn't use logic.

and to finish IT IS POSSIBLE that ur belief system is a contradiction. simply having one doesn't make it consistent. u can't say "I believe this therefore it is not a contradiction." I mean even the pc police won't give that one to u.

[Rogan Josh]

Since we are getting back to pink unicorns again (why are atheists so absessed by pink unicorns? ) let me ask a leading question.

Let's assume that a new effect was discovered tomorrow which was inconsistant with modern science, i.e. it can't be expained by our current theories in principle, not just because the maths is too hard. Would you

1. entertain the possibility that it could never be explained by science?

2. be 100% sure that it is, in principle, explainable, ie. that some scientific theory exists that would explain it, even if we do not (or never will) know it?

If you say 1 then you are admitting that there may be things beyond science. So why is it so difficult to entertain the idea that there is a god?

If you say 2 you are displaying a faith in science. We do not know and can never prove that everything in the universe is explainable. Why is your faith in science any more justified than my faith in God?

[Drake Tungsten]

Why is your faith in science any more justified than my faith in God?

That's a question I've wanted an answer to for years. I hope you wrestle it out of someone.

[Az]

Over the years, it gave better results.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
No. The abilities and location of the unicorn and Nessie are still so different as to make the comparison laughable.

Totally specious reasoning. You know no more about the abilities of these things than you do God, really. What if God is the invisible unicorn on the moon? (no pink was mentioned).

To answer Rogan's question, considering that we have literally tens of thousands of historical precedents for things which were previously inexplicable being proven as explicable science, and not a one for something being proven to be the work of a god, then assuming their is a natural explanation for phenomenon is far more rational.

Supernatural claims require extraordinary proof.