{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Ouch:
7/30/2013 3:35:13 AM
18
"Faith-based religion" is redundant, as religion is not religion without the element of faith. Rather, religion without faith is philosophy (atheistic Buddhism, for instance, but it would have to include lack of belief in the devas).
Anyway, I've always found this question to be rather pointless and it has been created for the sole purpose of giving the religious atheist a way to evangelize. One might believe by faith that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy by some in government and have little to no proof for it - this hardly means that the individual is incapable of being rational about things, and for that matter, would discard his belief in the JFK conspiracy given convincing evidence that undermined it.
Mind you, if at any point a religious doctrine contradicts formal logic and by extension, science, then the latter always objectively takes precedence. In short, believing in creationism is incompatible with science; believing in god(s) is not, because the latter is not a scientific claim.
English
-
there are many faith based things about buddhism outside of the devas, but otherwise i agree with your argument.
-
Yeah, and I almost listed more, but decided it was rather pointless and would make an already long post longer.
-
[quote]religious atheist[/quote]What.
-
How is that such a hard concept for people to grasp? Unless you're joking.
-
Atheism is not a religion. One cannot be a "religious atheist"
-
I can't tell whether you agree with me or if you are just ignoring me.
-
I know atheism isn't a religion... But there are atheistic religions, hence religious atheist.
-
I think everyone got the joke but you.
-
Sarcasm and jokes doesn't translate well through text, especially when people truly believe the things like what you have typed.
-
The Dawkins-humping kids who believe that somehow science invalidates all religion.
-
Well, the scientific method conflicts with the idea of faith-based religions, so I wouldn't say such a claim is incorrect.
-
I've already done away with the "faith-based religion" term. And I'll reiterate, the scientific method cannot "conflict" with something it can't even be applied to. Belief in god(s) has never been a scientific claim. You are trying to impose an epistemological operator on a - at least for some people - non-epistemological position.
-
Considering that scientific reasoning would demand a specific epistemological method of thinking, would that not, then, affirm the idea that religion and science are mutually exclusive? Not arguing anything here, I'm just asking.
-
Scientific reasoning demands a specific epistemological method of thinking for things we want to [i]know[/i]. Belief and knowledge are two very different things - hence my interjecting "at least for some people" (gnostic deist/theist/polytheist vs. agnostic deist/theist/polytheist). The scientific method has no value when it comes to questions regarding feelings or belief, aside from discarding objectively false beliefs (i.e. the earth is 6000 years old) and presenting the objective fact that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of god(s). To put it another way, I might believe very strongly that I have Doritos in my cabinet right now, and that belief may only be based on a vague memory (faulty or true) that at some point I put Doritos in there. But I can't prove that there are Doritos there - the best I can say without walking over there and seeing them is that I have a very strong feeling that they're there. I might be right, and I might be wrong, but the scientific method isn't going to convince the people who trust my memory that there's no Doritos bag, because it's just simply not something that can be proven at the current time.
-
And that's my point. If you can't apply the scientific method to something you support, then there's a conflict. Either you wholly support the scientific method, or you don't.
-
Your point is that non-involvement = conflict. Which is self-evidently untrue.
-
Edited by Mad Max: 7/30/2013 4:08:19 AMIf someone supports the scientific method, they can't simultaneously support something that they can't apply the scientific method to.
-
See response to WinyPit.
