View Poll Results: Members, Do you dislike science?

Voters
78. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, Science is truth.

    36 46.15%
  • Yes, science can´t explain everything. There´s more than this.

    14 17.95%
  • I believe in a mix of both. Science and Belief go hand in hand.

    21 26.92%
  • Other

    7 8.97%
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 79

Thread: Do Some Members on Here Dislike Science/Reason?

  1. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, May 7th, 2011 @ 08:55 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German or English
    Ancestry
    Scotland, England, Switzerland, Germany
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Location
    Kokomo
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    15
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Sorry about the delay.

    Quote Originally Posted by AcherontiaStyx View Post
    I have no belief nor faith there is no god as much as I have no belief or faith there isn't a flying teapot or an invisible pink unicorn.
    So, you do believe that there are invisible, pink unicorns? Because that's what you're conveying...

    Quote Originally Posted by AcherontiaStyx View Post
    For the hundreth time, it's not Science's place to prove a negative.
    I have no idea why you even made this statement, honestly. It doesn't really even have anything to do with the statement preceding it. And, I mean, it's not even a real sentence. A negative what? A negative statement? You are aware that negative is an adjective, right?

    But, for the sake of argument, I'll assume you know what you're talking about...So, now I ask, "why?" Can you explain why it isn't science's "place" to "prove" a negative whatever?

    Seriously, though, this statement has me baffled; I've analyzed it for a minute now, and I really have failed at seeing any logic beneath it. For instance, I wasn't aware that science could "prove" anything; I was under the impression that what science did, was provide empirical evidence for the way our physical reality might be. I think you'll find proof to be a rather elusive thing in reality. I mean, being able to observe the effects of something doesn't mean that it is logically, necessarily reality or that one has proof of anything. Furthermore, from the angle of your intended meaning being that science cannot prove that something doesn't exist...no shit. If that was your intended meaning, what does that have to do with anything? ...Really. I mean, it doesn't follow logically that you automatically believe in a lack of anything for which science cannot provide evidence. I mean, someone born devoid of senses would not be correct in believing that nothing existed, would they?

    A pseudo-intellectual, atheist acquaintance of mine once said the same thing to me, and I now have to wonder, where did it come from, exactly? Was it some duesh like Dawkins?

    Quote Originally Posted by AcherontiaStyx View Post
    I wouldn't do that I've read my Popper and I keep it under my pillow every night.
    So, you've just replaced priests with scientists(if that's what he is), eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by AcherontiaStyx View Post
    You know, we don't hold weekly meetings where we hold hands and praise Science "Oh gravity, may you work, oh relativity, may you be true" because it is unnecessary.
    I fail to see what praise and belief have to do logically with one another--likely because they're not actually related in any way; they're two completely separate things.

    Quote Originally Posted by AcherontiaStyx View Post
    We don't believe, we know; some things are just fact, others aren't.
    I think your issue is that you don't understand the concept of belief. Belief is certainty held within one's self regarding what is true. If you don't have certainty that something posses the property of being a certain way, then you cannot possibly have knowledge regarding that thing. In other words, in order to know anything, you have to believe that what you're observing is truth. A scientist observing an objective truth cannot "know" that it is truth if he doesn't believe it is truth, understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by AcherontiaStyx View Post
    Whatever changes, we're glad to change with it. Nothing's fixed and there's no dogma. Science is ever-changing. Would be hard to have faith in something that isn't fixed, now wouldn't it?
    I never compared science to religion. Also, faith is synonymous is with belief; the definition of faith is not: believing in something regardless of a lack of support by empirical evidence. And, furthermore, science is fixed in empiricism; you have faith in what you perceive through your senses.


    Quote Originally Posted by AcherontiaStyx View Post
    And I leave you with Kierkegaard, himself an avid Christian (for all the wrong reasons - which makes his statements even better), who said religion is a leap of faith that requires blind devotion and can not be understood by logic.
    Again, I never said anything about religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by AcherontiaStyx View Post
    It is impossible to demonstrate faith without it ceasing to be faith.
    This...doesn't make sense. Let me reword it for you so that you might understand: It is impossible to demonstrate that you believe something without it ceasing to be the case that you actually believe something. See? Silliness.

    Quote Originally Posted by AcherontiaStyx View Post
    Unfortunately, I can't find the quote for the life of me, but you probably know what I'm talking about.
    I don't, actually--I don't really read.

    -

    Quote Originally Posted by AcherontiaStyx View Post
    As I previously stated, I'm okay with believers and faith, I am not okay with it mingling with Science. This pic is old, but sums it all up:

    :/ He is correct in part; truth is not reliant on belief; however, our ability to perceive it is. Truth doesn't just magically find its way into our minds regardless of the nature of human perception. And, his example of chanting, "let us believe" and such is an example of people desiring to believe, not people who already do. Scientists are very confident regarding what they believe due to being able to seemingly support their beliefs with empirical data; they don't need to desire that they believe. ...Belief seems to come less easily to those who cannot support their ideas in the same way.

  2. #62
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 09:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by GothicMoose View Post
    Sorry about the delay.



    So, you do believe that there are invisible, pink unicorns? Because that's what you're conveying...
    No, she was saying that you need as much 'faith' to believe there's no God as you need to believe the cabbages in your vegetable cupboard aren't currently holding a breakdancing competition. If you believe in some arbitrary idea with no evidence or rational foundation, then you must believe in every arbitrary idea without evidence or rational foundation, or at least respect every such idea. Otherwise, you would be a hypocrite.

    I have no idea why you even made this statement, honestly. It doesn't really even have anything to do with the statement preceding it. And, I mean, it's not even a real sentence. A negative what? A negative statement? You are aware that negative is an adjective, right?

    But, for the sake of argument, I'll assume you know what you're talking about...So, now I ask, "why?" Can you explain why it isn't science's "place" to "prove" a negative whatever?
    Science doesn't have to (and can't) disprove unfalsifiable statements. The statement that invisible smurfs subconsciously influence the decisions of the world's leaders isn't falsifiable. That doesn't make it a respectable scientific theory that stumps scientists with its sheer intellectual force.

    A pseudo-intellectual, atheist acquaintance of mine once said the same thing to me, and I now have to wonder, where did it come from, exactly? Was it some duesh like Dawkins?
    It probably came from the fact that it's self-evident. Simpletons like to say that science can't disprove the existence of God. And like AcherontiaStyx said, it also can't disprove the existence of a unicorn creator who is pink. It's just not a very sophisticated argument to say that because something, such as the nonexistence of God (a negative -- hence why AcherontiaStyx said it's not science's duty to disprove negatives), can't be proven, then the opposite position, the existence of God, is a genuine competitor in the scramble for explanatory truth. Wrong. It competes with an infinite number of equally unfalsifiable potential explanations, such as that everything was created by a pink unicorn, 2 pink unicorns, a green unicorn, 4 purple David Hasselhoff's, and so on to infinity.

    I think your issue is that you don't understand the concept of belief. Belief is certainty held within one's self regarding what is true. If you don't have certainty that something posses the property of being a certain way, then you cannot possibly have knowledge regarding that thing. In other words, in order to know anything, you have to believe that what you're observing is truth. A scientist observing an objective truth cannot "know" that it is truth if he doesn't believe it is truth, understand?

    I never compared science to religion. Also, faith is synonymous is with belief; the definition of faith is not: believing in something regardless of a lack of support by empirical evidence. And, furthermore, science is fixed in empiricism; you have faith in what you perceive through your senses.
    Right. Correct. Of course, this argument supports anything. I'll just sit here and think of random things that, from this viewpoint, are exactly equal to the possibility of God existing. My teeth are made out of the government of Japan. Goldfish exert extracurricular maths clubs in the form of radio waves to destabilise oceanic crust etc.

  3. #63
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,387
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    65
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by GothicMoose View Post
    In other words, in order to know anything, you have to believe that what you're observing is truth. A scientist observing an objective truth cannot "know" that it is truth if he doesn't believe it is truth, understand?
    You can test a truth through prediction. We assume that the more accurate the prediction the closer we are to truth, this is an objective motivation for the belief in it, religions demand a "mere" subjective one, logically, depending on the individual, this can be quite weak.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  4. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, May 7th, 2011 @ 08:55 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German or English
    Ancestry
    Scotland, England, Switzerland, Germany
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Location
    Kokomo
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    15
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    No, she was saying that you need as much 'faith' to believe there's no God as you need to believe the cabbages in your vegetable cupboard aren't currently holding a breakdancing competition.
    Mmm...Are you sure? I mean, she stated that she thinks that she doesn't believe in things...And, let's reexamine what she said: I don't believe there is no god(double negative= I believe there is a god) as much as I don't believe there is no flying teapot.(=I believe there is a flying teapot) So, what she said was that she believes there is a god as much as she believes there is a flying teapot. It was already established that she was an atheist, and this statement was in response to me having said that she believed there was no god; so, while I was wrong in my assertion regarding what she was attempting to express, maybe you can understand my confusion...

    Also, it seems that we're using different instances of the word "faith." "Faith," as I'm using it, is synonymous with belief; the way you're using it is: belief in something regardless of a lack of support by empirical evidence.

    Regarding what she intended to express, I would say, "okay?" Because the fact of the matter is that you have no knowledge of whether or not there are vegetables break dancing in your cupboard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    Science doesn't have to (and can't) disprove unfalsifiable statements. The statement that invisible smurfs subconsciously influence the decisions of the world's leaders isn't falsifiable. That doesn't make it a respectable scientific theory that stumps scientists with its sheer intellectual force.
    I meant more for her to explain it because I doubted that she could, but alright, how exactly does believing in a lack of something follow logically from science not being able to disprove that something exists? I mean, what she said, essentially, was that she's an atheist because science doesn't have to disprove things that they can't disprove. That doesn't make sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    It probably came from the fact that it's self-evident.
    I doubt that; negative isn't commonly used in that way. It seems more likely that they read about it somewhere. But, I don't really know that...


    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    Simpletons like to say that science can't disprove the existence of God. And like AcherontiaStyx said, it also can't disprove the existence of a unicorn creator who is pink. It's just not a very sophisticated argument to say that because something, such as the nonexistence of God (a negative -- hence why AcherontiaStyx said it's not science's duty to disprove negatives), can't be proven, then the opposite position, the existence of God, is a genuine competitor in the scramble for explanatory truth. Wrong. It competes with an infinite number of equally unfalsifiable potential explanations, such as that everything was created by a pink unicorn, 2 pink unicorns, a green unicorn, 4 purple David Hasselhoff's, and so on to infinity.
    I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here...If 2 pink unicorns(or anything else) created the universe, that would be what god is...



    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    Right. Correct. Of course, this argument supports anything. I'll just sit here and think of random things that, from this viewpoint, are exactly equal to the possibility of God existing. My teeth are made out of the government of Japan. Goldfish exert extracurricular maths clubs in the form of radio waves to destabilise oceanic crust etc.
    ...What...are...you...on...about...

    ...Because I have no idea. I was trying to explain to this girl that she believes in things, and you start rambling about gods and such...

    No one has any knowledge of whether a god does or doesn't exist, and I never once asserted otherwise...

  5. #65
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 09:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by GothicMoose View Post
    Mmm...Are you sure? I mean, she stated that she thinks that she doesn't believe in things...And, let's reexamine what she said: I don't believe there is no god(double negative= I believe there is a god) as much as I don't believe there is no flying teapot.(=I believe there is a flying teapot)
    Hmm? What she said made sense. The emphasis was on the word believe; i.e. 'belief' is required to reject the notion of God as much as 'belief' is required to reject the notion of a flying teapot -- that is, a modicum of belief is required, but hardly what you'd call a leap of faith.

    So, what she said was that she believes there is a god as much as she believes there is a flying teapot.
    Yes.

    It was already established that she was an atheist, and this statement was in response to me having said that she believed there was no god; so, while I was wrong in my assertion regarding what she was attempting to express, maybe you can understand my confusion...
    No.

    Regarding what she intended to express, I would say, "okay?" Because the fact of the matter is that you have no knowledge of whether or not there are vegetables break dancing in your cupboard.
    True, that was my point. There's no way of knowing. But I'd probably go out on a limb and guess that they aren't.

    I meant more for her to explain it because I doubted that she could, but alright, how exactly does believing in a lack of something follow logically from science not being able to disprove that something exists? I mean, what she said, essentially, was that she's an atheist because science doesn't have to disprove things that they can't disprove. That doesn't make sense.
    Science can't disprove the existence of God, it can just take away reasons to believe in the existence of God. Religion has been stripped bare of any empirical support it may once have enjoyed. Now any religious interpretation of the universe is exactly on par with any random thing I can think up. Since the things I can think up are infinite in number, the chances of any particular religious version of reality being true are less than the chances of a blade of grass randomly selected from all the blades of grass in the world turning out to be in your back yard. But, hey, it's still possible.

    I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here...If 2 pink unicorns(or anything else) created the universe, that would be what god is...
    Right. I'm glad you agree we can do away with pure theology. If we define God as any X that was the origin of the universe, that would superficially eliminate the problem I posed. But not really. This X would be something whose properties were completely unknown to us. It would be a Kantian 'thing-in-itself', existing beyond our capacity to comprehend. As we can comprehend number, it must also be infinite, and, naturally, completely unknowable.

    No religious person in history has taken the logical path of admitting that we know nothing about this 'God'. In fact, since we know with certainty that this 'God' would have absolutely no attributes traditionally ascribed to 'it' (since we can comprehend them all), then calling it 'God' would be a piece of dishonesty in itself.

    ...What...are...you...on...about...

    ...Because I have no idea. I was trying to explain to this girl that she believes in things, and you start rambling about gods and such...

    No one has any knowledge of whether a god does or doesn't exist, and I never once asserted otherwise...
    The original point (her logical 'errors') was so easy to explain and clear up I didn't think it necessary to dwell on it for the entire post.

    It's a belief that any particular version of God doesn't exist. It's a belief that my tongue isn't the soul of Chuck Norris. The chances of either being true are so laughably low, the 'belief' aspect is barely worth mentioning. A fairly obvious point. I hope we can move on from it.

  6. #66
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 06:42 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Bavarii, Saxones, Suebi, Alamanni
    Subrace
    Borreby + Atlantonordoid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Einöde in den Alpen
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Engaged
    Politics
    Tradition & Homeland
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    9,098
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    185
    Thanked in
    106 Posts
    I feel this poll, alongside the typical "science vs. faith" discussion is inherently flawed as it equates "faith" with "judeo-christianity".

    As an Odinist, I accept scientifical facts to be encapsulated in my belief beyond all doubt; them being a manifestation of Urlog, the primeval laws of nature which are unmoveable and whose truth and provenience are beyond all. Unlike Wyrd, which is a rather ambivalent form of fate (threads are there, but most be woven) over which we have some measure of influence, Urlog is what we have no influence about: This also includes IMHO the basic (and more advanced) truths of existence.

    As regards technology, that is not science in the pure sense, but rather humans making use of such natural laws, one of which is also their creative intelligence beyond that of other species, so in a way technology is a bit like cooking: The meat, the herbs, the fruit are all out there, we're simply putting them to efficient use.
    -In kalte Schatten versunken... /Germaniens Volk erstarrt / Gefroren von Lügen / In denen die Welt verharrt-
    -Die alte Seele trauernd und verlassen / Verblassend in einer erklärbaren Welt / Schwebend in einem Dunst der Wehmut / Ein Schrei der nur unmerklich gellt-
    -Auch ich verspüre Demut / Vor dem alten Geiste der Ahnen / Wird es mir vergönnt sein / Gen Walhalla aufzufahren?-

    (Heimdalls Wacht, In kalte Schatten versunken, stanzas 4-6)

  7. #67
    Senior Member Schwanengesang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 @ 08:18 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway
    Subrace
    Norid
    Country
    German Fraternity German Fraternity
    Location
    The far, far north
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Medical Student/Tutor/Pianist
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    130
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I think Hamar Fox has already clarified everything that needed to be clarified.

    Oh, and Gothic Moose, Karl Popper is not a Scientist. You should look him up and read; since you don't normally do that, it may be a little hard to swallow, but then again, it's always good to get a nice perspective on the Philosophy of Science, Logic and Mathematics.


    νυνι δε μενει πιστις ελπις αγαπη τα τρια ταυτα μειζων δε τουτων η αγαπη

  8. #68
    Senior Member Lady Vengeance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, August 24th, 2012 @ 01:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Visual art student
    Politics
    Commienazi
    Posts
    246
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Great to see that people here generally prefer science and cold hard logic. I was raised in a very secular family, and reacted with disgust towards all organized religion when I ran into it at school. Those mumbo-jumbo rituals never meant anything to me. I think everything that needs to be said on this topic has already been said by wiser people than me.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCross View Post
    Hahaha, I'm so gonna put that on a poster and stick it up in my apartment.

  9. #69
    Eala Freia Fresena
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ocko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    3 Weeks Ago @ 11:24 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Friese
    Ancestry
    Friesland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Montana Montana
    Location
    Glacier park
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    selfemployed
    Politics
    rightwing
    Religion
    none/pagan
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    17 Posts
    Seems to me more that some people here dislike religion.
    weel nich will dieken dej mot wieken

  10. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, May 7th, 2011 @ 08:55 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German or English
    Ancestry
    Scotland, England, Switzerland, Germany
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Location
    Kokomo
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    15
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    Hmm? What she said made sense. The emphasis was on the word believe; i.e. 'belief' is required to reject the notion of God as much as 'belief' is required to reject the notion of a flying teapot -- that is, a modicum of belief is required, but hardly what you'd call a leap of faith.
    I didn't say a leap of faith, though... :/ And, she didn't say that a modicum of belief was required; so, it seemed to me that she was insisting that she didn't believe at all, and I was assuming that she did, in fact, believe that flying teapots didn't possess the property of being...


    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    No.
    It sates that she's an atheist beneath her avatar...


    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    then calling it 'God' would be a piece of dishonesty in itself.
    God--yeah, I think I can agree with that. A god--eh, I'm not so sure...


    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    The chances of either being true are so laughably low, the 'belief' aspect is barely worth mentioning.
    Probability is an illusion, though; something either is or isn't...




    Quote Originally Posted by AcherontiaStyx View Post
    Oh, and Gothic Moose, Karl Popper is not a Scientist. You should look him up and read; since you don't normally do that, it may be a little hard to swallow, but then again, it's always good to get a nice perspective on the Philosophy of Science, Logic and Mathematics.
    Umm...I'm alright; thanks for the recommendation, though. I generally prefer to think for myself, seeing as how I have the ability to do so.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Which UK Politician Do You Dislike The Most?
    By SaxonPagan in forum England
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Monday, June 3rd, 2019, 10:26 PM
  2. Ever Been to a Nation You Dislike?
    By Landser_ in forum The Hearth
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: Monday, April 29th, 2019, 02:02 PM
  3. Do Some Male Members on Here Dislike Women?
    By feisty goddess in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: Friday, April 15th, 2011, 07:48 AM
  4. Is Science Racist? Liberals Want to Drop Science Classes
    By Nachtengel in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, 02:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •