|
A Book?
|
 (May 19, 2009 at 6:33 am)lilphil1989 Wrote:(May 19, 2009 at 5:57 am)Giff Wrote: You can actually call spitituallty to be name for a feeling. Yes, agree with you. Much better description
- Science is not trying to create an answer like religion, it tries to find an answer.
 RE: A Book?
May 19, 2009 at 10:51 am
(This post was last modified: May 19, 2009 at 10:52 am by g-mark.)
Mr Hayter Wrote:There are no "observations" in the philosophy camp though. Philosophy is pretty much the study of thinking; i doesn't rely on fact, it relies on reasoning. Philosophy doesn't stray into the land of science, and science doesn't stray into the land of philosophy! Philosophy: Derived from the Greek words Philo (friend) and sophia (wisdom). Therefore, a philosopher is a friend of wisdom. In ancient Greek it meant something like curious. As all science once started a philisophical subjects and evloved into their own diciplines, you can say that science and philosophy are comparably to one another.The usage of the word 'phoilosophy' survives in the in the award of the degree of PH.D - Doctor of Philosophy. As physics, biology, sociology, and the rest began their lives as philisophical thought, we can say they do stray together. Scientist today must first think up or observe the ideas, think about them some more, put them into words, write them down, then test them. The thought process is the first part of the equation, and the most important. To be a good philosopher, you must have a varied and wide knowledge of many subjects to understand important issues and be able to reason through them properly. If you have incomplete or unsatisfactory knowledge your reasoning will be flawed and incomplete. Plato Wrote:a constant passion for any knowledge that will reveal to them something of that reality which endures for ever and is not always passing into and out of existence. And, we may add, their deire is to know the whole of that reality; they will not willingly renounce any part of it as relatively small and insignificant.....  RE: A Book?
May 19, 2009 at 11:26 am
(This post was last modified: May 19, 2009 at 11:55 am by chatpilot.)
I agree with gmark to a certain extent that philosophy and science do cross paths and intermingle in the sense that scientific principles begin as all things as thoughts and ideas,but philosophy does not stick to the norms of conventional scientific processes.Normally when scientists hit a stone wall they either look to other possibilities for answers within the scientific and provable realm.Where as in philosophy when they hit a stone wall tend to seek their answers in the esoteric and unprovable realms.
There is nothing people will not maintain when they are slaves to superstition
http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/
Only with certain subjects.
Once again that is so true gmark
There is nothing people will not maintain when they are slaves to superstition
http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/  (May 19, 2009 at 3:35 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Then that firmly places you with the nutters Evie No, it places him firmly in the Dawkinsian camp of reality. Kyu Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings! Come over to the dark side, we have cookies! Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator  
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe RE: A Book?
May 19, 2009 at 1:54 pm
(This post was last modified: May 19, 2009 at 1:56 pm by fr0d0.)
(May 19, 2009 at 5:51 am)lilphil1989 Wrote:(May 19, 2009 at 3:35 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Then that firmly places you with the nutters Evie No Phil. This subject has no evidence. You'd have to be a pratt to demand evidence of it. How simple can I make this? Watch the "Did Darwin kill God" video I posted for info. (May 19, 2009 at 1:46 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(May 19, 2009 at 3:35 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Then that firmly places you with the nutters Evie Also in the theology = science camp are Creationists and ID'ers. All nutters IMO.  RE: A Book?
May 19, 2009 at 2:24 pm
(This post was last modified: May 19, 2009 at 2:32 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(May 19, 2009 at 1:46 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(May 19, 2009 at 3:35 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Then that firmly places you with the nutters Evie w00t It actually feels more like an awesome PARTY than a camp to me these last few weeks  Ever since I read TGD I came here...it was a blast of rationality - and then the more time I spend here the more the party continues lol! The party of rationality LOL. EvF (May 19, 2009 at 5:51 am)lilphil1989 Wrote:(May 19, 2009 at 3:35 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Then that firmly places you with the nutters Evie fr0d0 Wrote:No Phil. This subject has no evidence. You'd have to be a pratt to demand evidence of it. How simple can I make this? If there can be no evidence that doesn't mean you should believe WITHOUT it. It's still ridiculous to believe in something without evidence! I mean; The Flying Spaghetti Monster is unprovable and you could just as easily said there can be no evidence of IT as of "God". Should we believe in the FSM because there can be no evidence of IT either? Well I think that would be ridiculous. To believe in the FSM you need evidence regardless of if there CAN be or not. If there CAN'T be evidence then we STILL don't have any to believe! No evidence of FSM; no evidence of God. So we don't believe in the FSM, wtf should we believe in God? Watch the "Did Darwin kill God" video I posted for info. (May 19, 2009 at 1:46 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(May 19, 2009 at 3:35 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Then that firmly places you with the nutters Evie Quote:Also in the theology = science camp are Creationists and ID'ers. All nutters IMO. Evidence is rational; Faith isn't. Science is based on Evidence; religion is based on Faith. EvF (May 19, 2009 at 1:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(May 19, 2009 at 1:46 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: No, it places him firmly in the Dawkinsian camp of reality. At what point did ANY of us say, admit or even imply that science equates to theology? No one is, as far as I know, denying that the creationists and IDC's are wingnuts but ANY religious claim (any claim to the spiritual for which there is no evidence) is the same and the only difference is a matter of degree. IOW you're ALL whack-jobs, the only question is exactly how whacky you are! Kyu Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings! Come over to the dark side, we have cookies! Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe (May 19, 2009 at 2:24 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Evidence is rational; Faith isn't. Science is based on Evidence; religion is based on Faith. Exactly. Yet you continue to demand evidence of faith.  (May 19, 2009 at 2:40 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: At what point did ANY of us say, admit or even imply that science equates to theology? No one is, as far as I know, denying that the creationists and IDC's are wingnuts but ANY religious claim (any claim to the spiritual for which there is no evidence) is the same and the only difference is a matter of degree. You're using science to dismiss theology. Therefore you are saying theology is definable BY science (ie that it's not a subject). Therefore you are with the wingnuts in crossing over the two. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
