|
First extract of Richard Dawkins new book.
|
 
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe (September 9, 2009 at 3:59 pm)Saerules Wrote:(September 9, 2009 at 3:56 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Non Overlapping MAgisteria. The idea that Science and Religion are two separate subjects, rather than overlapping in what they describe. 
Best regards,
Leo van Miert Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you 
The priests asked in one of the first paragraphs something which made me immediately jump to scientology. Just an impulsive assumption
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
 (September 9, 2009 at 3:59 pm)Saerules Wrote:(September 9, 2009 at 3:38 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: And I repeat Saer ... show me one thing that is pretty much universally accepted based on pure logic. 1 equals 1 is an assumption that is borne out by the fact that other stuff based on it works, much like the assumption that the universe is real. Actually there is some speculation that there must be universes where 1 = 5 ... don't ask me how but I read it somewhere. Anyway, you never answered my question ... what has philosophy ever proven alone (without empirical testing)? 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 
I agree with NOMA. Religion is all philosophical thinking and ethics; it cannot possibly tell anyone about the state of matter because it has no reliable methods for doing so. Science has the reliable methods, we can learn everything about the universe through science, but science cannot tell us if there is a God or ultimate purpose to existence given that these things by definition lie outside of the scope of scientific evaluation. I'd prefer to think of NOMA covering the separation of science and ethics/philosophy.
To sum it up in one example: Science can tell us how to make a nuclear bomb. Ethics/Philosophy can tell us why we shouldn't use it. (September 9, 2009 at 5:21 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I agree with NOMA. I'm in the Dawkin's camp ... like him I think it's horrendously flawed. 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 RE: First extract of Richard Dawkins new book.
September 9, 2009 at 5:39 pm
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2009 at 5:40 pm by Violet.)
(September 9, 2009 at 5:18 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(September 9, 2009 at 3:59 pm)Saerules Wrote:(September 9, 2009 at 3:38 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: And I repeat Saer ... show me one thing that is pretty much universally accepted based on pure logic. 1 equals 1 is an assumption that is borne out by the fact that other stuff based on it works, much like the assumption that the universe is real. If that doesn't answer your question, then i am afraid you are dodging my answer. In any universe in which 1 ≠ 1: the universe is either one mass, or it is a void. Have i not proven that our universe is applicable to 1=1, and every universe that could possibly precede ours is also the same? That i have proven with philosophy. Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
(September 9, 2009 at 5:39 pm)Saerules Wrote: If that doesn't answer your question, then i am afraid you are dodging my answer. In any universe in which 1 ≠ 1: the universe is either one mass, or it is a void. Have i not proven that our universe is applicable to 1=1, and every universe that could possibly precede ours is also the same? That i have proven with philosophy. No I am not question dodging ... I do not accept that 1 = 1 is a philosophical issue in the sense you are saying and besides it is, as I said earlier, it is an assumption demonstrated to be true by science and math. Please do not accuse me of question dodging because I do not see the world form the same perspective as you! 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
Hmm, it is demonstrated to be true in math and in other sciences. But did i not also demonstrate it to be true with philosophy?
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
(September 9, 2009 at 6:01 pm)Saerules Wrote: Hmm, it is demonstrated to be true in math and in other sciences. But did i not also demonstrate it to be true with philosophy? I don't think so ... I don't think it is possible to demonstrate it. It's an assumption. 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 |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
