martyrdrebel27 said:
Machines Are Us said:
martyrdrebel27 said:
Machines Are Us said:
martyrdrebel27 said:
Machines Are Us said:
*snip*
It wasn't an argument and you are missing my point.
I did not say that science is not testable. I said that blindly believing in somebody you never met because they have a PHD is no better than believing in a book written by people who were alive thousdands of years before you.
It's still blind faith until you get thet microscope and test it for yourself.
Oh, and do not make the assumption that I am a Christian, just because I do not support Atheism.
but you're missing MY point. you don't have to blindly follow the PhD'd person to get scientific facts. you are completely capable of doing it on your own. if you're blindly following scientific facts, its just because you don't feel the need to verify for yourself, but the option IS there. whereas religion just tells you something, and you have no way of verifying or denying it, you've got no choice but to blindly follow.
Actually I wasn't missing your point at all. Hence the sentence in bold.
Atheism is not blind faith for those that actually
do test these things. The vast majority do not so however, they are following as blindly as any religion based on books written thousands of years ago.
Maybe the option is there, but until you test it you are just as blind so it does not matter if the option is there or not.
i guess we're at an empasse then, because now were just talking about two differing, valid perspectives on the situation.
i believe that because the information is testable and repeatable, it's not faith, even if you choose not to prove it yourself. it's still possible to be done, therefor doesn't need to be.
whereas you feel that unless you yourself test scientific theories, you're placing blind faith into it.
my problem with that is that all of science is based on taking for granted the discoveries of the past. an astrophysicist doesn't need to prove that the earth is round, someone already did, so he goes with that scientific assumption to do his astrophysizing, figuring out orbits and whatnot.
Its a web of trust. The trust standards in religion are uniformly low. I know dozens of scientists, I know how they operate, I trust them to have high evidential standards and not make things up. I also know dozens of preachers and evangelists. I know how they operate. I don't trust them to have high evidential standards and not make things up. I know the Bible. I know how it was made. I know how it was translated, edited, canonized. I know history. I know what people were like. I've seen cults before. I don't trust it not to make things up. I have what I think is a highly coherent view of my environment. I can make predictions on the validity of claims that are largely borne out with additional observations.
Was I there when the Bible was made? No. Could I be wrong? Yes. The universe could have appeared 5 minutes ago with the appearance of great age. These sort of skeptical arguments are pointless, because in truth, no one can be certain of anything. However, in the absence of certainty we need to make good guesses, and I'd rather trust people that I can shake hands with, who have colleagues constantly checking their work, studying things that I can observe myself if I have the inclination, and who are constantly cross-referencing and checking for consistency, than the alternative; namely, people who take issue with every other religion (all religions are wrong but mine, I'm absolutely sure) and in the absence of any evidence, any consistency, declare themselves to know the answers to these untestable existential questions. There is no trust in that relationship.
If God wants me to know Him, He knows where I live.
