Is science the fundamental source of knowledge?

[Insuperable]

I don't need a guy who just started reading a few excerpts from varying philosophers a year ago in an attempt to validate his conversion from one mystical irrational religion to another to tell me to improve myself. You're not a philosopher king. You're a man-child who finally stopped playing video games and decided he is going to attempt to validate his new found religion. The actual question is what allows us to arrive at a truth? Real world results is tangible evidence. What truth has your faith given to the world? Exactly. Nothing. I'll say it again: there is no man in a mental institution who values evidence to have a belief but there are plenty of people who believe they have magical powers, converse with God, and also claim they are the son of God. I'd like to believe them but my faith in their abilities is lacking. I would love to see water turn into wine. It would be the first time it was ever recorded in history (by someone actually present).

No matter what is on Herr Abubu's mind, two atheists with background in philosophy can discuss about this for hours without mentioning God or religion. With your accusations you just keep on proving that a guy who just started reading a few excerpts from varying philosophers a year ago has more insights than you.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

No matter what is on Herr Abubu's mind, two atheists with background in philosophy can discuss about this for hours without mentioning God or religion. With your accusations you just keep on proving that a guy who just started reading a few excerpts from varying philosophers a year ago has more insights than you.

What I prove is I don't take the thread seriously. If Abubu wanted a serious discussion on philosophical issues he'd go to a forum specifically suited for it. Everyone here knows this isn't a place for serious philosophical discussions. As far as I know only Unome has a background in philosophy and has been published. Abubu comes here because he knows the vast majority of posters at best took a few philosophy classes. He wants to play in the EHL instead of a higher league. I have an interest in law. I don't come here to discuss US constitutional law but if I did I wouldn't berate someone for posting a copy and paste of points because in my lack of interest to boost my own ego I'm more interested in what is being written in that copy and paste than if the poster can 'think for himself' or just as likely doesn't have the time and/or inclination to discuss a subject with the OP who already decided what is - ironically - the truth.

Obviously I'm going to mention God because that's his purpose. If he won't follow the rules of a debate then why should anyone bother? He couldnt get past a few posts before he was making an ad hominem attack against Petros. He decided to make a mockery of his own thread at that point but I don't see you calling him out on it. Instead you focus on me bringing up Christianity. He ruined any respectability to his attempt at a serious debate with riding that fallacy but you don't see that. What you see is 'someone is mocking Christianity.' You don't care about other problems and of course I'm going to mock him and you for believing something that - I hate to tell you - can be shown to not be true. Yes, there was no God in the flesh. It's a myth.

I'm sorry if you're upset but I remind you my hugs are real and I'll be there for you if reality offends you. We'll then get a drink afterwards and you'll see how fast you get over it.

[Herr Abubu]

No matter what is on Herr Abubu's mind, two atheists with background in philosophy can discuss about this for hours without mentioning God or religion. With your accusations you just keep on proving that a guy who just started reading a few excerpts from varying philosophers a year ago has more insights than you.

Grimes' issue with is with me personally. That he also just isn't very good at thinking also means that there's not much to work with.

[Insuperable]

I admit I write unsophisticated responses because I don't take this thread seriously and because philosophical issues are not my thing.

K.

If he won't follow the rules of a debate then why should anyone bother? He couldnt get past a few posts before he was making an ad hominem attack against Petros. He decided to make a mockery of his own thread at that point but I don't see you calling him out on it. Instead you focus on me bringing up Christianity. He ruined any respectability to his attempt at a serious debate with riding that fallacy but you don't see that. What you see is 'someone is mocking Christianity.' You don't care about other problems and of course I'm going to mock him and you for believing something that - I hate to tell you - can be shown to not be true. Yes, there was no God in the flesh. It's a mythology.

But I did not focus on you because you were bringing up Christianity, but simply because you already went on to talk about something you shouldn't. It just happens that you are an atheist, agnostic or whatever and I am not. I have just read Petros' first posts and realized they also have to do with science and faith, also very unsophisticated for the topic. Regarding Petros' posts, I eyed them, but I didn't bother to read them and it seems I was correct what they are about. I thought you would give some other insight on the topic (since you don't open fifty threads per day about atheism and religion). I see it is also personal between you two.

I'm sorry if you're upset but I remind you my hugs are real and I'll be there for you if reality offends you. We'll then get a drink afterwards and you'll see how fast you get over it.

You can never upset me Grimey.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

K.

You're very clever. He's basically writing the definitions of terms when giving his explanations and not much more. Don't be so easily impressed. Perhaps if you saw it written in your language you would see it as looking more like a homework assignment to show he understands the terms.

But I did not focus on you because you were bringing up Christianity, but simply because you already went on to talk about something you shouldn't. It just happens that you are an atheist, agnostic or whatever and I am not. I have just read Petros' first posts and realized they also have to do with science and faith, also very unsophisticated for the topic. Regarding Petros' posts, I eyed them, but I didn't bother to read them and it seems I was correct what they are about. I thought you would give some other insight on the topic (since you don't open fifty threads per day about atheism and religion). I see it is also personal between you two.

First off, Petros did answer Abubu's loaded question. He specifically stated he didn't think it was the only source of knowledge (truth). This is what Abubu wanted to see but because Abubu is Abubu he chimped over the rest of what Petros posted. He wasn't satisfied because the issue really isn't about whether it's the only source of human knowledge (loaded question, which he acknowledged) but that it undermines his faith in a particular interpretation of God.

Ideas matter. Bad ideas lead to misery and suffering. This is the same guy who says whenever he gets a chance that homosexuals should be murdered. Take a wild guess at what piece of literature would make him think murdering a particular group of people is fine. Actually, I could use your religious text to murder a number of people. Did you keep holy the Sabbath? If not then I'm going to have stab you, sir. It's the rules. It's in the OT. I have to kill you. God demands your punishment.

You can never upset me Grimey.

You're protected by self deception. It's a powerful shield.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Grimes' issue with is with me personally. That he also just isn't very good at thinking also means that there's not much to work with.

Illyrian Warrior has an issue with you personally. My issue with you is ideological. It's a self serving, hypocritical scumbag ideology. If you didn't say nonsense I wouldn't care. In fact, I never bothered with you before until you decided to promote shady beliefs. As with Illyrian Warrior you reveal your lack of back bone. It's not like I can punch you through the internet. It's okay to speak to me directly instead of indirectly through another person while I'm virtually standing here. You use the same effeminate tactics as junior high school girls.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Depends on what you mean by "science", "fundamental" and "knowledge".
If I witnessed something supernatural happen with my own eyes, how is that any different than a scientist making an observation? Even if it can't be replicated(as many phenomena in nature/existence can't but are real nonetheless), it doesn't make it any less plausible since it's still a person seeing something.


Bonus

The Mother of Guadalupe tale was a way for the priests to be able to convince conquered natives to accept Christianity. What better way to get locals you just conquered not long ago (1531... they were still in the process of conquering much of modern day Mexico) into accepting the new norm by giving them a figure of their own in the religion you're introducing? I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't co-opted from the native's own religion and given a Catholic dressing as was typical in Europe.

[Svipdag]

There are whole areas of human experience and knowledge which lie outside the purview of science.The arts, aesthetics,
history, literature are among these. And, indeed, even in the material realm, there is much which science has not dealt with and may well be incapable of elucidating. Ontological questions are an area of great weakness in physics, for example.
Physicists blithely discuss matter and energy until they are asked to explain just what matter and energy ARE.

Matter is THAT WHICH (note, the next word has to be a VERB) occupies space and has mass. Occupy and have are verbs;
they tell us what matter DOES, NOT what it IS. Energy is defined as "capacity for doing work." Electrons can be treated as
particles of electrical energy (they can also, if convenient, be treated as waves) but, if treated as particles of energy, does it make any sense to say that they are particles of capacity for doing work ?

The ONLY test of the validity of a scientific hypothesis or theory is whether it describes or explains the behavior of
matter . This is not a matter of belief but one of consistency with nature, NOT consistency with a theoretical model
however elegant or mathematically consistent it may be. Nature is not obliged to conform to physicists' conceptual models, but rather, the models MUST be consistent with nature.

[Insuperable]

You're very clever. He's basically writing the definitions of terms when giving his explanations and not much more. Don't be so easily impressed. Perhaps if you saw it written in your language you would see it as looking more like a homework assignment to show he understands the terms.

The responses still remain (as) bad no matter what you write about Herr Abubu.

First off, Petros did answer Abubu's loaded question. He specifically stated he didn't think it was the only source of knowledge (truth). This is what Abubu wanted to see but because Abubu is Abubu he chimped over the rest of what Petros posted. He wasn't satisfied because the issue really isn't about whether it's the only source of human knowledge (loaded question, which he acknowledged) but that it undermines his faith in a particular interpretation of God.

Ok. But just so you know, you are right, what I have replied to you I should have replied to Petros too.

Ideas matter. Bad ideas lead to misery and suffering. This is the same guy who says whenever he gets a chance that homosexuals should be murdered.

He says that?

Take a wild guess at what piece of literature would make him think murdering a particular group of people is fine. Actually, I could use your religious text to murder a number of people. Did you keep holy the Sabbath? If not then I'm going to have stab you, sir. It's the rules. It's in the OT. I have to kill you. God demands your punishment.

Not my religion.

You're protected by self deception. It's a powerful shield.

I think I could have been defined as an atheist for a short time of my life, maybe part of the time when I was in a highschool if I remember correctly. But, I was drawn to Christianity and over the years my connection just grew stronger. Obviously nobody can severe my bond with it just like that, with a few words. What you see a self deception I see years of growing wisdom.

[Herr Abubu]

Illyrian Warrior has an issue with you personally. My issue with you is ideological. It's a self serving, hypocritical scumbag ideology. If you didn't say nonsense I wouldn't care. In fact, I never bothered with you before until you decided to promote shady beliefs. As with Illyrian Warrior you reveal your lack of back bone. It's not like I can punch you through the internet. It's okay to speak to me directly instead of indirectly through another person while I'm virtually standing here. You use the same effeminate tactics as junior high school girls.

I don't know what Illyrian Warrior has to do with anything. Thanks for mentioning him, though. You say one thing, but you constantly reaffirm that you aren't to be trusted on your word. It's something I have pointed out numerous times. You have a personal grudge against me, which is why you constantly heckle me and attack my person even if it isn't relevant in any way. Your obsession with getting one on me is such that you interpret me telling someone of your motivation for constantly trying to have at me is that you have a grudge against me. It's because at your core you are a worthless, bitter shadow of a man, and I remind you of that for a few reasons. However, while it is annoying, I am also happy to know that I give your otherwise empty life and being something to hold on to.