Thoughts
/Not necessarily, there are many unanswered questions in the realm of science.
That you relate this to the subject matter is nearly requisite of your position eh? Interesting. You see, this isn't at all pertinent. Science accounts for its conjecture, whereas religion requires denial thereof.
/One of the most pertinent is; "Where did it all come from?".
Science progresses ever deeper into the unknown, carving from it: comprehension. At this time, science offers a multitude of variants on several major hypothesis as to "where it all came from", but does not settle on one as an answer.
/Yet scientists still continue with the scientific method - they still have their faith in science.
Faith in reason is all that is required. From that, it is reasonable to assume it possible discern what is and is not real based on our input. The amount of faith required is that to believe the previous statement. If you find it an unreasonable assumption, you can reject it. It can be rejected if necessary, but the assumption of the validity of reason is necessary for survival. Of course that statement is based on the assumption of the validity of reason, which demonstrates the inherent difficulty incurred if you abandon it.
/Our whole existence is built on faith, observation, and science.
Interesting perspective. I don't know if the fact that it is three words means that 'what our whole existence is about" is evenly distributed across those words.
/According to you, this is all hollow.
He didn't say that really did he? I thought he basically said religion is hollow because it abandons reason for faith in baseless and complicated solutions. Believe in god is almost understandable from the perspective you present below, but adding a religion to that belief is IMO, hopeless abandonment of all good sense. If you don't require things to make sense however, you will necessarily be diametrically opposed to my position.
/Non-existent existence.
You are born, you live, you die. While you live little more can be said. While you live, to say much more to ask for the warm blanket.
/Ahhh, but why not add the middle man?
Because apparently he comes with strings attached. The mafia comes to mind.
/It may take us closer yet.
It hands you a warm blanket (sorry I liked the term so have apparently temporarily attached to it) in which you wrap yourself. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as you can admit it. The agnostic's blanket is not so warm unless heated by the strength of their character.
/Isn't that how the concept of infinity arose?
But infinity is only purported as an abstract whereas your middleman steals the show.
/Isn't that how problems are solved in human situations? In math especially. If you have a problem with something; invent!
If you have a problem with something, solve it. That doesn't mean make something up and say it has to be true. Can you see the difference?
/That's how 'what's his name' came up with the concept of the neutrino, that's how Hawking came up with virtual particles.
Sure, and then guys devised experiments for particle accelorators to detect the particles etc. Note that the model of the atom is referred to as "the standard model". MODEL. You know?
/That's why there's dark matter and dark energy. You see a hole, you plug it.
Okay so if I ask "where did it all come from" (the most general question I can imagine, rather than jack around I should just jump to "it was this one thing and it did it and it says I should worship it"? Religions require this.
/You just have to invent a plug which is the right shape, size, and composition.
Perhaps your answer is simply invalid for the context of the question? You ask the most general possible question, provide the most general possible answer and insist that you must have faith in it as the source of all, or that it somehow requires faith of you in some weird contract or something? It's okay to snuggle in your blanky damnit. I would hope you to know this is what you are doing such that you do not insist more than emotional gratification to justify your unreasonable beliefs - as to do so puts you at odds with good sense..
/For example; the origin of existence.
What if you insist on answers that can only be fabricated, which don't in fact exist at all other than in that fabrication?
/In fact, it is beginning to seem that you cannot avoid complexity.
In what manner?
Can you accept the possibilty of a limitation to "that which can be known"? What if the following is true:
Anything that happened prior to the event that lead to existence cannot be known... this is the opportunity cost for existing. To exist, you cannot know what it is like not to exist, though you can attempt to project it.
/Not necessarily, there are many unanswered questions in the realm of science.
That you relate this to the subject matter is nearly requisite of your position eh? Interesting. You see, this isn't at all pertinent. Science accounts for its conjecture, whereas religion requires denial thereof.
/One of the most pertinent is; "Where did it all come from?".
Science progresses ever deeper into the unknown, carving from it: comprehension. At this time, science offers a multitude of variants on several major hypothesis as to "where it all came from", but does not settle on one as an answer.
/Yet scientists still continue with the scientific method - they still have their faith in science.
Faith in reason is all that is required. From that, it is reasonable to assume it possible discern what is and is not real based on our input. The amount of faith required is that to believe the previous statement. If you find it an unreasonable assumption, you can reject it. It can be rejected if necessary, but the assumption of the validity of reason is necessary for survival. Of course that statement is based on the assumption of the validity of reason, which demonstrates the inherent difficulty incurred if you abandon it.
/Our whole existence is built on faith, observation, and science.
Interesting perspective. I don't know if the fact that it is three words means that 'what our whole existence is about" is evenly distributed across those words.
/According to you, this is all hollow.
He didn't say that really did he? I thought he basically said religion is hollow because it abandons reason for faith in baseless and complicated solutions. Believe in god is almost understandable from the perspective you present below, but adding a religion to that belief is IMO, hopeless abandonment of all good sense. If you don't require things to make sense however, you will necessarily be diametrically opposed to my position.
/Non-existent existence.
You are born, you live, you die. While you live little more can be said. While you live, to say much more to ask for the warm blanket.
/Ahhh, but why not add the middle man?
Because apparently he comes with strings attached. The mafia comes to mind.
/It may take us closer yet.
It hands you a warm blanket (sorry I liked the term so have apparently temporarily attached to it) in which you wrap yourself. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as you can admit it. The agnostic's blanket is not so warm unless heated by the strength of their character.
/Isn't that how the concept of infinity arose?
But infinity is only purported as an abstract whereas your middleman steals the show.
/Isn't that how problems are solved in human situations? In math especially. If you have a problem with something; invent!
If you have a problem with something, solve it. That doesn't mean make something up and say it has to be true. Can you see the difference?
/That's how 'what's his name' came up with the concept of the neutrino, that's how Hawking came up with virtual particles.
Sure, and then guys devised experiments for particle accelorators to detect the particles etc. Note that the model of the atom is referred to as "the standard model". MODEL. You know?
/That's why there's dark matter and dark energy. You see a hole, you plug it.
Okay so if I ask "where did it all come from" (the most general question I can imagine, rather than jack around I should just jump to "it was this one thing and it did it and it says I should worship it"? Religions require this.
/You just have to invent a plug which is the right shape, size, and composition.
Perhaps your answer is simply invalid for the context of the question? You ask the most general possible question, provide the most general possible answer and insist that you must have faith in it as the source of all, or that it somehow requires faith of you in some weird contract or something? It's okay to snuggle in your blanky damnit. I would hope you to know this is what you are doing such that you do not insist more than emotional gratification to justify your unreasonable beliefs - as to do so puts you at odds with good sense..
/For example; the origin of existence.
What if you insist on answers that can only be fabricated, which don't in fact exist at all other than in that fabrication?
/In fact, it is beginning to seem that you cannot avoid complexity.
In what manner?
Can you accept the possibilty of a limitation to "that which can be known"? What if the following is true:
Anything that happened prior to the event that lead to existence cannot be known... this is the opportunity cost for existing. To exist, you cannot know what it is like not to exist, though you can attempt to project it.
Last edited:
