One question to atheists II (does that mean it's two questions now??)

[Leonis]

Originally posted by esquire: I'm not sure how you define 'science' but theology is no more a science than aroma therapy or chinese medicine are 'sciences'. You can't prove faith, you can't test it, they are subjective. Neither is one able to apply the scientific method to study religion...it doesn't work! So, here we are in the 21st century, and we have drawn a line to separate the two. The benefits become obvious when you consider how much science has advanced civilization in the past four hundred years. To me it seems illogical to try to 'prove' religion using the scientific process because it simply can't be done. Similarly, there are not many scientists around the world trying to prove that god exists - that is for philosophers and theologins. Its perfectly possible to be religious/spiritual and also be an objective scientist, one just separates the two.

Interesting. Evolutionists have faith in an unproven theory. Fair enough, why not? It's a good theory. Does this mean evolutionary scientists are not?

Originally posted by Yorick: I disagree that theology has a predetermined assumption. Someone can study theology and develop an atheistic theology. Or a pantheistic theology. Or a monotheistic theology. There is no predetermined assumption in theology whatsover. Christian theology is one result of studying theology. It should be noted that my own theology is based on this: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, involving experimentation and measurement and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities - The definition in the Cambridge dictionary, as used and advocated by Dramnek APPLIES to MY THEOLOGY.

I’ll find another dictionary in that case.
It’s a contingent, not a necessary or absolute truth; In Fact, I think It may have reached Agrippa’s trilemma here.

I can go on giving reasons why theology is not a science forever and ever, using different sources to back that up each time,
I can just say, “Theology is not a science. Period” although of course that is dogmatic and people will scoff and small children will pursue me in the street banging pots and pans.
Or I could say that theology is not science because if it were a science it would be a science, But since it’s not a science it can’t be, but if it was a science it would be. Circular reasoning, and If I tried that I fear for the sanctity of my fridge.

HTH. HAND.

Originally posted by Yorick: Dramnek is using the results of my observations and experiments as proof that my approach is not scientific, simply because he cannot accept the conclusions I have made. The different schools of psychology do not try and tell each other they are not true psychology simply because they have different outcomes. Why should Dramnek discredit my approach simply because he disagrees with my conclusions?

IKYABWAI? ;o)

Originally posted by Leonis: Interesting. Evolutionists have faith in an unproven theory. Fair enough, why not? It's a good theory. Does this mean evolutionary scientists are not?[/QB]

You say, “Unproven” But there is a difference,
There is Evidence to back it (evolution) up. It is not proven in the sense that we can say, “Yes evolution is Definitely true” we cannot say anything is Definitely true, we can’t even prove that other people exist.

But there is good reason to think it is true, more so than any other of the alternatives, and that is the important thing. More so than any other alternative based on the sum of human experience.
So for this temporal moment, it is fair to say in colloquial usage that Evolution is true. It's only when we start getting all HARD CORE philosophical that we start having to engage chin stoking mode.

I would say for example that I have more reason to logically believe that the system of scientific observation that has given rise to Science and Evolution to be true, than for example placing blind faith in creationism.
(Though I still cannot be totally sure, but for everyday purposes rather than artificial philosophical ones, it holds as true until something better comes along)

[ 01-27-2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Eisenschwarz ]

[WOLFGIR]

Originally posted by Yorick: Secondly, an atheist places their reality upon theists, by presuming their reality to apply to everyone - thus discrediting and devalidating the experience of someone who says they know God. Agnosticism does no such thing. Theism does no such thing. An agnostic view acknowledges there is potential for reality outside their own experience.

Er, just one question here Yorick;
But wouldn´t a believer do the same in reverse as the Atheist ion your example? Doesn´t your belief and faith in God makes you see the world from that belief and the Atheist in it? Sorry, I might be grasping a straw here, but I didn´t like the phrasings really, and might also suit me right for reading the complete thread but oboy... This one grows...

I have always called myself an atheist, maybe I should be an agnostic. But I actually prefer to call my self a human without beliefs plain and simple, and thus, I have never placed much value to any descriptions. And as Cerek said above. I don´t think I would have changed. I still do what I think is right, and try to do my best.

And just for the argument of changing to a lighter side of the discussion: Congrats to the gig Yorick! When will be able to see you live in Göteborg??

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: HTH. HAND. IKYABWAI? ;o)

What do all those abbreviations mean, Eisen? Maybe I'm stupid for asking, but I doubt I'm the only one who doesn't know.

Originally posted by Melusine: quote: Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: HTH. HAND. IKYABWAI? ;o)

What do all those abbreviations mean, Eisen? Maybe I'm stupid for asking, but I doubt I'm the only one who doesn't know.[/QUOTE]Hope This Helps.

Have A Nice Day.

I Know You Are But What Am I?

HTH. HAND. TIA.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by WOLFGIR: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Secondly, an atheist places their reality upon theists, by presuming their reality to apply to everyone - thus discrediting and devalidating the experience of someone who says they know God. Agnosticism does no such thing. Theism does no such thing. An agnostic view acknowledges there is potential for reality outside their own experience.

Er, just one question here Yorick;
But wouldn´t a believer do the same in reverse as the Atheist ion your example? Doesn´t your belief and faith in God makes you see the world from that belief and the Atheist in it? Sorry, I might be grasping a straw here, but I didn´t like the phrasings really, and might also suit me right for reading the complete thread but oboy... This one grows...

I have always called myself an atheist, maybe I should be an agnostic. But I actually prefer to call my self a human without beliefs plain and simple, and thus, I have never placed much value to any descriptions. And as Cerek said above. I don´t think I would have changed. I still do what I think is right, and try to do my best.

And just for the argument of changing to a lighter side of the discussion: Congrats to the gig Yorick! When will be able to see you live in Göteborg?? [/QUOTE]Thanks Wolf

There is a big diff between the statement "There is no God" and "I do not know God" or even "I have no experience of a God, and do not have any knowledge of one existing".

The latter two allow for anothers reality. The first - an atheistic statement - devalidates the experience of others.

In any case, atheists are wrong. (I hear you Barry)

God exists. The very fact that we are talking about God proves that he exists - even as an abstract concept alone. You cannot talk about something which does not exist. WHERE God exists (Inside the human mind? Throughout all creation?) is a matter for discussion. WHAT God is (A mental creation? A creator awareness? A physical entity?) Is also open for discussion.

We do not know every vast reach of the universe. Just say for example, that there exists a part of the universe where the dreams, hopes and fears of humans are actually tangible. God would exist there because he exists in the minds of humans.

The argument then wuld not be whether he exists or not, but whether he exists IN THE WAY WE SAY HE DOES. Which is altogether different.

The point I am making is that you cannot know for certain anything does NOT exist. But you can that something does - relative to what existence is.

I am stating I know for certain God does exist in my life. I'm as certain as I am that love exists in my life.

When I make my statement, I do not devalidate your experience, but in stating unequivically that he does not exist anywhere - including my life - you devalidate mine. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: [QB] quote: Originally posted by Yorick: [qb]I disagree that theology has a predetermined assumption. Someone can study theology and develop an atheistic theology. Or a pantheistic theology. Or a monotheistic theology. There is no predetermined assumption in theology whatsover. Christian theology is one result of studying theology. It should be noted that my own theology is based on this: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, involving experimentation and measurement and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities - The definition in the Cambridge dictionary, as used and advocated by Dramnek APPLIES to MY THEOLOGY.

I’ll find another dictionary in that case.
It’s a contingent, not a necessary or absolute truth; In Fact, I think It may have reached Agrippa’s trilemma here.

I can go on giving reasons why theology is not a science forever and ever, using different sources to back that up each time,
I can just say, “Theology is not a science. Period” although of course that is dogmatic and people will scoff and small children will pursue me in the street banging pots and pans.
Or I could say that theology is not science because if it were a science it would be a science, But since it’s not a science it can’t be, but if it was a science it would be. Circular reasoning, and If I tried that I fear for the sanctity of my fridge.

[QB][/QUOTE]We're talking language Dramnek. Your opinion on what words mean holds no water. I've presented and used factual definitions. My definition and yours. Find another dictionary if you like and I will address that. AT the end of the day theologians will continue to use scientific method to reach their conclusions about a subject you have a problem with. THe METHOD not the SUBJECT is the issue, and this a point you seem reluctant to address.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: But Yorick, humanity has invented writing, that is how we are able to profit from centuries of fellow humans experience ! [img]smile.gif[/img] And if we can prove that the probability that a thing exists is infinitesimal, that's near enough proof that that thing does not - very very probably - exist ... Where where did I state that I was an atheist ? I have stated twice in this very thread that I am an agnostic ! [img]smile.gif[/img] And what has my question anything to do with atheism at all ? You people were discussing theology and science. IMO, questioning is maybe the most important basis of any scientific attitude, so I asked a rhetorical queston in that spirit. Seeing that that question was dodged, I thought it was interesting to ask it again. Rhetorically. Honestly. Without any hidden meaning. [img]smile.gif[/img] Oh, I realized that it would make you who believe in God defensive. I considered not asking it again, for fear that it would lead to aggressivity and unhappiness. But I decided to post it anyway, because there is no harm in a honest question. And about atheists - sorry to disagree, but you both make assumptions, you that God does exist, atheists that He does not. Nothing wrong with that [img]smile.gif[/img] but if you feel that by making that assumption they "discredit and devalidate your experience by default" ... don't you believe that they feel the same from you ? Yes I understand and respect that. It is as valid an answer as Cerek's - finally. No need to go all aggressive on me. The question was not intended to make you feel bad - only to question. [img]smile.gif[/img] *cough* Yorick *cough* don't get all worked up now *cough* uh sorry Mouse ... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Claude, I'm not feeling defensive towards you.. [img]smile.gif[/img] And if you say you're agnostic that's good enough for me. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm certainly not unhappy.

[ 01-28-2003, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by LordKathen: I will say one thing. Theism is the belief in the existance of a god or gods. Polytheism, the belief in a god. Theology, "the study of god and of religous doctrine andmatters of divinity." How is this science? Science, takin from websters "Knowledge ascertained by obsevation and experiment, critically tested, systematized, and brought under general principles, a branch of such knowledge; skill or technique. Of or dealing with science; based on, or using the principles and methods of science; systematic and exact. I dont see ANY resemblance here between theism and science. I dont see how you can have science theoligy, thats redundent. Maybe philosophy is a better word. Each to there own philosophy...

Kathen, I'll say it again.

Not everyone with faith is a theologian, and not all theologians are people with faith.

You are conjoining the two. Theology is the study of God/doctrine/matters of divinity. Christianity involves knowing God on a personal level. Islam involves submission to God. There is a difference.