by looter 251 Replies latest jw friends
Here's where the real difficult part comes. It's really tough to explain what I really mean in just a few words without someone confusing it.
It's not difficult at all. Summarize your point, then write as much or as little as you need to support your point(s). Use logic, critical thinking, evidence and reasoning to explain the connections and form your argument.
That what you call "irrationality" is just another way individuals are able to be practical and problem solvers.
You literally could not be more wrong if you tried. There is no level of wrongness more than what you achieved with that sentence. It's approach the level of "not even wrong".
OrphanCrow, the scientific method's process was created by someone's unique technique which was based on him and the way he saw things. That way works for most people but not for everyone.
The scientific method was developed of thousands of years across many cultures as a way to investigate reality without allowing human bias to influence the investigations. The very fact that you are alive and using a computer to post your comments instead of using spirit to do so is proof of that.
"There are animals that use tools and solve problems. Animals certainly can be sensible." But who is usually more sensible and more capable of being sensible? Rational thought is what makes humans special. A human beings main advantage over an animal is their intellectual capacity. That's exactly why I used the word unique. Our ability to be knowledgeable is uniquely superior to animals even though there are always exceptions like the case you said. But we're talking general with that here and it's actually another topic all together.
"It's not difficult at all. Summarize your point, then write as much or as little as you need to support your point(s). Use logic, critical thinking, evidence and reasoning to explain the connections and form your argument." I already did that in my original post. What more can I explain when it's clear a vast number of you guys just don't get my idea? Not much at all. The more I try to explain it under you guys' questions, the more off topic it gets because you still don't understand that main underlying principle I set out and I cannot make you or anyone understand it. That's why it never gets anywhere.
"You literally could not be more wrong if you tried. There is no level of wrongness more than what you achieved with that sentence. It's approach the level of "not even wrong"." Why? Irrationality really is another manner in which we are able to survive and deal with the world. You don't seem to see that irrationality like rationality is a basic form of human cognitive function and that compact rationality is not naturally attainable to every human being even though they could still possess basic human action.
"The scientific method was developed of thousands of years across many cultures as a way to investigate reality without allowing human bias to influence the investigations. The very fact that you are alive and using a computer to post your comments instead of using spirit to do so is proof of that." I'm grateful of that process as everyone should but you act like the scientific method is infallible. The fact that it was developed over several hundred years tells of how much it has changed from the first incarnation. And it will do nothing but continue to change as humans get wiser and wiser. This seems to be the case with replicability of a scarce amount of confirmed science. For you to say I'm alive because of the scientific method shows that you view it in the same light as a believer does to God.
The scientific method and the belief in God could not be further apart...
Of course, in science there are things that are taken on "faith." (Notice that the scientific "faith" is in quotation marks.) However, scientific "faith" is different from faith in God—much, much different. When "faith" is needed in science it's because there is no proof that a certain claim is true. However, in absence of proof, there must be evidence. When there is evidence, it means that there is room for doubt, which is why certain "faith" is needed. Nonetheless, because there is evidence, the likelihood of the claim can be established. When there is high likelihood of the claim being true "faith" is needed to accept that claim; however, there is high likelihood for the claim to be true!
Now, however, when there is absence of both proof and evidence—that is, when the likelihood is low—the scientific method automatically demands that one reject the claim. There is no "faith" here. This is completely opposite from religious faith. Religious faith in God is never based on proof or evidence because there is none for God. The belief in God is simply based on faith—not on proof, not on evidence, unlike in science. This is why religious faith and scientific "faith" are two completely and utterly opposite concepts.
And, no, no faith is needed not to believe in something. Faith is only needed to believe in a claim. That is why when atheists claim that there is no God, they need faith; there is no proof or evidence for God nor against God, so faith is needed in both cases. However, when atheists do not claim that there is no God but rather simply reject the positive theist claim that there is God, no faith is needed. It's a simple concept. Really simple.
And, no, I'm not even going to join the discussion about "the true essence of who we are." As far as I'm personally concerned, this is total bullshit. (No offence intended...)
If mankind creates are individual gods, lets make are gods better than the ones we envisions so far in are history, including the god of the ancient Hebrews. Jehovah.
Saename, much appreciate what you said which makes sense and all, but religious belief and the scientific module are two ways we as humans make sense of the world around us. In that way they are similar because they can lead humans to their path whether right or wrong. Here's why they are just as similar. Someone who believes in God and feels that there is evidence in creation believes that it is "evidence" based on how they see it.
Someone who has pride and commitment to scientific faith bases their commitment on what they themselves see as validation. The underlying thought here is that people can see evidence differently from the next person because of their unique mind. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong is subjective because it's clear that people do in fact have a distinct outlook on things no matter what they are. What I'm trying to say is that there really is no universally veracity to this. You may believe there is and I may believe that it isn't but both of our beliefs are reflective of our inner perspective.
You remarked that the scientific method requires rejection of claims that don't involve refutable proof. The thing is that a Christian's use of creation as proof can still be proof even though it's not consolable using the scientific method as it's created by man. A believer trusts their decision to believe in God just like the person who is destined with the scientific method. However, the believer just doesn't use the scientific method to come to his conclusion. It's just a simple alternative way. Not really correct or true as this is subjective. That's how I come to the conclusion that they are similar. I never said they were totally similar but they do have complementary based on what I mentioned before.
What I said about "the true essence of who we are as human beings" is just my opinion and you don't have to agree obviously. But I will tell you why I believe this. This goes with what I told Viviane. What truly makes us different from animals? It's our brain and how it exceptionally uses abstract techniques and a special cause to fix issues and communicate. Without this, we'd be either at the same level of animals mentally or inferior.
And no. Faith is not only needed for claims. They can be needed for personal assurance in people among other things, not only just claims.
But who is usually more sensible and more capable of being sensible?A human beings main advantage over an animal is their intellectual capacity. That's exactly why I used the word unique.
Define "sensible". Also, are you now just saying it's not a matter of a special thing but rather a matter of degree? That's not what unique means. It's literally the opposite of what "unique" means. You could not be more wrong if you tried.
No wonder you can't communicate your ideas. You actually have no idea what the words you are using mean.
I already did that in my original post.
In fact, you claimed you could not do that. You literally claimed you could not possibly do what you are now claiming to have done. Which is it? No wonder you are so misunderstood, you don't even understand your own words.
I'm grateful of that process as everyone should but you act like the scientific method is infallible.
I never made that claim. Please stop making false claims.
The fact that it was developed over several hundred years tells of how much it has changed from the first incarnation. And it will do nothing but continue to change as humans get wiser and wiser. This seems to be the case with replicability of a scarce amount of confirmed science.
So you admit all of your claims about the scientific method were incorrect. Excellent. Now, before you proceed, please re-frame your argument using all the correct information that you now have. I ask for this so you don't pretend that having been wrong on all of your major points and arguments somehow makes those prior incorrect statements correct.
Why? Irrationality really is another manner in which we are able to survive and deal with the world.
You clearly have no idea what "irrational" means. Sadly, it seems your level of thought has stopped at https://www.reddit.com/r/im14andthisisdeep/
For you to say I'm alive because of the scientific method shows that you view it in the same light as a believer does to God
All it does is show how little you know of science, god, faith or me. You're not 14 and this isn't deep. Develop your argument and be open to the idea of being wrong. You certainly are, but you don't have the intelligence, learning or quality thinking yet to know that.
In that way they are similar because they can lead humans to their path whether right or wrong. Here's why they are just as similar. Someone who believes in God and feels that there is evidence in creation believes that it is "evidence" based on how they see it.
All you've told us is that, much like the person that says the Bible is evidence for god, you have absolutely no idea what "evidence" means and you have no business being taken seriously.
See this thread, it will do you a world of good. https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/420420001/quality-thinking-warning-long-post-ahead
Someone who has pride and commitment to scientific faith
That shows you have no idea how science works.
The underlying thought here is that people can see evidence differently from the next person because of their unique mind. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong is subjective because it's clear that people do in fact have a distinct outlook on things no matter what they are.
You've no idea how an objective reality works.
The thing is that a Christian's use of creation as proof can still be proof even though it's not consolable using the scientific method as it's created by man.
You've no idea what proof is.
What I said about "the true essence of who we are as human beings" is just my opinion and you don't have to agree obviously.
You've not actually said anything. You've written a lot of words, but said actually nothing.
