The Search For Truth

[nPeace]

Oh boy, more veiled insults. I'm a ten year old now. Thank goodness I know you don't represent most Christians on that front.
Thanks for reminding me why I stopped responding to your posts.

Wow. I said you are 10 years old? How many lies have I told today? ...and you? Zero, right?

 

[nPeace]

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped responding to your posts.

Yeah, your attempts at demeaning, and discrediting always backfire, but you still keep trying. Hope you don't forget again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, your attempts at demeaning, and discrediting always backfire, but you still keep trying. Hope you don't forget again.

You've described yourself. You are projecting.

You are a poor representative for your religion. I'm turned off. Luckily, my Christian friends and family are better representatives.

Have a nice day.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, your attempts at demeaning, and discrediting always backfire, but you still keep trying. Hope you don't forget again.

Your opening post of this thread set the mood for your misuse of science and intentional lack of knowledge and understanding of science and how the knowledge of science changes over time. There is no such thing as the search for 'Truth' in science.

You could hardly expect anything more since your posts are demeaning of science and invite genuine legitimate science to discredit your ancient tribal religious agenda.

 

[nPeace]

You've described yourself. You are projecting.

You are a poor representative for your religion. I'm turned off. Luckily, my Christian friends and family are better representatives.

Still trying, I see. You would hve said the same of Jesus, who wouldn't have tolerated your deception either.

Have a nice day.

Ahem. Have a nice day? Wow. A cherry on top?
Have a good night Skeptic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Still trying, I see. You would hve said the same of Jesus, who wouldn't have tolerated your deception either.


Ahem. Have a nice day? Wow. A cherry on top?
Have a good night Skeptic.

Jesus was a far better representative of Christianity than you've been here. You've turned me off your religion entirely.
I value honesty more than that.
Take care.

 

[nPeace]

Jesus was a far better representative of Christianity than you've been here. You've turned me off your religion entirely.
I value honesty more than that.
Take care.

Again you expose yourself.
It's foolish to recognize someone that is a good example - along with others recognized to follow that example, and them claim that one person not imitating those examples, turned you against that faith.
You aren't fooling me Skeptic., and I think the only ones who would fall for something like that, are those like you.

I don't think you will stop trying even after this wildcard boomeranged though.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again you expose yourself.
It's foolish to recognize someone that is a good example - along with others recognized to follow that example, and them claim that one person not imitating those examples, turned you against that faith.
You aren't fooling me Skeptic., and I think the only ones who would fall for something like that, are those like you.

I don't think you will stop trying even after this wildcard boomeranged though.

I didn't say you've turned me off faith. I said you turned me off the religion you follow. And you have. And again, we find you attempting to call me a liar, which only reinforces my point.

You've exposed yourself far more than you seem to know.

 

[nPeace]

I didn't say you've turned me off faith. I said you turned me off the religion you follow.

Same thing. What did you think faith is, in this context?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Same thing. What did you think faith is, in this context?

My definition of faith is unjustified belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

Same thing. What did you think faith is, in this context?

Faith in this context is a subjective belief without evidence. It may be true or false, but unconfirmed by objective evidence. I am neutral as to whether it is justified or not.

What turns me off is your negative attitude toward science reflected in this thread from the beginning. Science is not based on 'faith.'

 

[nPeace]

Faith in this context is a subjective belief without evidence. It may be true or false, but unconfirmed by objective evidence. I am neutral as to whether it is justified or not.

Not quite. Faith in the context I was speaking from, is a path which involves a set of standards by which one lives, It's a way of life.

What turns me off is your negative attitude toward science reflected in this thread from the beginning. Science is not based on 'faith.'

Oh wow. Since the thread is about the posters, let me tell you what I think about @shunyadragon, and @SkepticThinker.

Spoiler

.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not quite. Faith in the context I was speaking from, is a path which involves a set of standards by which one lives, It's a way of life.

Which can be true, but remains based on what I described.

Oh wow. Since the thread is about the posters, let me tell you what I think about @shunyadragon, and @SkepticThinker.

Spoiler

.

It is your thread and I addressed the problems with your attitude toward science, which is valid.

Again . . . Your opening post of this thread set the mood for your misuse of science and intentional lack of knowledge and understanding of science and how the knowledge of science changes over time. There is no such thing as the search for 'Truth' in science.

If you are referring to my posts, respond and be specific.

 

[Bthoth]

The origin of water on Earth

The solar wind has been raining H and O on the earth for about ever.

What page is that on, from any theology?

Where do scientist have that as a source of H20 for the earth, Asteroids, comets etc.....

I question both sides on that topic

 

[Bthoth]

Not quite. Faith in the context I was speaking from, is a path which involves a set of standards by which one lives, It's a way of life.

Faith is an operator. I cannot identify the term as a standard or foundation. A book can be used for definitions but that's about it.

Bible(s) are all man made. Just like every theory. Did you observe my hypothesis-theory on 'The origin of water on earth'?

 

[nPeace]

Which can be true, but remains based on what I described.


It is your thread and I addressed the problems with your attitude toward science, which is valid.

Again . . . Your opening post of this thread set the mood for your misuse of science and intentional lack of knowledge and understanding of science and how the knowledge of science changes over time. There is no such thing as the search for 'Truth' in science.

If you are referring to my posts, respond and be specific.

Looks like there are other besides me.

Science is the human endeavor to discover truths about the world around us. Scientists seek out answers through observation and experimentation. As we discover more and more, we are able to apply what we've learned to develop new technologies and to improve everyday life. But perhaps more importantly, as we gain knowledge through science, we are able to begin satisfying our deep-felt need to know more about ourselves.

Science as a collective institution aims to produce more and more accurate explanations of how the natural world works...
Because it has been tested, scientific knowledge is reliable.

The aim of science is to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works

Does it change over time?
The biggest giveaway is that scientific theories change with time. As we acquire new information or new data, we have to update all of our beliefs. And how can a belief be true if it is subject to change at a moment's notice?

Science represents reality, and we try to be as faithful and accurate as possible so we can get an ever deeper and ever more fundal fundamental understandings of of the way the world works.

I'm not the one to tell you what truth is. And neither are scientists - at least when it comes to speaking about science. We know what we know about the universe through observation, and those observations are flawed and subject to bias and interpretation and experimental uncertainty. And yes, some observations can be flat out wrong and will later be corrected or updated in the future.

 

[shunyadragon]

Looks like there are other besides me.

Science is the human endeavor to discover truths about the world around us. Scientists seek out answers through observation and experimentation. As we discover more and more, we are able to apply what we've learned to develop new technologies and to improve everyday life. But perhaps more importantly, as we gain knowledge through science, we are able to begin satisfying our deep-felt need to know more about ourselves.

Science as a collective institution aims to produce more and more accurate explanations of how the natural world works...
Because it has been tested, scientific knowledge is reliable.

The aim of science is to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works

Does it change over time?
The biggest giveaway is that scientific theories change with time. As we acquire new information or new data, we have to update all of our beliefs. And how can a belief be true if it is subject to change at a moment's notice?

Science represents reality, and we try to be as faithful and accurate as possible so we can get an ever deeper and ever more fundal fundamental understandings of of the way the world works.

I'm not the one to tell you what truth is. And neither are scientists - at least when it comes to speaking about science. We know what we know about the universe through observation, and those observations are flawed and subject to bias and interpretation and experimental uncertainty. And yes, some observations can be flat out wrong and will later be corrected or updated in the future.

As confirmed by your source Scientist do not deal with nor claim 'Truth.' Yes, science deals the evidence as 'true facts, and the knowledge of science changes over time.

Your first post does not conform to the references you cite. above. In fact your selective use of references was misleading as demonstrated in the following posts

You started this with:
"It's said that science attempts to discover truths about the material world.

Yes, they have discovered some truths. Oftentimes though - not getting into where certain assumptions must be used - science has failed to provide accurate answers about our world."

Not truths, but factual true evidence, and yes the knowledge changes over time.

 

[nPeace]

As confirmed by your source Scientist do not deal with nor claim 'Truth.' Yes, science deals the evidence as 'true facts, and the knowledge of science changes over time.

Your first post does not conform to the references you cite. above. In fact your selective use of references was misleading as demonstrated in the following posts

You started this with:
"It's said that science attempts to discover truths about the material world.

Yes, they have discovered some truths. Oftentimes though - not getting into where certain assumptions must be used - science has failed to provide accurate answers about our world."

Not truths, but factual true evidence, and yes the knowledge changes over time.

Yes, they have discovered some truths?
Did you just say that?

You are saying the first statement is false then.
Science is the human endeavor to discover truths about the world around us. Scientists seek out answers through observation and experimentation. As we discover more and more, we are able to apply what we've learned to develop new technologies and to improve everyday life. But perhaps more importantly, as we gain knowledge through science, we are able to begin satisfying our deep-felt need to know more about ourselves.

Why don't you write Science - AllAboutScience.org and tell them how wrong they are, and how they have misrepresented science, and how that turns you off.
When you have done that, come talk to me about my first statement.

In fact, why don't you create a blog, condemning a third of all websites featuring science.
According to the philosopher Karl Popper, science is the search for truth, not the search for certainty.
Science is the search for truth and knowledge

“Science is the search for the truth--it is not a game in which one tries to beat his opponent, to do harm to others. We need to have the spirit of science in international affairs, to make the conduct of international affairs the effort to find the right solution, the just solution of international problems, and not an effort by each nation to get the better of other nations, to do harm to them when it is possible. I believe in morality, in justice, in humanitarianism.”​

― Linus Pauling, Linus Pauling On Peace - A Scientist Speaks Out on Humanism and World Survival

True knowledge is not truth according to you.

Clearly, you are in a camp where the hubris blinds the intelligence, and where the beliefs of individuals makes them feel like an authority on what is, and what is not,
Anyone who says anything different to those in this camp, have taken off the straight jacket they are expected to wear.

Since you are on about what turns you off, that turns me off. It comes across as a self-righteous, domineering authority that carries with it a rigid unyielding stubbornness.
I do not see any reason to take such persons seriously. They say, but cannot show. What they say doesn't hold substance, but are just like puffs of hot air.

No need to apologize for the unwarranted attack of the OP. I know how it goes with you, Dragon.
I also understand how words become somewhat paradoxical in the scientific community. Did I just say that.

yes the knowledge changes over time.?
Did you just say that? True and accurate knowledge changes? Wow.

 

[nPeace]

The solar wind has been raining H and O on the earth for about ever.

What page is that on, from any theology?

Where do scientist have that as a source of H20 for the earth, Asteroids, comets etc.....

I question both sides on that topic

The solar wind has been raining H and O on the earth for about ever.

I don't see it. Where did you read that?

Faith is an operator. I cannot identify the term as a standard or foundation. A book can be used for definitions but that's about it.

Bible(s) are all man made. Just like every theory. Did you observe my hypothesis-theory on 'The origin of water on earth'?

Your hypothesis-theory on 'The origin of water on earth'?
No, I haven't.

 

[nPeace]

@YoursTrue having the power to shut the mouth of lions is no big deal for an angel, but when a lion roars on earth, and I get the opportunity to shut its mouth, I don't hesitate to do it justice.

You must read this item. It paints a picture @viole probably wouldn't want you to see.
...according to a 2021 report by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, gun crime across Sweden is increasing at a faster rate than anywhere else in Europe.
So far this year, 47 people have died from shootings in the country - more than for the whole of 2021.