This relates to the scientism issue: what you "believe in" (faith) is different in kind from what you assent to as true (belief). Do you agree?

[Audie]

Truth revealed to us in the field of Science is found only in the natural realm. Truth as for who we are and for what is meaningful in life is found only in the spiritual realm. But do we believe there is such? It's up to you and me whether we do so or not. Let us please not rob ourselves of this precious knowledge revealed to us!



I say again that whether we think or believe the Bible and if there's spiritual truth or not is up to you and me. It is still with us if we don't believe it. Reality will catch up with all of us in due time. I can only declare that God reveals and proves Himself by His word if we only trust Him and His word.

ELD

If losing consciousness in death is
what you call " reality" catching up, go for it.

If you think self knowledge comes only from
" spiritual" stuff, well its awful easy to show the opposite.

We will eagerly await an example of your claim.

 

[Whateverist]

Truth revealed to us in the field of Science is found only in the natural realm. Truth as for who we are and for what is meaningful in life is found only in the spiritual realm. But do we believe there is such? It's up to you and me whether we do so or not. Let us please not rob ourselves of this precious knowledge revealed to us!



I say again that whether we think or believe the Bible and if there's spiritual truth or not is up to you and me. It is still with us if we don't believe it. Reality will catch up with all of us in due time. I can only declare that God reveals and proves Himself by His word if we only trust Him and His word.

ELD

Proving once again that atheists can and do influence habit fundamentalist POVs every bit as much as do many Christian believers especially in the US.

 

[Audie]

Proving once again that atheists can and do I habit fundamentalist POVs every bit as much as do many Christian believers especially in the US.

Demonstrating, as if another show was
needed, how little, facile and vacuous are the
the conditions needed to "prove" what some theists
wish to believe.

If in the process such can feel it elevates them
to issue a phony stereotype put down of those
who don't see things their way, so much the better.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Science is the gold standard for determining what is factually true empirically. But what you count on in human affairs is rarely amenable to being determined with science. "Belief that" is about knowledge while "belief in" is about faith- which need not be about theism, though it can be and traditionally has been. So when you say what you count on in life as a human being, it isn't about science even though science can often contribute in some minor way even in life choices. But one doesn't "believe in science" and life demands that we cope with many social choices and matters of conscience whether we are religious or not (and I'm not). I think Iain McGilchrist expressed this much more thoroughly than I could in his first big book, The Master and His Emissary:

Mainstream science today claims it never proves anything, if you buy into that, then all of their claims are faith based assertions.

 

[Whateverist]

Mainstream science today claims it never proves anything, if you buy into that, then all of their claims are faith based assertions.
View attachment 79961View attachment 79960

Actually science can be practiced without appeal to faith of any kind, and is better that way. However scientists must proceed as if natural explanations are possible since that is the only kind of results anyone is interested in. Anyone preferring to pray for miracles is free to do so but regardless of how that turns out it cannot inform science. Since scientists too are human beings, they are as fallible as rest of us. There is nothing to prevent them from interpreting results badly or short cutting procedures or misrepresenting the implications of results. Science doesn’t make us more insightful but it does tend to turn useful information.

 

[Audie]

Actually science can be practiced without appeal to faith of any kind, and is better that way. However scientists must proceed as if natural explanations are possible since that is the only kind of results anyone is interested in. Anyone preferring to pray for miracles is free to do so but regardless of how that turns out it cannot inform science. Since scientists too are human beings, they are as fallible as rest of us. There is nothing to prevent them from interpreting results badly or short cutting procedures or misrepresenting the implications of results. Science doesn’t make us more insightful but it does tend to turn useful information.

You are overlooking some importent stuff.

Exery researcher knows the importance of a
meticulous record, attention to detail,
consideration of every possibility- and most of all,
How essential objectivity is as a highest value.

At the other end Christians put Faith in that position.

Faith despite everything and anything!

So no, I dont think your " we are all the same"
is true, at all.

 

[Whateverist]

Exery researcher knows the importance of a
meticulous record, attention to detail,
consideration of every possibility- and most of all,
How essential objectivity is as a highest value.

Your faith in the high priests of science is .. revealing. It is almost looks like religious zeal.

 

[Audie]

Your faith in the high priests of science is .. revealing. It is almost looks like religious zeal.

That's a remarkable post. Did you take time and
work it out or did the record breaking inapt thing to
say just come to you naturally?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Actually science can be practiced without appeal to faith of any kind, and is better that way.

By definition, as I showed, that is provably false.

 

[Whateverist]

By definition, as I showed, that is provably false.

I wasn't convinced in spite of your repeated insistence.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I wasn't convinced in spite of your repeated insistence.

It appears we are at an impasse then. You appear to disagree with the dictionary definition of the word faith.

 

[Whateverist]

It appears we are at an impasse then. You appear to disagree with the dictionary definition of the word faith.

I'm mostly underwhelmed by the capacity of language to convey anything regarding the sacred. If you think otherwise then we obviously are not referring to the same thing.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I'm mostly underwhelmed by the capacity of language to convey anything regarding the sacred. If you think otherwise then we obviously are not referring to the same thing.

If we can't speak the same language we are speaking past each other.

 

[Whateverist]

If we can't speak the same language we are speaking past each other.

I'll really be impressed if you can finally define what exactly is meant by God, extra points if you can avoid appealing to authoritative sources only your tribe acknowledges. Your belief in the power of your rationality to deduce ultimate truth reveals what you think is the basis of the ultimate - your own rational powers. You basically believe pretty much what anti theists do about what we are.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I'll really be impressed if you can finally define what exactly is meant by God, extra points if you can avoid appealing to authoritative sources only your tribe acknowledges. Your belief in the power of your rationality to deduce ultimate truth reveals what you think is the basis of the ultimate - your own rational powers. You basically believe pretty much what anti theists do about what we are.

I prefer to let the Bible interpret itself. It does a pretty good job of defining the word god.

Is There a God? | Ozien Talks Vs Kyle A. | Debate Podcast

Welcome to Modern-Day Debate. Our vision is to provide a fully-neutral platform so everyone has their fair shot to make their case on a level playing field. ...

www.youtube.com

 

[blü 2]

When it comes to the God of the Bible, the issue is whether we trust Him and His word or not.

We don't even know what species we're talking about when we say God.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only manner in which God is known to exist is as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains.

And that's why there's no description of God appropriate to a real entity, one found in the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses, but only a God described in imaginary terms like omnipotent, omniscient &c

and also why you can't give me a satisfactory demonstration of [his] reality.

So I'd suggest that before we can get to the question of whether we trust the God of the bible, we have to have a clear idea of what real entity we're referring to when we say God.

 

[Soandso]

Actually science can be practiced without appeal to faith of any kind, and is better that way. However scientists must proceed as if natural explanations are possible since that is the only kind of results anyone is interested in. Anyone preferring to pray for miracles is free to do so but regardless of how that turns out it cannot inform science. Since scientists too are human beings, they are as fallible as rest of us. There is nothing to prevent them from interpreting results badly or short cutting procedures or misrepresenting the implications of results. Science doesn’t make us more insightful but it does tend to turn useful information.

I think this is a good take! I'd like to maybe make an unrelated clarification on this part here

There is nothing to prevent them from interpreting results badly or short cutting procedures or misrepresenting the implications of results.

Those things certainly do happen. As you say, people are people. While there is nothing to prevent that from happening initially, peer review is a check and balance that strongly mitigates how much of that gets out and actually effects real science, and it also presents a deterrent for anyone who wants to "cheat the system" and publish out and out lies clothed in scientific garb. Everything is picked apart and scrutinized

Not saying you aren't already aware, but I figured clarification is good for the other lurkers out there such as myself

 

[Whateverist]

Those things certainly do happen. As you say, people are people. While there is nothing to prevent that from happening initially, peer review is a check and balance that strongly mitigates how much of that gets out and actually effects real science, and it also presents a deterrent for anyone who wants to "cheat the system" and publish out and out lies clothed in scientific garb. Everything is picked apart and scrutinized

I used to think so too but in fact the journals in which results are reported out have been corrupted by being for profit and qualified peers have time constraints that prevent them from doing much more than rubber stamp work of those they respect and decline to review work from groups they’re less sure of. In an ideal world peer review would count for something. Alas that isn’t the one we live on. There are sources.

 

[Soandso]

I used to think so too but in fact the journals in which results are reported out have been corrupted by being for profit and qualified peers have time constraints that prevent them from doing much more than rubber stamp work of those they respect and decline to review work from groups they’re less sure of. In an ideal world peer review would count for something. Alas that isn’t the one we live on. There are sources.

I'd like to read those if you have them

 

[Whateverist]

I'd like to read those if you have them

I can point you to them but will fist have to dig a bit.