religion

[Eliseus]

outbursts even.

[Daldolma]

i don't know about evolution or intelligent design but better question:

who is dumber, the guy with no reading comprehension or the guy who has written 30,000 words to a guy who allegedly can't comprehend what he's reading?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i don't know about evolution or intelligent design but better question:

who is dumber, the guy with no reading comprehension or the guy who has written 30,000 words to a guy who allegedly can't comprehend what he's reading?

The former is clearly lacking in some respect. The latter is likely bored or has copious amounts of free time.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i don't know about evolution or intelligent design but better question:

who is dumber, the guy with no reading comprehension or the guy who has written 30,000 words to a guy who allegedly can't comprehend what he's reading?

HA! I get it

[paulgiamatti]

No scientific claims are made from experiments that yield a 100% success rate. A 100% success rate means that claim is unfasifiable. However, as I mentioned earlier, when an experiment is conducted properly the margin of error accounting for simple human discrepancy is very, very small. Every scientific claim is predicated on experimentation that yields a success rate of in the percentile of 99.9 with a bunch of numbers repeating afterwards.

[Eliseus]

And I mean holes, sorry, really wish we could edit

[Eliseus]

Something that just popped into my head is I think the issue I personally have is you can almost never claim science to be false, because science claims it is always evolving and since we don't know everything, we must accept the knowledge we have till a later date. For example, evolution could be completely 100% fabricated, but we have to accept that is what it is that this time, even more so if you don't believe in God. Maybe the belief in God extends to that people need something else to believe in because science is false at time.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Something that just popped into my head is I think the issue I personally have is you can almost never claim science to be false, because science claims it is always evolving and since we don't know everything, we must accept the knowledge we have till a later date. For example, evolution could be completely 100% fabricated, but we have to accept that is what it is that this time, even more so if you don't believe in God. Maybe the belief in God extends to that people need something else to believe in because science is false at time.

In many ways, epistemology is like an economic system. With all the right theoreticians in all the right places, one can arbitrarily bestow epistemological primacy upon those paradigms that are most socially and politically expedient. In such a climate of epistemological suppression, academic and institutional barriers prevent competitors from accessing the ideational marketplace. Meanwhile, a self-proclaimed cognitive elite monopolizes the economy of popular thought. This oligopoly of knowledge, in short, amounts to an epistemological cartel, promoting its anointed ideologues and squelching cognitive dissenters.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In many ways, epistemology is like an economic system. With all the right theoreticians in all the right places, one can arbitrarily bestow epistemological primacy upon those paradigms that are most socially and politically expedient. In such a climate of epistemological suppression, academic and institutional barriers prevent competitors from accessing the ideational marketplace. Meanwhile, a self-proclaimed cognitive elite monopolizes the economy of popular thought. This oligopoly of knowledge, in short, amounts to an epistemological cartel, promoting its anointed ideologues and squelching cognitive dissenters.

Here's a question, if God doesn't exist, do you think man would create him? This might need to be explained further.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here's a question, if God doesn't exist, do you think man would create him? This might need to be explained further.

Man is inherently spiritual. What I mean by that is that thoughts of philosophy, epistemology, ontology, scientific curiosity, et cetera, stem from a core in our humanity.

Everyone who has asked the why and how of something has had a spiritual thought.
Not to be confused with religious thought.

We are like this because we are made this way by a creator.
I honestly cannot say if man would invent a God if a God did not exist because we are all products of special creation by God so any gods that are falsely invented are from the spiritually ingrained curiosity that we are encoded with.

Animals lack this quality, as they do not worship gods.

So I guess the answer would lie in the animal kingdom, where abstract spiritual curiosity is not present.