vyoletaArkaroola, South Australia Australia1,050 posts
The only difference between atheism and religion is in the name of their gods. Atheists name their god "the laws of nature" and give it no personality.
vyoleta: The only difference between atheism and religion is in the name of their gods. Atheists name their god "the laws of nature" and give it no personality.
Er, no, I don't. I recognize no "laws" of nature. I recognize only what can be substantiated as fact through the observation of our five senses.
vyoletaArkaroola, South Australia Australia1,050 posts
Dagosto: Er, no, I don't. I recognize no "laws" of nature. I recognize only what can be substantiated as fact through the observation of our five senses.
The laws of nature have been established on that basis - observation of our five senses and scientific experiments and experiences.
vyoletaArkaroola, South Australia Australia1,050 posts
Dagosto: If you say so, but that doesn't mean I recognize them as "laws." Reproducible observations, yes. Laws, no.
It is your personal choice to give the laws of nature whatever name you want, but that is how science names it. If you don't recognize science.... I have no answer to it, then.
vyoleta: It is your personal choice to give the laws of nature whatever name you want, but that is how science names it. If you don't recognize science.... I have no answer to it, then.
yabbadabbadontsomewhere, Waikato New Zealand1,692 posts
Dagosto: Er, no, I don't. I recognize no "laws" of nature. I recognize only what can be substantiated as fact through the observation of our five senses.
Hey Dag....
What about those with the "sixth" sense... ? Just a thought....
vyoleta: What do you mean "source"? There are things that are generally known and need not to be explained to a person with an average education.
What do I mean, source? You have claimed that "science" recognizes some functions as "laws." I should like to know what source you can cite to support this contention. Those with an above-average education understand what citing a source means.
vyoletaArkaroola, South Australia Australia1,050 posts
Dagosto: What do I mean, source? You have claimed that "science" recognizes some functions as "laws." I should like to know what source you can cite to support this contention. Those with an above-average education understand what citing a source means.
I am not with above-average education and I, also, know what "citing a source" means, but, as I said, an averagely educated person should know that it doesn't need to cite any source when the basic known things are talked about.
vyoleta: I am not with above-average education and I, also, know what "citing a source" means, but, as I said, an averagely educated person should know that it doesn't need to cite any source when the basic known things are talked about.
Well, let's review.
You assigned characteristics to those of my belief system (atheism). Since it is my belief system, I took exception.
When I did, you denigrated my own characterization of my own belief system, claiming I could call it whatever I wanted, but that "science" agreed with you.
I asked you for your source for that contention. You denigrated that request as well, managing in the course to suggest I was ill-educated.
I object now to your contention that "basic known things" need no citation of sources. If they are as you claim, sources should abound.
I've offered no speculation whatsoever about your own belief system. May I suggest, in the future, you adopt a similiar practice?
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).