Again you touch on my problem with science(tists). Steppin, (and everyone else reading, really) if you think about what you think you know about almost any subject there are hundreds if not thousands of things you really do accept without knowing the whole deal or understanding them completely, or often even a little.

You pick any topic in pretty much any science and I can show you something where pretty much every laymen (and often experts) accept out of faith scientific ideas as laws of reality.

Again, this makes blind faith look a lot like science.

jason

 

Word.

This one is for Tim,

Jason is correct when he says: "By not being able to DISprove God, does not mean that god exsists, BECAUSE no one has proved that god exsists, either"... And I agree. Where does that put us? nowhere.

I see Chris's point too. Also admire, in a way, Hilter. But i'm nearly stopped saying that, cause people think i'm crazy. Some have even gotten farily angry, and hostile. Truth is, when a person can take all things, and analyse all things, and then come up with an opinion or base for themselves, that's truly a marvel. You see, because that person does not have any pre judgements, or should i say, prejudices, and can clearly think things through first. Thanx Chris, i know i'm not alone.

God: All I have to say is, i don't care if god exsists, or doesn't. I'm not offended if someone else thinks god exsists, or doesn't. I don't think they need to prove **** to me, either... know why? Cause how can we call something faith then, or a belief, if one must prove it... to try to prove something is trying to facutalize it <cut me slack Jason > whether it's fact or not... because as jason has stated, what we once thought was true can be found untrue later. Although i still believe those are to be considered facts of those times... you see, we shouldn't **** on what other thought hundreds, thousands of years ago... they didn't know, they couldn't comprehend. They made the best of what they had. As we do today, we make the best of what knowledge we have in science, and try to use it to explain other things. I am sure, if we aren't extinct anytime in the next milenia <whether that be judgement, alien invasion, asteriod, etc... deosn't matter how, just whether it happens...> that humans then, will look back to our little shuttle/rockets days with pentium 4s and think how primitive we were. and our theroies are charging, and will change.

<edit: went off track into philosophy, that would be another thread in the future...>

So,

No one can prove or disprove god. It's about faith, and beliefs. both of those have nothing to do with truth. Truth comes in when someone is trying to be right, and put down all others to be considered wrong. I think people go wrong though, when they use their faith as a base to kill another person, because their beliefs don't match up. I consider anyone who can believe in God, and not try to push it upon another, to be a great person. As I am someone who doens't push upon others my belief of a supreme being of some kind. <but that doesn't make me great person>

G'day gentlemen <as Aya hasn't said anything yet >,

-Gagan

 

To chose
To decide

how are they different?

-Gagan

 

Kostamojen,

Just I guess, since I can't read your mind... but I could swear you're not actually reading my posts before you respond to them... at least enough to follow what I'm saying. :-/


I am not saying something is a fact when it is not . I am saying that most of our culture is willing to believe something is a fact when what we consider to be facts are actually part of an ever-changing set and yet they still live and act as though what we know are facts. If knowledge and what we consider to be facts are actually ever-changing then it could not be a reliable source of Truth. This is undeniable: if our source of supposed-Truth is periodically redefining what Truth is, then it is not a reliable source of Truth.

I've said this same thing about 5 or 6 different ways now... Steppin gets it, maybe he should explain it to you


jason

 

And it will probably change in 100 years

jason

 

Jason, i live be the phrase:

"to the best of our knowledge"

that put into words what you are trying to say about facts?

facts= things we percieve, or believe, or at time know to be true... to the best of our knowledge



-Gagan

 

I would bet you can actually trace the violence back to money. Placing violence on religion is a common cop-out and these days its a common scape goat.

I do admire your willingness to accept that you and all of us do not have it all down pat. But scape goating religion throws out the baby with the bath water.

Here's an example: Autocracies are not evil. An evil person running an autocracy is evil. There are no beneficial dictatorships because they are no beneficial dictators.

My point? Do not discount a religion because of its adherents. The problem after living according to that conclusion is that you often end up dead... usually because your faith got in the way of someone's money.

jason

 

you sound like my HS track coach

I'll think about it during the day, and get back to you. But you owe me a nice talk at the next UCKK... the photo meet? deal?

-Gagan

 

Okay, these are the 6 definitions that Merriam-Webster provides for the word ACCEPT.

1 a : to receive willingly <accept a gift> b : to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added) <a surface that will not accept ink>
2 : to give admittance or approval to <accept her as one of the group>
3 a : to endure without protest or reaction <accept poor living conditions> b : to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable <the idea is widely accepted> c : to recognize as true : BELIEVE <refused to accept the explanation>
4 a : to make a favorable response to <accept an offer> b : to agree to undertake (a responsibility) <accept a job>
5 : to assume an obligation to pay; also : to take in payment <we don't accept personal checks>
6 : to receive (a legislative report) officially
intransitive senses : to receive favorably something offered -- usually used with of

Which one are you referring to in your context?

 

"acceptance is a choice, not a decision"


to decide on something is to make up your mind about a question, and to simply follow a path, or answer.

to chose is to take all variables into account, and pick one.


so, to decide to accept something is like "sounds good... lets go with that"

to chose to accept something is "yep, that's it right there... makes sense to me."

-Gagan, whos leaving for school.

 

Umm, if you're talking to me, then yes I would like to know the difference between choice and decision. Although I would think that I should know already, having used those two words hundreds of times. But obviously in your opinion I don't.

Anyhow, I'm not frustrated in the least. The whole reason I'm doing this is to learn. I don't always understand things the first time I try, so perhaps I'm used to it.

 

Yes my parents love me.

So you're saying that you'd receive Hitler willingly? Even if you were a Jew in WWII Germany? In Auschwitz?