Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinterland  Quote:
Originally Posted by marmalade In my first post, I was using atheism in its more common meaning. I'm aware of weak atheism and its the label that most closely approximates my position. | Then please from making future false generalisations. |
Its not unusual for people to use the common useage definitions of atheism and agnosticism on this forum. Its not a false generalization because the common useage is what most people mean by these words. The defintion of "weak atheism" is the exception to the rule of what most people mean by atheism.
As for a related example, renderator is using the term "theism" in one of its common useages. Obviously, there are many subtle theological distinctions and variations within the broad general category of theism, but I generally understand what renderator is meaning by his use of the word. I wouldn't expect renderator to give me the precise academic philosophical label for his view on theism. I more or less understand him in the context of the thread.
Anyways, I was only using the term "atheism" in a general sense because renderator seemed to be doing so.
Quote:
|
Renderator has madea good observation by pointing out one of the assumptions that everything is based on. In all thought processes, atheist and theist, one finds that there is at some point at where illogic prevails. It is what both faith and science are based on.
|
Which observation of renderator's do you mean?
Quote:
|
No science is not atheistic, nor should it be. Any conclusions drawn from observations do not lend credence to any particular belief or lack of. Science consists of explaining natural phenomena, and God is something science as of now, can not explain.
|
The best test of science is its being practical, ie its research being repeatable, its conclusions leading to predictions, and its application in technology. Really, it doesn't matter if a scientific theory is philosophically true in some ultimate sense. I'm sure given enough time every scientific theory will be proven wrong or grossly inadequate.
Personally, rationality is a question of whether something is useful in some manner? Of course, verification with evidence and coherence with logic are two things I find useful.