Sociopath Community

That seems vaguely familiar, yes. :p

by Inquirer

Don't you understand the difference between faith and science?

 Do you understand that you have faith in theory ?

Of course, and I have faith in science too. The difference is that I try, as much as possible, to believe in what's most probable.

Do you understand that you have faith in theory?

 I'm sorry to say, but it is not probable for the inanimate to be creative. Even science calls this creation. You call it probable for creation to be possible without any awareness. Are there any experiments where we are outdone by nothing ? What you say is probable is entangled with your faith.

Is it really wrong to follow a path that willingly states they don't have all the answers?

Does the fact science doesn't have all the answers make other faiths and theories any more or less plausible?

by Turncoat

Do you understand that you have faith in theory?

 What theory are you talking about ?

 The point of what Alia said was that you don't have any logical reason to say there's a single prime creator in the first place. Many religions have more "eternal" gods than one ffs, think Zeus and his lot. Then you said: of course the prime creator is only one because it's in the definition of prime. Which doesn't really click with the logical folk, because you already assume the creator is "prime" to prove that he is prime.

Wow I feel really smart today, but I think that's only because YOU are not very bright Tony.

What answer given to giving life meaning or understanding isn't a theory? No matter how much "fact" something has, it could be disproven once something more convincing is found later, which could then be disproven even further along.

It's all theories, guesswork. Just because it sounds more informed with a backing of names that stand through time doesn't make it any more or less correct, just easier to swallow.

by Turncoat

What answer given to giving life meaning or understanding isn't a theory? No matter how much "fact" something has, it could be disproven once something more convincing is found later, which could then be disproven even further along.

 

Yeah, that's how science works, which is why it's not worth using it as a foundation for argument.

It's all theories, guesswork. Just because it sounds more informed with a backing of names that stand through time doesn't make it any more or less correct, just easier to swallow.

 You should say that to inquirer. He's pro science, where as I am only partially science, as I include more.