Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Magicians who perform illusions. Come to think of it, they may just have to worship Gob, Lord of Unknowable numbers of birds. Complex Geometric Estimation, coin pile approximation, fortune telling, and ventriloquism-(multiple simultaneous bird calls) will al be features of the followers.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Well it does sound like Grade A bs.

All philisophy is BS if you think about it.

It is the human perspective.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Magicians who perform illusions. Come to think of it, they may just have to worship Gob, Lord of Unknowable numbers of birds. Complex Geometric Estimation, coin pile approximation, fortune telling, and ventriloquism-(multiple simultaneous bird calls) will al be features of the followers.

Weapon of choice, cane?

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

No, it isn't.

There we go, we're fething done.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
No, it isn't.

There we go, we're fething done.

Really? We're done.

But I have flowers.

And I swear I won't eat all the ducks again!

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.

You know I was just doing cheap shots at people just to make fun of the joke that this thread goes on and on.

Its my opinion you can accept it or not. But I have accepted it. But that is my opinion.

 Asherian Command wrote:
The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

You'll have to expound on your statement here, because at face value it's absolute garbage.

Science is based on observations of the natural, physical world.

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

My point is this: Ridiculing people for having different opinions is pointless. If you want them to change, that is the worst way to go about it.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.

You know I was just doing cheap shots at people just to make fun of the joke that this thread goes on and on.

Its my opinion you can accept it or not. But I have accepted it. But that is my opinion.

It's still wrong.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Magicians who perform illusions. Come to think of it, they may just have to worship Gob, Lord of Unknowable numbers of birds. Complex Geometric Estimation, coin pile approximation, fortune telling, and ventriloquism-(multiple simultaneous bird calls) will al be features of the followers.

Weapon of choice, cane?

Swords of destiny. Wet socks may be used in lieu of holy symbols.

“Large licks: 423. Small licks: 752.”

Because at this point we might as well just redo the last page

 Asherian Command wrote:


Its my opinion you can accept it or not. But I have accepted it. But that is my opinion.

You can hold all the unsupported opinions you like, we just need to make sure they're picked apart so that no unsuspecting visitor to the thread ends up holding the same ones.

 40k Wargamer wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

My point is this: Ridiculing people for having different opinions is pointless. If you want them to change, that is the worst way to go about it.

Whilst I usually agree and follow this, today I am not.

Sometimes people hold pathetically stupid opinions and you just can't be arsed dealing with them rationally because they'll just go NUH UH.

And frankly pointing out/mocking their idiocy feels good, so when you're at the NUH UH stage, why bother otherwise?

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.

He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.

I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.

 Riquende wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

You'll have to expound on your statement here, because at face value it's absolute garbage.

Science is based on observations of the natural, physical world.

Observations are based on human senses.

Senses are not always correct. So at face value they are incorrect. They are based on a human emotion and ideas so it is probably incorrect. So all things are based on assumptions that are senses are correct.

Hypothesis's are the very basis of science. The First hypothesis was based on faith. That your idea is correct and worth chasing.

Everyone gets Belief confused with Faith. It is an idea that people often forget about.

Human's must base their ideas on faith. They have to follow that gut feeling that they are on the right track. Faith is what drives us to do things.

 daedalus wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.

He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.

I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.

No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

My point is this: Ridiculing people for having different opinions is pointless. If you want them to change, that is the worst way to go about it.

Whilst I usually agree and follow this, today I am not.

Sometimes people hold pathetically stupid opinions and you just can't be arsed dealing with them rationally because they'll just go NUH UH.

And frankly pointing out/mocking their idiocy feels good, so when you're at the NUH UH stage, why bother otherwise?

The NUH UH stage is extremely aggravating, but I think it's better just to walk away. By continuing you'll just make yourself more frustrated.

 Soladrin wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.

He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.

I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.

No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.

Its an abstract idea that has to be read from Parmenides and other philosophers. If you don't it seems stupid and contrived.

Hmm... "seems" stupid and contrived... yes.

God, it's like when Hotsauceman reads something new and posts about it. Except with better formulated posts*.

*doesn't stop the content being gak

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Hmm... "seems" stupid and contrived... yes.

God, it's like when Hotsauceman reads something new and posts about it. Except with better formulated posts*.

*doesn't stop the content being gak

No offense to philosophy but it's all technically gak as it is a human opinion.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.

He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.

I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.

No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.

Its an abstract idea that has to be read from Parmenides and other philosophers. If you don't it seems stupid and contrived.

DUDE WE LIVE IN THE MATRIX Will always sound stupid and contrived, no matter how long the writers beard was.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.

He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.

I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.

No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.

Its an abstract idea that has to be read from Parmenides and other philosophers. If you don't it seems stupid and contrived.

DUDE WE LIVE IN THE MATRIX Will always sound stupid and contrived, no matter how long the writers beard was.

What? That's not my opinion. That part kind of made me think. Well someone is taking the theory far too seriously.

The fact this thread and its logic is circular despite it looking very rectangular on a screen is causing my head to spin.

I think this subject is done. We're not going to make headway arguing about perception, truth, science, and opinion in a thread that began with the OP stating his belief in God.

We could invest this energy in any of the other threads currently going on.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.

He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.

I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.

No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.

Its an abstract idea that has to be read from Parmenides and other philosophers. If you don't it seems stupid and contrived.

DUDE WE LIVE IN THE MATRIX Will always sound stupid and contrived, no matter how long the writers beard was.

What? That's not my opinion. That part kind of made me think. Well someone is taking the theory far too seriously.

Wait, so you've repeatedly used it to try and claim science is based on faith, but it's now not your opinion when we point out how silly it is?

 Soladrin wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.

He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.

I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.

No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.

Well, that's why I instead went about establishing the differences between scientific models and faith. The problem here seems to be to me that he fails to realize that the basic senses aren't being accepted on faith. They're the ultimate caveat. They're the foundation for every scientific model we construct, subject to change if you're crazy enough to find a way to disprove them. Faith would mandate that they're inviolable, and then be done. If someone could prove 100% that our senses weren't accurate, then the science we've built using them would change to read "When using human senses... " before everything, and then we'd all go on proving things using whatever new method for proving things we used to prove that our senses were an illusion.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?

Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?

The science is based on faith. Not is faith.

Everything is based on faith.

No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.

He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.

I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.

No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.

Its an abstract idea that has to be read from Parmenides and other philosophers. If you don't it seems stupid and contrived.

DUDE WE LIVE IN THE MATRIX Will always sound stupid and contrived, no matter how long the writers beard was.

What? That's not my opinion. That part kind of made me think. Well someone is taking the theory far too seriously.

Wait, so you've repeatedly used it to try and claim science is based on faith, but it's now not your opinion when we point out how silly it is?

No because I am human I make mistakes. All my opinions are my opinions and I am a human being.

Humans have believed in stupid things. I am not saying that we are apart of matrix. I am saying there is a possiblity we may not exist and we may all be parts of our own imaginary worlds. Just different personalities within the mind.