Has history ever happened?

[Oberyn]

Entire professions and organizations, oddly enough.

Scientists, not historians. Sure, there's some overlap. But for example Pleistoscene era specialists and the like are more biologists/geologists than historians. And the Pleistoscene is barely a blip on the scale of time we are talking about, even though it lasted far longer than the entire existence of humanity. I don't personally consider anything pre-sentience to be "history".

[Lennu]

Ofc History happened, there are books that prove it! Just like this book called Bible proves that god exists!   

One could say that we're brainwashed to believe stuff. Some people believe in god, some people believe in science. How are do they know about the stuff they believe in? They read about it. Some read the Bible, some read science stuff. We believe in what we are tough to believe in. 

[Armpit_Sweat]

some people believe in science.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


This is your face, when you read your own post few years from now, when you grow up.

One believes in religion. One understands science. Major difference.

[Tagora]

One believes in religion. One understands science. Major difference.

Belief is categorically indifferent to any proposition whether or not there's any justification for it being true (or false).  Understanding is simply a cognitive condition of awareness.  Belief is what dictates whether you accept its statements.

To illustrate my point I'll create a rudimentary graph of my own cognition:

Reading (Sensing) -> Learning (and subsequently, Understanding) -> Accepting (Belief)
(I've been thoroughly persuaded that what I have just read is true from what I have learned)

From now on, before you say "I know", preface it with "I believe" for "I believe I know that...[such and such is true]"  In fact, if you never believed in science, it would be impossible for you to value its truth contrary to religion and your scorn and deprivation would be unjustified.  We cannot have that, sir!  We simply cannot allow you to make a mockery of others unless you have a peer-reviewed journal backing you up.  There's laws!  There's courts for this!  One could end up in hard labor for neglecting these issues and offending the law. [Raskolnikow exits.]

[Casimir]

Nothing is true, everything is permitted

[Armpit_Sweat]

Belief is categorically indifferent to any proposition whether or not there's any justification for it being true (or false).  Understanding is simply a cognitive condition of awareness.  Belief is what dictates whether you accept its statements.

Seems to be a purely rhetorical argumentation... But if you prefer to use dictionary definitions: "science is a system of knowledge" and "religion is a set of beliefs".
 
It is hard for me to write on such a complex subject, since my English is far from perfect. Here is a very good video, from someone who shares my view, and is able to express himself in a proper way:
 

[Christo]

Nothing is true, everything is permitted

And you like turtles

[Overdriven]

That guys second video annoys me.  He spends the entire time arguing about omnipotence ect and uses them to deny the nature of God. Something I wrote an essay piece on a while ago was about how we use these terms as loosely as any other description. It is simply our way of describing something which is far beyond our understanding. Omniscience ect are words that are from our own language, created by us. How the hell are we supposed to comprehend God's true characteristics. We can't. We will never be able to. To do so would amount to us being God's ourselves. So to use human made language and words as a basis for arguing against a God is a non-start argument.

[Oberyn]

It seems like more of an attack on organized religion than the concept of God itself. Sadly the two are inextricably linked most of the time. Divining God's nature based on human perceptions and words is pretty much religion 101. Words like "omnipotence" and "eternity" and the true nature of God are concepts that cannot be truly grasped by human consciousness, but defining them has been the bread and butter of theological philosophers for ages and across all religions. This guy's arrogance and faithlike atheism is no different than any other attempt at it.

As for the whole "science is just another belief system" meme it's just post-modernism gibberish. Atheism I could see being described as a belief system, in some cases, with scientific dogma replacing religious ones. The difference being of course that scientific dogma is by it's very nature ever evolving and therefore not dogma per-say.  The scientists, the people most thoroughly involved with what that dogma is, are the ones who work the hardest to find new hypotheses and theories that completely overturn what was previously thought to be true. Of course there are monetary interests and scientists of all stripes are just human beings, susceptible to the same vices and delusions as anyone else. But the system itself is superior to any other we've ever created if the goal is to discern the secrets of reality and the universe.

[Overdriven]

True enough. I switched off after the first few minutes of his second video. It simply reminded me of why I decided to stop taking Philosophy and Ethics as a class and decided that my faith is my own and the circular practice of arguing for and against is pretty much a waste of time. I believe what I believe, I don't expect anyone else to necessarily think the way I do. I like to think I'm a good person, or generally try to be and that is basically all that God wants, the God that I believe in anyway.

Science is not a belief system. Atheism maybe. I think the issue is that atheists often uphold science as their proof of all things. Like you said, scientific 'dogma' replacing the religious. And that is precisely what makes me call atheism a religion as those who typically tout science as the ultimate are no better. They read a science text book, listened to a lecture maybe and then declare themselves atheists and that science is the proof. It all seems a little ironic. Science itself however is not a belief system and the scientists themselves are commendable for striving to further our knowledge in the most effective way we know. In many ways science and God (not necessarily religion) can go hand in hand with little need to clash.

[Belatu]

yes history happened, but you wont know in what percent of truthness

[the real god emperor]

I am not a real believer but people must admit that there are things that even science cant explain.You can say how the galaxy, the space , the earth formed up, but there is more...  If you can keep both science and religion in your mind and understand them both, you re good. Nowadays some people chooses to become Atheists because religions have some odd rules that is not for our time.If you can think it modernized, its way more logical. Besides, i am a mega witness of that how goverments and other shit ppl uses people's beliefs for keeping the power.This is why many people chooses to become Atheists. God is real. Religions might not be.

Nothing is true, everything is permitted

Says the templar, wololool!

[Dalfador]

something to think about, there is no such thing as time. time is something humans applied to the distance the earth travels around the sun. i was like... WHOA when i thought about it for a while.

[Tagora]

@Kratos Agree w/ you that some people become atheists because they're disillusioned with government, church, conventional wisdom (surprise, surprise) but I'd like to add that science doesn't speculate about what is unknown.  On the other hand, you, me, we engage in speculation when we discuss God, because there's no evidence for God.  In many discussions I've had about the existence of God it seems that the atheist is struggling to define his/her argument.  It's simply that there's no evidence for God and science cannot pursue what they can't observe/measure/predict/model et cetera.  If that isn't enough for someone then they can go believe in whatever they want.  It's too bad that some atheists are so condescending and ultimately foolish to confront someone over their beliefs.  1) It presumes that they have lack the right to believe in whatever they want, 2) it's a good way to have a negative experience and become more disillusioned, 3) why are you heckling someone?

[Abay]

One simple question.

You can talk about history as much as you want, but can you prove it really has happend? Does any proof really exist?

Are there any proof you exist?