SCOOTERTECHNO.COM

Quoted from ""Artwork""

Quoted from ""bond007""

@Artwork, Surely by now you must have got the picture that people are getting fead up with you preaching on the forum

When you arn't talking about god and religion on the forum you have some good things to say

So perhaps it's time you gave it a rest

I'm a little tired, but i can't sleep now

Good answer, ill give you that :lol:

Quoted from ""Artwork""

You don't know the sentence that says "Faith must be proven by facts".

I think you need to revise your defintion of the word 'faith', Artwork.

Facts must be either true or false... If a statement cannot even in principle be demonstrated as true or false then it must then be classed a belief. Knowledge is based upon facts, faith is based on belief.

Quoted from ""Artwork""

The empirical law of Action (facts) and Reaction (faith), or vice versa.
That means you cannot split a belief and a way of life

lol. The empirical law of action and reaction? It's funny you should mention that. I'm sorry to break it to you, Artwork but although the 'laws' of induction (cause and effect) appear to many to be certain they are in truth not laws. The link between cause and effect is an assumption... a habit of the mind.

We then call the one object, cause; the other, effect. We suppose that there is some connexion between them; some power in the one, by which it infallibly produces the other, and operates with the greatest certainty and strongest necessity.

I say then, that, even after we have experience of the operations of cause and effect, our conclusions from that experience are not founded on (a priori) reasoning, or any process of the understanding.


It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance. Let the course of things be allowed hitherto ever so regular; that alone, without some new argument or inference, proves not that, for the future, it will continue so. (David Hume, 1737)

I personally believe it would be wrong to totally dismiss the notion of causation and induction. However, Artwork we must remember that it is not an empirical law. We must be careful not to make assumptions about the links between certain notions.

Although Artwork, i wouldn't say that it was wrong for you to base your life on certain beliefs if that is what you wish to do, please do not claim that you live by the 'truth' or 'facts' of God.

Quoted from ""Artwork""

>Although Artwork, i wouldn't say that it was wrong for you to base your life on certain beliefs if that is what you wish to do ... but please do not claim that you live by the 'truth' or 'facts' or God.

I have claimed it, but i went even deeper. No matter your belief, because all them have in common, facts made by mankind for that cause. Two different examples: When you believe in/like Scooter, you'll try to buy all cds and dvds of them, and it costs a price, and you can see what was the result: good or bad, and then the catholic church also must be proven that way, because every tree gives its fruit. And all the beliefs too

Pardon? I'm sorry Artwork, but you'll have to explain yourself clearer than that.

...Ok, i'll try and respond as best i can to what i can loosely comprehend ...

There are problems, as i've already pointed out, between cause and effect, however we shall them aside for now as that really doesn't belong in this debate and only further complicate the situation.

Of course, beliefs are almost always going to give rise to actions (or at least that is the way things appear). If someone believes Scooter are the best band in the world they will probably (not necessarily) buy their CDs.

However, the action that follows a belief cannot be used as verification for proving the belief to be factual. Just because the belief exists and actions arise from that belief doesn't mean that this belief can be regarded as a piece of factual knowledge. So just because there are people responding to their beliefs in God doesn't necessarily mean God exists. Just because there are people that believe the Catholic Church's teachings are true and act in a manner that is commonly accepted to be a reaction to this belief doesn't make the teachings of the Catholic Church factual. If i were to assert that Unicorns exist then i might be expect to go out in search of a Unicorn... the mere fact that i have left my house to search for a Unicorn doesn't mean that Unicorns exist.

@ Artwork: being a fan of Scooter has nothing to do with actually buying their material, it's a matter of liking them or not

@Artwork
I never bought a single Scooter CD except all albums.So I don't buy other Scooter stuff.
Read my previous post and try to understand also the other part, not only about this about 'being dangerous'.

it can be proved by science, moron

Quoted from ""Artwork""

You proved what i said, with the example of the unicorn. If the world can see one, the fact is proved, and the belief is valid

I'll make another step: When you are using your computer, you are using electricity, but it's harder to see, and the electricity exists because of atoms, though they are invisible. Then the existence of atoms are proved. Why? Because you see the facts: you computer works

Artwork. You are confusing science and religion. Religion is about the super-empirical... science is about the empirical. Electricity is something that occurs empirically. A Unicorn, if you saw one, would be existing empirically. God is NOT the same.

"Electricity exists" - synthetic, empirically verifiable, factual statement

"Unicorns exist" - synthetic, empirically verifiable, factual statement.

"God exists" - synthetic, empirically unverifiable statement of belief

There's the difference.

Quoted from ""Artwork""

Once again, don't be fooled. What the Bible says must be understood with faith and facts, which you call empirical. And the life works this way

As i've explained, Artwork, the Bible cannot serve as verification for the existence of God or any other metaphysical entity. It is a historical doc*ment and it does contain sentences that are factually significant.

However, all our knowledge comes from within the empirical world via the senses and as we have no experience of anything super-empirical, assertions regarding the super-empirical cannot be demonstrated. The Bible contains many of these deceptive metaphysical assertions.

"The Bible is the word of God" - now try verifying that one... no, you can't. It is taken on trust and belief.

While existing in the empirical world it is not possible to know, even to a degree, God or anything else beyond sense experience. Religion is instead a system of beliefs, beliefs that are empirically unverifiable yet still super-empirically possible.

In conclusion, the Bible can only be accepted through faith... not through fact.

then stop writing all that cr*p on the forum

Quoted from ""Artwork""

Honestly, i hate endless loops

Avoiding the issues, methinks. :roll:

Quoted from ""Artwork""

Quoted from ""pjad_uk""

Quoted from ""Artwork""

Honestly, i hate endless loops

Avoiding the issues, methinks. :roll:

I have said that, i don't need to repeat it

Have you now? :lol: