Soldato
This has got to be the ultimate GD hit and run, well done Mags
!MUSLIM SAMWICH ARMYGEDDON!
- Thread starter [FnG]magnolia
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
You realise that you declared yourself to be a person of faith (in science) on the last page right?
If that is true, which it is not, then you should be able to quote my post where I said I had 'faith' in science. Please do so.
Soldato
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 1,317
lol at people comparing "faith" in science to faith in religion.
I can't tell if he's just being stubborn, or he's genuinely deluded. If the latter, it's quite disturbing.
Also, @ Xordium this is the sort of thing I meant when I was saying about Atheists being the worst. Some religious people are bad, but this sort of attitude seems to be the domain of anti-theist Atheists.
You've already admitted you put your trust in science. A form of faith is putting your trust in something, ergo you have faith in science. Just accept it and stop being so stubborn, it's okay to admit you're wrong, it won't kill you.
Soldato
Off to bed, bacon sandwich in the morning yummy.
Soldato
Correct.
Sorry but this is simply not true. Faith is belief without evidence. Trust is evidence based. When I say I have trust in someone or something, I'm not saying I'm 100% convinced. I'm saying I have good reason based on evidence to believe. It's like saying I have confidence/trust that Ronnie O'Sullivan is going to win this World Championship. Obviously I can't predict the future so I could be wrong, but I also have a lot evidence based on his ability and recent form to trust that he will win. If I have only faith in Ronnie, then his form and ability would not matter, only my faith would count. So he could come into the tournament with a broken arm, unable to pot anything, but because I had faith I would still believe he would win. See the difference ?
LOL at you for pretending people are doing that, you know full well no one is saying that they are identical. I am simply pointing out that many beliefs ARE based on faith, it's a fact and there isn't really anything to say that proves this wrong.
If you believe in science, you are putting faith in people to competently carry out the scientific method. It even fits your very limited view of faith if you consider that by and large you do not know the people you are "trusting," therefore it cannot be trust and must be faith.
As per the dictionary definition, you are incorrect. I shall post it again since you are struggling with the concept so much.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/faith
Soldato
Science can be verified. You can test the theory of gravity and research the scientific papers and Newton's laws. All of the evidence is out there. This can be said for any scientific field. Faith is not required, only a trust in the science if you are too lazy to research it for your self. As is demonstrated by a few posters in this thread.
Religious faith can not be verified as it appeals to the numinous and the transcendent and the supernatural. All of these are just concepts that are not subject to scientific inquiry. Science is methodological naturalism. It can not investigate concepts like the supernatural. So when it comes to god, science simply states that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. In other words, if you believe in god and you expect me to believe too, then demonstrate it beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, step outside because your taxi is waiting.
Soldato
Don't you realise that some words have more than one definition depending on the context they are used ? Click on your own link and read definition 2. That's the one I quoted earlier. That's the one that is relevant to a religious discussion.
Yes, faith is applicable to both, you are ignoring this no one else.
Soldato
Got to go now. Enjoyed the chat, a bit like talking to my Border Terrier at times though. Never really sure he understands what I'm talking about, but I know if I keep at it, eventually he might stop pooping on the kitchen floor.
Soldato
Got to go now. Enjoyed the chat, a bit like talking to my Border Terrier at times though. Never really sure he understands what I'm talking about, but I know if I keep at it, eventually he might stop pooping on the kitchen floor.
Someone's coming across as a bit of a knob, wonder who....
Here you go:
The fact you don't seem to understand that having faith in something and trusting in it are the same thing isn't my or Spoffle's problem, it's yours.
The problem is, you are the one implying that people are idiots for their beliefs.
I am a scientist, I don't believe in god, if I had to choose I would be an atheist. However we don't have to choose, and unlike a lot of "scientists" I'm quite capable of getting on with my own life without having to be a sanctimonious tool all of the time.
I have no idea what you seek to gain by telling people there is no proof for god. They know there is no proof for god, they have faith anyway. Get over it. Arguably the greatest scientist of all time distanced himself from atheism because we simply do not know.
- Status