Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,645
- 8,832
Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
No, I'm not.
What you are doing is attempting to compare two things which are not similar. There is no faith involved in trusting in the scientific method, because we see the results which verify the validity of the scientific method all around us in our daily lives. Every car we drive, every cell phone we operate, every airplane we fly in, every building we walk into, every bridge we cross, verify that the scientific method works.
I reject the definition you want to use here, that faith = trust or confidence. That is literally the Creationist argument. The Bible states that Faith is the "Substance of things hoped for, the reason to believe in things unseen" which is the exact false definition you are seeking to utilize here.
Faith in this context is belief without justification.
Let me make this perfectly clear: Even if you don't understand how the scientific method works, and even if you have never read a single scientific paper in your life, the fact that the scientific method is what has been used to modify our planet to make it easier for us to survive, and that evidence, which is in our faces every time we turn on the oven or the microwave or the television or pick up a cell phone, verifies the confidence people have in the scientific method.
Religion has never, and will never, be able to make that claim. They attempt to, by declaring all the world is evidence for the existence of their god, that the very fact that nature is ordered is evidence for their deity, but the fact is that religion has never given us a single substantive benefit that we can point to and say "Here is the reason we have confidence in the idea that a magic man in the sky exists."
So, as I said before, only when Faith can power a probe to land on a comet after a decades long voyage through space traveling hundreds of thousands of miles an hour, will religion have a right to question the validity of the scientific method, or have any justification to attempt to create correlation between faith in magic sky men, and faith in demonstrably true things like the scientific method.
And I'm not rewatching a video I've seen 100 times just to please you. Go watch it again yourself. He very explicitly states that.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,601
- 34,123
Not only do you just start rewriting definitions (SJW), you begin to assign the value of information to the creator of it arbitrarily (religious) and you've failed to address the core argument. I'm not going to debate you further if you are going to do so in bad faith. He never once mentions the phrase 'he says over and over'. I can't prove a negative, but you can provide the time stamp. It should be so very easy if he says it 'over and over again' as you originally claimed.
But if you want to leave the argument with you using Creationist debate logic then that's on you.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
This entire post is just sour grapes and projection.
Nothing more.
A completely substance-less rebuttal.
The definition of faith is undeniable. There is zero evidence that meets even the most basal of criteria to support any religious claims to supernatural causation, miracles, etc.
The very fact that you can type on this forum is evidence that the scientific method works. Without having a lick of understanding of electrochemistry, a child in kindergarten can be told how the scientific method was used to discover the technology used to build his touchscreen computer, and they will grasp that, and they will have evidence for their trust in the scientific method every time they pick up their ipad and play angry birds.
If religion could offer even a fraction of that degree of substantive, daily, in your face evidence to support its irrational conjectures, there would be no discussion as to whether religion was a valid methodology for discerning truthful observations about the universe around us.
It cannot.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,601
- 34,123
Please find me any dictionary or similar source that claims as a standard definition of the word faith that it can only be used when you cannot possibly test the knowledge claim.
I'll wait.
Meanwhile you're still wrong about Dr. Boghossian. You're the Kentucky Reverend.
I'll wait.
Meanwhile you're still wrong about Dr. Boghossian. You're the Kentucky Reverend.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Your logical fallacy is etymylogical, and further more
Faith | Definition of Faith by Merriam-Webster
"b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust".
Also, your wording of this is so fucking bad you should be embarassed. I can barely understand what you're asking, and the wording borders on a strawman.
No, I'm not.
And you're wrong, projecting, and incapable of dealing with the simple reality that the scientific method is verified by the fact that I can post this response to you, and that's a degree of certitude that religion will never be able to meet, and therefore your claim of equivalence between trust in science and blind faith in the magic sky man is false.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
I don't give a shit what source you cite.
Religious faith is by definition belief without evidence.
Deal with it.
Also, you're a retard.
He asked for a dictionary definition showing faith is belief without evidence, and he was given it. Its in pretty much every dictionary, and beyond that, his argument is an etymylogical fallacy.
Religious faith is by definition belief without evidence.
Deal with it.
Also, you're a retard.
He asked for a dictionary definition showing faith is belief without evidence, and he was given it. Its in pretty much every dictionary, and beyond that, his argument is an etymylogical fallacy.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,483
- 73,562
What are you guys doing to my good and just thread?
Want to argue the definition of the word faith?
Middle East Craziness Thread - Religion of Peace, Part Deux
Want to argue the definition of the word faith?
Middle East Craziness Thread - Religion of Peace, Part Deux
Websters dictionary is pretty much expensive toilet paper and the fact that you are citing it for a definition shows just how stupid you are.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Genetic fallacy, dysphemism, and just plain fucking stupid butthurt from a shitty human being.
Congrats on that, faggot.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,601
- 34,123
Why are you saying religious faith? Who used the phrase religious faith?
I am claiming that someone taking a SCIENTIFIC CLAIM as truth only on the merit that someone said they did science without any evidence that this is true is an act of faith. I also claim that most people consume scientific knowledge in this way and it is the same vehicle by which they believe Jesus did some weird shit 2,000 years ago - they view a source they trust and took it at face value.
You are claiming "nuh uh".
I state that I am using Dr. Boghossian's definition of faith (which I brought up first).
You then claim that the statement which is the title of his talk and the video is WRONG and incomplete that he said something completely different.
I ask you for proof, you state 'go watch it yourself.' I have, many times. At no point does he claim this. You refuse to provide evidence (hint: you can't because he never states this).
I have asked for you to justify your definition of faith that involves the quality of the knowledge rather than the reason or method by which it is obtained or trusted.
You will not.
So here we are, you are arguing that major dictionaries AND Dr. Boghossian arewrongand that faith CAN ONLY take place if the knowledge in question isunknowableoruntestable.
I am asking you once again to prove it, but you will not.
So I will ask you: what do you call it when someone reads an article that claims "scientists in Australia have found that xxx is yyy" and takes it as fact without any verification of the empirical testing done to come to that conclusion?
You will once again deflect or make up a new concept in linguistics.
?\_(?)_/?
I am claiming that someone taking a SCIENTIFIC CLAIM as truth only on the merit that someone said they did science without any evidence that this is true is an act of faith. I also claim that most people consume scientific knowledge in this way and it is the same vehicle by which they believe Jesus did some weird shit 2,000 years ago - they view a source they trust and took it at face value.
You are claiming "nuh uh".
I state that I am using Dr. Boghossian's definition of faith (which I brought up first).
You then claim that the statement which is the title of his talk and the video is WRONG and incomplete that he said something completely different.
I ask you for proof, you state 'go watch it yourself.' I have, many times. At no point does he claim this. You refuse to provide evidence (hint: you can't because he never states this).
I have asked for you to justify your definition of faith that involves the quality of the knowledge rather than the reason or method by which it is obtained or trusted.
You will not.
So here we are, you are arguing that major dictionaries AND Dr. Boghossian arewrongand that faith CAN ONLY take place if the knowledge in question isunknowableoruntestable.
I am asking you once again to prove it, but you will not.
So I will ask you: what do you call it when someone reads an article that claims "scientists in Australia have found that xxx is yyy" and takes it as fact without any verification of the empirical testing done to come to that conclusion?
You will once again deflect or make up a new concept in linguistics.
?\_(?)_/?
You keep making it so personal. You are so angry all the time now about getting demodded it's ridiculous.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
You're a shitty troll and should try harder.
Nowhere in this big giant wall of nonsense and fluff is there a single rebuttal to the fact that the scientific method is demonstrated reliably true and accurate by the fact that I am responding to you right now.
And you are the one who are attempting to claim that religious faith and trust in the scientific method are equivalent because both involve blind faith.
And again. The faith isnt' blind when the very fact that I can respond to you on this computer demonstrates the validity of the trust put into the methodology.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,601
- 34,123
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
I can read, and nothing you've said rebuts this reality.
You are equivocating trust based in evidence with blind faith. There is no comparison.
I don't have to try at all with you, you are a pathetic joke who can't even understand when someone is agreeing with you. You should excuse yourself from the forums for another year, get your butthurt buried back down inside and come back again pretending nothing happened. No one will think less of you than they already do.