You probably think that polluting this thread with your tired atheist argument is a contribution. If you could manage to contain your butthurt topre-established cornersof the forum, that'd be terrific, thanks.
Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
Burnem Wizfyre
Log Wizard
- 11,856
- 19,779
You've been schlonged so hard I'm shocked Khorum hasn't came in here and called you a cuck yet.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,589
- 34,070
I have not and never did equivocate those things. You are hilarious, you keep adding words and changing the original argument in order to try and win.
My original argument and the one I still have is that most people consume religion and science with the same vehicle: faith. They do not testanythingor reason for conclusions and therefore regardless of whether the original author tested it or not, the individual consuming the knowledge is still taking it on faith. Whether it be faith because "the Bible is old" or faith because "Dr. Bob Robertson sounds like he knows what he's doing" it is still faith.
You're just as miserable as Glenn Greenwald only you're not even misquoting me, you're just straight up lying about what was presented.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Ahem
You are arguing that for the average person, trust in science is the functional same as faith in religious ideas.
Get the fuck out of here.
And there you go trying to blame me for replying to a topic brought up in the thread by others.
You're such a gigantic waste of time.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,589
- 34,070
Yes, I am claiming that the average person must consume scientific consensus ON FAITH because it would be too cumbersome (impossible) for everyone to reason or empirically test every recorded fact for themselves.
Do you disagree with this?
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
And that is wrong, for the reasons already stated to you a million times.
We've even had this conversation before like a year ago.
Its PRATT. A point refuted a thousand times.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Wrong.
You can swing at StrawHodj all night, it isn't going to change the fact that faith in things unseen with no evidence is not the same as verified trust in a methodology that has produced consistent, enormous, undeniable results and continues to do so every single day of our lives.
When prayer can build a skyscraper, then and only then will religious faith be the equivalent of trust in the scientific method.
The Ancient devolving to 1st grade with the "I'm rubber, you're glue" rebuttal!
You're such a butthurt little troll.
Anyway, Palum, I'm hitting the sack in about five minutes.
Can you provide us with an example of the sort of daily, constant, overwhelming evidence for the validity of belief in the supernatural that is as ubiquitous as the technological and environmental modifications we've made to this planet utilizing the rationalist scientific method that would justify the claim that religious faith and trust in the scientific method are the same thing, yes or no?
You can't even read. I didn't suggest you are wasting my time. I never consider it a waste to watch you fly off the handle over nothing. It amuses me.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,589
- 34,070
You slippery you little Jihadi you, but I'm not going to let you get away with it.
You have just claimed that 'faith in things unseen with no evidence...' is not the same as science. I agree. I am asking YOU to substantiate the claim that faith in a study unseen and that you have never reviewed the evidence for is any different than a religious passage.
I am asking you to provide the justification in claiming that a random person reading an article with NO SOURCES that simply states 'Scientists have found that xxx is yyy' and taking it on fact is DIFFERENT than a random person reading a passage in the Bible and taking it as fact.
You have just claimed that 'faith in things unseen with no evidence...' is not the same as science. I agree. I am asking YOU to substantiate the claim that faith in a study unseen and that you have never reviewed the evidence for is any different than a religious passage.
I am asking you to provide the justification in claiming that a random person reading an article with NO SOURCES that simply states 'Scientists have found that xxx is yyy' and taking it on fact is DIFFERENT than a random person reading a passage in the Bible and taking it as fact.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
I already did that.
What part of the results confirm the validity of the methodology is hard for you to grasp?
I don't need to understand all the inner workings of my car's engine, to trust that the engineers who developed it, based on the rigorous application of mathematics and the scientific method and iterating upon designs for closing on a full century now, can construct a vehicle that drives me from point A to point B provided that I have fulfilled my obligations in terms of providing it with proper fuel and maintenence procedures.
Doing so is not faith without evidence, either. The fact that there are billions of vehicles traveling the roadways of this planet on a daily basis is verification that my trust in the methodology for building cars founded in the scientific method is sound.
Now please, can you name anything in regards to religion which can rise to even half this level of verification, yes or no?
A person who does that is not practicing sound reasoning on any level, and attempting to slander science by correlating irrational people's inability to exhibit any degree of lack of credulousness whatsoever does not in any way rebut my position.
If you take anything as fact based solely on reading an article somewhere without citations, you are a retard.
But that has nothing to do with comparing trust in the scientific method with belief in supernatural causations without evidence.
Sorry to break that to you, but it doesn't. There are always going to be retards in the world. Half the planet falls below the mean of intelligence, after all.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,589
- 34,070
Of course not because religion is conjectured stories. I never argued a religious claim had the same standing as a scientific claim with empirical evidence.
What I argued is that people taking naked scientific claims (that is, they are unsubstantiated and lack presented evidence) as fact is an act of faith, IE a trust in a source without proof.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
They would still be more justified in taking that source as credible, due to the fact that the scientific method has provided so many evidences of its effectiveness historically, than they would taking any religious belief credibly.
No matter how far you try to take this, the reality is that because the outputs of the scientific method are so ubiquitious in our lives, belief in the scientific method would still be more justified with substantive evidence than religious beliefs would be, and that is why the two are not comparable. Because science produces results which we can tangibly grasp and see in our daily lives.
That doesn't mean the person just willy nilly believing everything they read isn't a retard. They are. But their credulousness does not rise to the same level as that of religious belief, because there is still zero evidence to support religious claims.
Now I'm crashing.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,589
- 34,070
Let's say one high school uses a chemistry book that rounds differently, it uses slightly different floating point math to calculate all values and thus some things are not represented the same as another text book. Not enough to matter in high school experiments, but enough to be demonstrably false.
A student from this high school tells you "water boils at 211 degrees F, it was in my science book." As a student of another high school you reply "no it boils at 212 degrees F, it was in MY science book."
Neither of you has tested this, you have both determined this fact through an act of faith. You trusted the source material and without verification believed it to be true. You have no knowledge of how this information was derived other than your teacher told you THIS TEXTBOOK is the product of the scientific method and all the facts in this book are the truth of the universe as we know it today.
How can you claim that faith did not lead to this conundrum? How can you claim that the 211 student is 'less sciencey'? Are you saying that the student that learned the true value by simply taking the fact at face value is using his understanding of science to rationally choose to believe the fact without verification but the wrong student is not?
Burnem Wizfyre
Log Wizard
- 11,856
- 19,779
Faith did not lead to the conundrum, inconsistent text books did. A simple google search or thermometer could resolve their problem, unlike with faith when the Jews book says Jesus wasn't god and the Catholics book tells them Jesus and God are the same.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,589
- 34,070
Explain to me why reading something in a book and taking as fact because you trust the source is not faith. That is what both students did in my example.