#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Atheists: has anything ever tested your faith in science?
Yes
Side Score: 40
|
 |
No
Side Score: 36
|
|
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
The dictionary gives the meaning of Cult as: 5a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad http://www.merriam-webster.com/ What is the following of science if not an intellectual fad? I too can use a dictionary. The difference is that I can use one correctly. Side: Yes
2
points
Cult: 1 : formal religious veneration : worship 2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents 3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents 4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator 5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion You DONT use it correctly! What an amazing quote mine you just made. A cult is typically religious in nature, science isnt. And science isnt a "fad" its an intricate field of extremely important study, not some pop culture bullshit. Again with the ignorance, do you even read what you write? i mean seriously. Side: No
1
point
Where in the description of #5 does it say anything about religion? Nice try, but you cannot makeup a definition to fit your agenda. It simply says, great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad Where does it say anything about religion? I suggest since you cannot out think me, that you go back to name calling. Side: Yes
1
point
Outthink you? You picked one out of 6 definitions. The type of cult youre trying to make science out to be is the religious kind. The definition you used would be used in the context of say a movie being a "cult classic". Not the cult YOU are trying to make it out to be. And reguardless, it still doesnt even fit that defintion as it is not an intellectual fad. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Rhetorical question. Side: Yes
2
points
1
point
"You don't have a lack of belief, just a different one." Well there are different kinds of atheism, including belief in non-existence, rejection of arguments in favor of theism, and so on. If he is saying that he isn't an outright anti-theist you have to start your argument there. He is just a person who hasn't been convinced that a god exists. That doesn't imply that he believes that no god exists. Call it wishful thinking, but if he thinks that most accurately describes his position, who are you to tell him otherwise? Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
1
point
2
points
1
point
Modern science is too professional to let that happen. Everything is peer reviewed over and over and tested and re-tested to ensure valid results. The likelyhood of inaccurate evidence is very very low and the likelyhood of a field-wide conspiracy theory to cover up evidence is even less likely. Side: Yes
2
points
1
point
1
point
We would and it would be better. Easters are after God of Sex, who had as it's symbols egg and rabbit, later it was changed to be when Christ died. I would preffer to get laid instead of a cholocalte egg :D Christmas were also a feast, where do you think so Christmas tree came from? :D Side: Yes
But you have faith that what you know is true. You have faith that the building blocks of your logic is accurate. The difference between religious faith and faith that what you know is true, though, is that religious faith is often blind and unchanging. You can't do that with Science, since what we used to know is often replaced by a discovery of the actual truth. So we update those building blocks and apply it anew to the world around us, until the next time. The real danger is Blind Faith, not Faith itself. Side: Yes
Of course a belief in science is based, in part, on faith. Can you explain to me how evolution works exactly? What evidence is there to support it? Can you take me through every step? The fact is you only know small fragments of the evidence for evolution, the rest is based on faith. The point is that you've got faith that scientists for the last however many centuries have researched the topic correctly. You trust in the theory of evolution because that's what the scientific community excepts to be true. Side: Yes
1
point
Of course a belief in science is based, in part, on faith. Can you explain to me how evolution works exactly? What evidence is there to support it? Can you take me through every step? The fact is you only know small fragments of the evidence for evolution, the rest is based on faith. No actually it isn't. I could in fact give you a pretty good explaination of evolution. Of course it wouldn't be as complete as one provided by, say, a biology professor, but that doesn't mean the gaps in my knowledge are based on faith. I KNOW the other parts if the web of evidence for evolution exist. It takes 10 minutes of research to find it. So just because I don't have it memorized doesn't mean I'm depending on faith that its there. I know it's there. The point is that you've got faith that scientists for the last however many centuries have researched the topic correctly. You trust in the theory of evolution because that's what the scientific community excepts to be true. Trust is not the same thing as faith. I trust that the science has been conducted properly because, as we can see from years Of research and results, that it is in fact correct almost all of the time and if it isn't then it was corrected later. I accept evolution because it has been demonstrated by trusted sources to be factual. Not because I blindly accept it to be off of zero evidence. Side: No
No actually it isn't. I could in fact give you a pretty good explaination of evolution. Of course it wouldn't be as complete as one provided by, say, a biology professor, but that doesn't mean the gaps in my knowledge are based on faith. I KNOW the other parts if the web of evidence for evolution exist. It takes 10 minutes of research to find it. . 1) I don't think the difference between your knowledge about evolution and a professor of biology's can be bridged with 10 minutes. 2) How would you research it? I suspect you're not talking about doing your own experiments. Actually to find an answer in ten minutes you're probably talking about using Wikipedia. If you take a little longer maybe you could read some journal articles. Each journal articles would quote other journal articles and be based on premises that have been developed since Darwin the current paradigm in which evolutionary theory operates. Unless you have studies it for many years you are basing it on trust / faith. I trust that the science has been conducted properly because, as we can see from years Of research and results, that it is in fact correct almost all Goodness that's quite a assertion. You certainly have a lot of 'trust' in science. There has been of course many scientific theories that have more been proved wrong. It would be possible to work out the percentage of scientific theories that are wrong but to say 'almost all' were right is blatantly incorrect. isn't then it was corrected later. Or it will be corrected later right? Presumably you must realise that a lot of things you believe to be true about science now will be proven wrong in the future. Science is very much based on faith. Clearly, not as much as religion but I think anyone that studies science has to very humble. There is a real chance that what you're studying will be proved wrong one day. You also have to base your own research on what other people have researched in the past (who have based their research on people before them.. etc ) and have faith / trust that what those other people did was correct. This is the only way science can advance. Side: Yes
1
point
1) I don't think the difference between your knowledge about evolution and a professor of biology's can be bridged with 10 minutes How would you know? Youve probably never looked. All it takes is a quick google search for a scientific journal piece on it. And talkorigins.org is probably one of the best sources i know. 2) How would you research it? I suspect you're not talking about doing your own experiments. Actually to find an answer in ten minutes you're probably talking about using Wikipedia. you cant experiment with evolution with the pieces of equipment in the average house....and while wikipedia is actually not THAT bad, i just go to talkorigins.org or science.org. easy If you take a little longer maybe you could read some journal articles. Each journal articles would quote other journal articles and be based on premises that have been developed since Darwin the current paradigm in which evolutionary theory operates. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ it didnt reference other articles, just the people attributed to their discoveries.
Unless you have studies it for many years you are basing it on trust / faith. No the evidence is right there you moron. and once again, trust isnt equal to faith. Theres absolutely no faith involved. Goodness that's quite a assertion. You certainly have a lot of 'trust' in science. There has been of course many scientific theories that have more been proved wrong. Proven wrong by NEW SCIENCE. not religion or any other source. Or it will be corrected later right? possibly yes Presumably you must realise that a lot of things you believe to be true about science now will be proven wrong in the future. No shit. i dont believe any controvercial things like the big bang to be TRUE, simple ACCURATE and PROBABLE. However, other things like evolution and the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun are in fact true and will always be true Science is very much based on faith. Clearly, not as much as religion but I think anyone that studies science has to very humble. Science, the method that is entirely dependent on evidence to reach conclusions, is faith based. Youre a fucking idiot There is a real chance that what you're studying will be proved wrong one day. You also have to base your own research on what other people have researched in the past (who have based their research on people before them.. etc ) and have faith / trust that what those other people did was correct. This is the only way science can advance. Or we could look at the empirical evidence that we have collected. What people in the past SAID isnt evidence, its what they FOUND and RECORDED that we then use to direct future testing in the right direction to discover more evidence. We dont have to take Eratosthene's word for it that the Earth is round. We have a fucking picture of the Earth as well as his calculations for a circumference. Theres no faith, theres evidence and in this case proof. Side: No
You haven't followed what I said. You just assumed I'm an idiot and decided to insult me. Well nevermind. You bore me. If you're ever actually interested in debate on this topic heres a video. I quite clear that science is based, at least on part on faith. I think if you were willing to question your own views then you'd realise this. Its a well established fact. Maybe I've failed to explain it well enough. Faith in Science
Side: Yes
1
point
Not at all. You believe, or have faith, that what you're studying or researching or even hearing about (these facts you speak of) are truth. Either way, when they are "facts", you believe they are facts. And so therefore, science is based upon faith. I have faith in both science and God. There is no escaping humans having belief and or faith. Side: Yes
Actually science doesn't say that. Science doesn't deal with metaphysical truth. Science only asks how things empirically show them to us. It doesn't say that it's the way things in fact work, science is only saying that if we observe some phenomenon then it will always follow a certain rule. It doesn't mean that science is spot on, when the world is perceived from an lookout somewhere outside the mind-world complex. It just tells us something about our perception of the world. Side: No
Obviously. Trust me, I'm an person who believes science will never achieve what it wants, and that is to observe and understand everything the world and universe has to offer. And so, this is exactly my point. Science can only take mankind so far. Even so, science claims X, Y, Z as "empirical data", and anything else is considered to be "false" until "science can claim it to be truth". This is not a discussion of "The God of The Gaps", this is a counter argument against that. Why? How? As if science knows all. As you state, science does not know all. And so, how can a science claim "Well, what we haven't figured out, cannot be justified by any means, other than our means" This is bullshit. Side: Yes
"Trust me, I'm an person who believes science will never achieve what it wants, and that is to observe and understand everything the world and universe has to offer." Sure the causal closure principle is just that, an assumption. But notice that the causal closure principle is not required for science to work, and this is due to the reason that the scientific method doesn't claim that Everything can be explained in terms of causal connections. The causal closure principle surely is an aim of science, just like when Einstein said that 'God doesn't play dice', but that doesn't mean that it is so. But the important thing to notice here is that whether science works is independent of whether causal closure is possible. "Even so, science claims X, Y, Z as "empirical data", and anything else is considered to be "false"" Empirical data is observation. The scientific method doesn't require that some observations are discarded. Does this answer the skepticism? "As you state, science does not know all" Actually that wasn't what I said. I only said that the scientific method doesn't claim to know it all. That doesn't mean that science doesn't have the possibility of understanding everything. "Well, what we haven't figured out, cannot be justified by any means, other than our means" True, scientists tend to act this way. This belief actually has a name called scientism which is an self-refuting position. It's not a scientific claim that everything must be justified by science. Therefore if everything has to be justified by science then one can't justify that position. But again, that's not a problem of science. That's a problem for people who want to argue that there's no truth but scientific truth, which is closely related but not the same. Side: No
1
point
Not at all. You believe, or have faith, that what you're studying or researching or even hearing about (these facts you speak of) are truth. nope. we have evidence or good reason to suggest that what were studying or researching is true. Either way, when they are "facts", you believe they are facts. And so therefore, science is based upon faith. Science doesnt ever declare fact. only theories and laws. However when something is suggested to be a fact it is because there is so much undenyable proof for it that it must be a fact. for example, the earth is round. i dont have faith that the earth is round, i can google a picture of it. I have faith in both science and God Science has already disproven so much of the bible...somewhere in there there has to be a clause that says "i have faith in both science and God (subtext: *except when the science contradicts God) There is no escaping humans having belief and or faith Except in science. Side: No
nope. we have evidence or good reason to suggest that what were studying or researching is true. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, you believe that it's true, with the evidence at hand. Science doesnt ever declare fact. only theories and laws. However when something is suggested to be a fact it is because there is so much undenyable proof for it that it must be a fact. for example, the earth is round. i dont have faith that the earth is round, i can google a picture of it. "Science doesn't ever declare fact, only theories and laws." So you admit you're a believer of those theories and laws. Sure you can see pictures of the earth being round, it's obvious. And further, when you see those pictures, you still believe that those picture show earth being round. It doesn't matter if you see a picture on google map or are an astronaut seeing the earth being round; you still decide that "Yes, I X, Y, Z believe the earth is round." You cannot escape that. Science has already disproven so much of the bible...somewhere in there there has to be a clause that says "i have faith in both science and God (subtext: except when the science contradicts God) Why are you assuming I'm speaking strictly of the bible? What do you know, about me? Very little. Not to mention science hasn't dis-proven shit; as you already stated, there are theories that are "believed by many". Science doesn't contradict my beliefs, neither God. I'm not concerned with Science disproving nor contradicting the God I believe in, therefore, you shouldn't use that as way to attempting to disprove anything. I accept and believe in science. Side: Yes
1
point
It doesn't matter if it's true or not, you believe that it's true, with the evidence at hand The fact that there is "evidence at hand" means that it isnt faith anymore you idiot "Science doesn't ever declare fact, only theories and laws." So you admit you're a believer of those theories and laws. Because of the evidence for them yes. Sure you can see pictures of the earth being round, it's obvious. And further, when you see those pictures, you still believe that those picture show earth being round. No fucking shit it shows the earth being round! That is clear to see! And the fact that its clearly round in the pictures is EVIDENCE. so it isnt FAITH. It doesn't matter if you see a picture on google map or are an astronaut seeing the earth being round; you still decide that "Yes, I X, Y, Z believe the earth is round." You cannot escape that. I accept that planet earth is round because the evidence put foward by the freaking picture is convincing enough to accept that. NOT because i want to BELIEVE that its round. Its IS fucking round no matter what. Why are you assuming I'm speaking strictly of the bible? What do you know, about me? Very little. Not to mention science hasn't dis-proven shit; as you already stated, there are theories that are "believed by many". Science doesn't contradict my beliefs, neither God. I'm not concerned with Science disproving nor contradicting the God I believe in, therefore, you shouldn't use that as way to attempting to disprove anything. Science has disproven almost all of genesis. And if you take away genesis you take away inherited sin and screw up the lineage of the characters and story of the rest of the bible so much that it isnt referenceable anymore. So youre left with a god that you constructed completely on your own which is absolutely pure faith with zero evidence and not even a holy book to fall back on.. Side: No
The fact that there is "evidence at hand" means that it isnt faith anymore you idiot Wow, another Nox wannabe asshole fucker. Calling people names for no good reason. Evidence doesn't mean that faith is obsolete at that point, it just further progresses your beliefs in the first place. Example, before people knew the earth was round, many people had faith that it was. Once they obtain the evidence they needed, they still believe the earth is round. The evidence of something doesn't make someone not believe in it anymore, it doesn't automatically change a persons mind. Because of the evidence for them yes. Wow contradictory much. In the previously (above) statement you called me an idiot because "it isn't faith anymore" yet when I asked "You admit you're a believer in theories and laws." You changed your mind "because of the evidence for them yes." No fucking shit it shows the earth being round! That is clear to see! And the fact that its clearly round in the pictures is EVIDENCE. so it isnt FAITH. You still believe the earth is round! You may say "I know the earth is round", sure, that's obvious. However, how to you know the earth is round? Because you you see and there is evidence. You still believe the earth is round, with evidence provided to you. Believe and know in these cases come hand in hand, do you not understand that? I accept that planet earth is round because the evidence put foward by the freaking picture is convincing enough to accept that. NOT because i want to BELIEVE that its round. Its IS fucking round no matter what. You don't have to "want to believe", you already believe the earth is round because you can see it, lol. Science has disproven almost all of genesis. And if you take away genesis you take away inherited sin and screw up the lineage of the characters and story of the rest of the bible so much that it isnt referenceable anymore. So youre left with a god that you constructed completely on your own which is absolutely pure faith with zero evidence and not even a holy book to fall back on.. Oh really? Give me evidence that science has dis proven genesis. Once again, who says that I believe in all of the bible? Where did I state that? What does that matter? You're banking everything off of the bible and how you "believe" Science has somehow discounted and dis proven genesis. Where is your evidence for that? You've got none there guy. Side: Yes
1
point
Wow, another Nox wannabe asshole fucker I call you an idiot and you call me an asshole fucker....and IMthe asshole fucker. Calling people names for no good reason You made a stupid argument so i called you stupid. my logic follows well in my opinion. stupid Evidence doesn't mean that faith is obsolete at that point, it just further progresses your beliefs in the first place. Yes it does....faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence/proof (merriam webster dictionary). Which means as soon as evidence comes into any scenario, faith is no longer the appropriate term to use. Example, before people knew the earth was round, many people had faith that it was. No actually they didnt, the world wide majority thought it was flat. Only a handfull of people on Earth did think that it was round and they were.....wait for it..... SCIENTISTS. At least primitive ones but they used the same method of reasoning. They didnt have faith it was round, they didnt just think "you know what? Dispite having no evidence for it i think that the earth is round". No! They were mathematicians and scientists and astronomers and they did experiments and calculations and even if they werent totally accurate they still looked at their results and said "you know what? this shit isnt consistent with a flat earth....it must be round" Ergo no longer faith. Once they obtain the evidence they needed, they still believe the earth is round. The evidence of something doesn't make someone not believe in it anymore, it doesn't automatically change a persons mind Good for them. Your point? Religion is entirely based off faith, EXCEPT after all these years theres still not a shred of evidence FOR it. So the faith is more and more absurd as more and more evidence piles up on the side of natural processes and the like. Wow contradictory much. In the previously (above) statement you called me an idiot because "it isn't faith anymore" yet when I asked "You admit you're a believer in theories and laws." You changed your mind "because of the evidence for them yes. WTF? That isnt a contradiction at all! You said that something was faith when there was evidence at hand. I corrected you saying that because the evidence factor comes in, it is no longer faith. Then you asked me if i accepted theories and laws of science and i said yes because there is evidence: ie-not out of faith. Show me exactly where the contradiction is because i cant find it. You still believe the earth is round! You may say "I know the earth is round", sure, that's obvious. However, how to you know the earth is round? Because you you see and there is evidence. You still believe the earth is round, with evidence provided to you. Believe and know in these cases come hand in hand, do you not understand that? Youre just flipping the word belief around as if it is synonymous only with "faith". Believe in science really isnt an appropriate term. I didnt correct you because i didnt think that it was that big a deal or that youd try to play word games with me. I dont "BELIEVE" faith wise that the earth is round. I ACCEPT, that the earth is round and in this case i actually KNOW for a fact that it is round. Belief isnt an appropriate word if youre going to equate it to faith. You don't have to "want to believe", you already believe the earth is round because you can see it, lol. Exactly. where the hell are your points even going? Oh really? Give me evidence that science has dis proven genesis The earth is approx- 4.5 billion years old, light cant come before the sun, dirt cannot form into a human being nor a rib into a human, two humans cant give birth to a sustainable population, humans evolved from a common ancestor and that ancestor before them so two homo sapien sapiens didnt come first, snakes dont talk, people never have nor ever will live for hundreds of years, the entire planet never flooded....ect ect ect. These things have been proven impossible by science. Therfore genesis is incorrect almost completely. Once again, who says that I believe in all of the bible? Where did I state that? What does that matter? You're banking everything off of the bible and how you "believe" Science has somehow discounted and dis proven genesis. Where is your evidence for that? You've got none there guy. You consider yourself a believer in god. More specifically, THE God of the christian religion whether it be straight from the bible or adapted differently. i know that much. however, the god that your own adapted version of god is based on is dependent on the bible. Take away the bible and your god stands alone, in your head, entirely, 100% made up by you. This is nothing short of an absolute wild faith based guess of the most extreme sort. Side: No
Dude you can take away the bible, the quran, any ancient "texts", of any civilization and people would still believe in a God(s). The texts and words are not the point of why people believe in any God(s). You're one of those people who think that God exists only in our heads and that any thing else after that is bullshit. Where your evidence for that? How do you know any God does not exist? Prove it to me. And don't give me that bullshit "You claimed it so you give evidence", we're all in the same boat. Just because you didn't claim there is a God, you claim there is not a God. So I will flip that same concept and say "You claimed there isn't a God, therefore prove it." You can't. There is more proof for God than against it. That's just the way it is and you don't have to "accept" or BELIEVE that, and I don't care what you believe in. It bothers me not. You think mankind from the beginning of our existence has been making up this grandioso claim, for nothing! You're not a realist, I am the realist; I see what's going on and why people believe and how they came about it. You are a pessimist, and for no good reason. Your grounds are weak and you've got nothing to hold onto, other than science, and you think everything else is ludicrous because there is no "empirical data"; because you cannot see a God with your physical eyes and senses. That's what you need and you know that's not possible right now. You already know you cannot have God come down from the sky and say "Hey AveSatanas, here I am dude. Look at me bro. Okay, sweet see ya later." I have a feeling that if a God did come down and show itself to you, you'd still be a fucking doubtful, spiteful, person towards religion and spirituality. What does that say about you? Side: Yes
1
point
Dude you can take away the bible, the quran, any ancient "texts", of any civilization and people would still believe in a God(s). Sure, but at least if theres a text there's SOMETHING (not that i think a text is evidence). If there isnt any great almighty source of knowledge then its obvious that the religion is made up.. Well, MORE obvious at least. You're one of those people who think that God exists only in our heads and that any thing else after that is bullshit. Where your evidence for that? The fact that a god has never been proven ever and that religion constantly adapts to a changing society dispite insisting that it has remained the same. And that a theistic argument has never defeated an atheistic one ever. How do you know any God does not exist? I dont know for sure. But i do hold the opinion that one probably doesnt exist. and thats a strong probably. Prove it to me If i was asserting i KNEW that no gods existed then i would have to. but im not asserting that. And don't give me that bullshit "You claimed it so you give evidence", we're all in the same boat. You mean the burden of proof? Thats a bitch aint it? I didnt make a positive claim so i dont have it. However, if YOU are gonna make the claim that god IS real, then you have that burden. There is more proof for God than against it. Such as...? That's just the way it is and you don't have to "accept" or BELIEVE that, and I don't care what you believe in. It bothers me not. That's NOT the way it is. sorry. and actually it does seem to be bothering you You think mankind from the beginning of our existence has been making up this grandioso claim, for nothing! No. not for nothing. To explain at the time what they could not. Neanderthals invented religion. They saw a tree change colors from summer to fall and they wondered how they hell it happened. They obviously didnt know how to test for chloroplasts or what have you, so they invented the magic cave bear who changes the colors of the trees. This same trend has gone on for the entire history of mankind. "I dunno, therfore God A or B or C or D or Gods EFGHI ext ext.." You're not a realist, I am the realist; I see what's going on and why people believe and how they came about it. You are a pessimist, and for no good reason. No youre not! Your claims and beliefs are contrary to all logic, common sense, and evidence for what is REAL. Your grounds are weak and you've got nothing to hold onto, other than science, and you think everything else is ludicrous because there is no "empirical data"; because you cannot see a God with your physical eyes and senses. Science and empirical data is actually one of the strongest "holds" there is. Thats the closest thing you can have to absolute facts. The hardest evidence. So im happy with science. What do you have? speculation? Suggestions? Guesses? thats it. That's what you need and you know that's not possible right now. You already know you cannot have God come down from the sky and say "Hey AveSatanas, here I am dude. Look at me bro. Okay, sweet see ya later." Why not? Thats what abraham got. and moses. and noah. (supposedly) so why not me? Why not ANYONE for that matter? The omnipotent, personal, God of christianity CANT do that? Then he also SHOULDNT punish people for not believing in him since he left TONS of gaps in the universe that is supposedly proof of him as it is. I have a feeling that if a God did come down and show itself to you, you'd still be a fucking doubtful, spiteful, person towards religion and spirituality. No actually that'd be perfect proof and id drop atheism and believe that very second. I follow the evidence to a conclusion. If i was given absolute proof of God i would be a believer. But there isnt. so im not. What does that say about you? Nothing. it only says what very foolish opinions you have of me. Dumbass Side: No
1
point
Did you watch the video? You have faith that the evidence and data is correct. No. The evidence's and data's legitimacy speaks for itself. For example, does gravity exist? Test: drop ball. I drop the ball and it falls. I dont have faith that the ball dropping was correct, its obviously correct. Even the people that perform the experiments have faith that what they observe is correct. No they dont! Faith is belief without evidence. When observing an experiment they have a reasonable hypothesis based of previously discovered evidence. They have a reason and evidence when assuming what an experiment should reveal. For example, last week i dropped a ball to demonstrate gravity. Today im going to drop a potato. Now i have good reason to assume that the potato will drop just like the ball. I dont have FAITH that the potato will drop, i have the evidence that the ball dropped which is a good basis to assume the potato will do the same. You're right though that they are not baseless claims in the face of evidence. Therfore not faith. im glad you agree Side: No
Ahh you don´t understand the word faith. Now I understand why I can't get through to you. complete trust or confidence in someone or something Please watch the video if you want to debate more. Its very interesting. Side: Yes
1
point
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Faith- a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs Science matches none of these. 1a- science doesnt have alleigence to anyone b-it doesnt make promises 2a-it has nothing to do with god/religion 2b- absolutely not. It is entirely based on empirical evidence and hard data. 3- again, not a religious affiliated thing. YOU dont understand the definition of the word faith. Your whole point youre trying to get at is that science/atheism has a faith factor to it just like religion so haha were both stupid. Nope. sorry. Faith in religious terms matches almost all of these definitions. Science matches none. And even if you wanted to wiggle in that: okay sometimes science trusts educated assumptions fine, but that definition of faith doesnt equal the religious definition. Sorry buddy Side: No
From the oxford dictionary: "1complete trust or confidence in someone or something:" This is what I meant. Such as a faith that when you drop a ball it will fall to the ground. Is having faith in what you have observed before is correct as well as what you have read in textbooks. Here's another video you'll refuse to watch. Dawkins talking about how he has faith in the scientific method. This is what I mean when I say faith in science: Darkins has Faith
Side: Yes
1
point
|
