- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
lol. I'm afraid no there isn't
(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2) : complete trust
So yeah there a difference.
Character assassination is an argument is never a good sign that you are a good faith actor in those discussion. None of you posts so far have address the topic at hand, you are going on irrelevant tangents.
We are only going to sit here all day because you do not possess the necessary presence of mind to concede when you are wrong
I'll admit I'm wrong when you make a good argument.
You are misrepresenting science as an infallible, magical solution to everything,
No I didn't, don't twist my words. I TRUST in science because it has proven time and time again to being a reliable methods for understanding the world.
Ignoring when somebody else uses practical examples to disprove something you have written is the precise opposite of scientific reasoning.
You haven't proven anything. The core of your augment is that science relies of faith the same way religious do. There's nothing more to your argument than fallacious reasoning and getting defensive.
No, the problem we are having is that you are wrong and don't seem to realise despite my having explained why.
You haven't made a convincing argument and avoiding the discussion. Faith has many definitions my entire argument is based on ONE of those definitions.
Theoretical physics relies on no practical models*
Theoretical physics doesn't form models based on experimentation (they are pure mathematical models); However, to confirm such models experimentation a required part of the process.
Since you evidently have no interest in acknowledging when your argument is wrong, I'd like to end the conversation here on the grounds that it is pointless. A debate requires both parties to accept responsibility for the validity (or non-validity) of their own arguments. Hence, this is not a debate. This is you abusing language to try to save face.
I'm sorry you feel that way but you haven't made a convincing argument.
Ahahahaha! So observations are made without observing? Shut up or I'll put you on ignore.
Yes indirect observation like the entire field of quantum mechanics. When particle accelerators collide particles, a lot of those particles exists for nano seconds at a time. The statistical models they use work backwards to rebuild the particle that decayed, and that's how they know those particles exist.
You can put me on ignore all you want, I'm not harassing you, I haven't insulted you. It just show that you are having a hard time holding you own and resorting to pettiness.
You have no evidence of that,
You are shifting the burden of proof. If you make the claim you are responsible for providing evidence. If I make the claim that I caught a fairy in my back yard. You then say: "fairies don't exists". Then I respond: "You have no evidence of that". You see how ridiculous that is since I'm the only one that can provide verifiable evidence. Same applies with claims of the afterlife. A simple question that you can ask is: "Where is the afterlife located?", and see that the arguments made don't rely on verifiable evidence.
which makes it even more stupid when you pretend to understand what science is.
That's not a good argument. You have to be more throughout than that and explain what I don't understand about science, and how to relates to my main points.
But that requires faith though because you need to have the faith based belief that reality won't magically flip on its head with the passage of time.
Like I told Burrito, you guys are not understanding the argument. There's a distinction between faith as in TRUST and faith as a CLAIM TO KNOWLEDGE. That's the difference between "I have faith in the engineers that this bridge won't fall" vs "I believe through faith that god exists". My argument is about CLAIMS TO KNOWLEDGE (ones that deny the use of evidence).
You used the word "distracted" wrong.
On no! I made a typo, I guess my argument is invalid.
"its" is a possessive, "it's" is a contraction of "it is": Its not like you can use empirical evidence
Improper comma: possibly be true, for using
We can sit all day here correcting each other's grammar or you can actually focus on the what is being said.
Throwing insults is like yelling. It feels like winning but it's really not. Give me something substantial to argue about, if not, don't waste my time. There's plenty of other troll bait on this site.
It's a stone cold fact that science relies on faith in certain assumptions about reality.
I think the problem we are having here is about definition. If you are using faith as in TRUST, than yeah I agree with you; However, I've been using the word faith as a claim to knowledge (Knowing without evidence, without verification).
Ever hear about theoretical physics?
Theoretical physics is at the edge of human understanding. These models are absolutely testable (they are simply not created by experimentation) which is why we hold Albert Theory of Relativity in such high regard for making the prediction that gravity bends light. A concept that made no sense in Newtonian physics.
Most things we need to know about the universe are not testable and observable, such as how it began, how long it will last, and what will happen at the end.
Observations are made indirectly like the Cosmic Microwave Background as evidence of the Big Bang. There are things we don't know YET, but models are created all the time and become more accurate at making predictions. Science might have multiple current scenarios on how the universe will end, but as it gathers more evidence those models are discarded one by one.
There are absolutely experiments testing those things, just look at particle accelerators. They try to simulate the energy levels of the the Big Bang and gather data.
If science predicts things then obviously that is an expression of faith, since nobody can see the future.
Again, if we are talking about trust, absolutely. Scientific models make extremely accurate predictions, if they didn't, they wouldn't be useful.
No they don't. I mean, they do, but it is preposterous to suggest we know enough about the nature of reality to ascertain those probabilities with any degree of accuracy
I didn't say they were attainable values only that they exist.
If you travelled back 200 years people would laugh in your face if you even told then about racial integration, let alone the duality of light, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle or the fact that time moves at different rates dependent upon where you are stood on the Earth. In 200 years from now, people will look back at our era with the same curious amusement.
We've made social and scientific progress as a species, we understand the world better now.
She is right that faith is required in science just as it is in religion.
No, I strongly disagree. No faith is required to hold a belief based on science. Science creates models based of what is testable and observable. Those models need to make useful predictions. If they fail at making those predictions, they are distracted and replaced. That how science knows where the stars will me in a million years, where hurricanes will hit in the future, how long a pandemic will last. Faith on the other hand is a conclusion supported by no evidence, resilient to contradictory evidence and criticism.
no piece (or amount) of evidence is ever statistically foolproof.
Yes, however... beliefs have a statically value of how attuned they are to reality. I believe that determining which of those beliefs are the most true is vitally important.
The construction of what constitutes evidence and the preference for evidentiary reasoning are both taken on faith just as much as any theistic construct.
Faith is the claim that you believe something despite not knowing if it's true or false. Evidence is a process in which assertions are verified. They are not equal as you claim. Believing that airplanes fly do to mechanical forces acting on the plane, is not equivalent to believing airplanes fly because fairies are carrying it. One is based on the rigor of the scientific process, the other on fantasy.
how do you know that evidence exists?
Evidence is something you present. It exists an abstract of reason that can be used to prove or disprove claims. Asking how I know evidence exists is basically asking: "what evidence do I have that evidence exists?".
how do you know evidenced beliefs are preferable?
Because beliefs based on evidence are falsifiable while those based on faith are not. There's isn't any amount of contradictory evidence that changes the mind of the faithful.
Because reason and logic can't prove themselves
Reason and logic are abstracts of what constitutes proper argument. The same way you know that you shouldn't take down a load-baring wall in a house. Logic dictates the most reasonable conclusion you can make based on a premise. You are basically asking: "can you prove 1 + 1 = 2", and the answer is yes.
Your beliefs and way of existing are not obviously better just because they're evidenced (that begs the question).
No, begging the question would mean my argument is recursive, it's not; however, you are drawing several false equivalences. If I told you I have a purple dragon in my garage. Would you just accept that, or would you demand evidence?
Secularists also organize and push political policies that affect everyone
Not even close... The religious make up 80% of the US, the non-religious only make up 15% of that. Trying to organize secularist, atheist and agnostics is like trying to herd cats.
Secularists also want their belief system to be the only belief system in government (what are you yourself advocating for if not the removal of theistic belief systems from government?)
Secularism means that NO religion dominates government and policy. It says nothing about the removal of belief systems Stalin-style.
Secularists also use their beliefs to deny the rights of others and attack them
What rights are people being denied do to secularists? Secularists don't control any one political party in the US. Which is not of the religious which control most of the government.
(you think it'd be ideal for theists to hide their beliefs, which is basically the same as anti-gay theists asking gays to hide their sexuality). The practices you describe aren't limited to theists - they're human attributes.
First, being Christian is a choice, being gay is not. My issue is not so much that you want to flaunt your faith, but the vitriol the religious throw feeling justified in their faith. As a gay person I cannot tell you how many times I've been told: "Your lifestyle is going to send you to hell" and "You are possessed by a demon". I'm not going to argue that anyone can be a "bad" person. What I will argue is that the morality that Christianity, Jewish, and Muslim faiths are all antiquated and make no sense in today's world..
Not all beliefs are created equal. One of my main points is that religious beliefs uphold the denial of evidence so a belief can be held. Secular beliefs, as you call them, uphold evidence as the core of those beliefs. When I ask of the religious: "How do you know you are not wrong about your belief?". They usually reply with: "God is perfect and I know he exists". I then ask: "How do you know He exists?". The response ends up being: "I believe through faith." So let me ask you this: "Is believing through faith (believing without knowing) the same as believing through evidence?"
It would be be ideal if the religious kept their beliefs as a hidden personal trinket. They don't, however. The religious organize and push political policies that affect everyone. Some want their religion to be the only religion in government. They use their beliefs to deny the rights of others and attack them. That's why it matter if their beliefs are deluded.