Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Palum_sl said:

What you are doing is confusing taking something on faith for abandoning reason and rational thought when instead it only applies to the acquisition of specific knowledge.

Click to expand...

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_sl said:

Not only do you just start rewriting definitions (SJW)

Click to expand...

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_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Meanwhile you're still wrong about Dr. Boghossian.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

You're the Kentucky Reverend.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Pretty sure you mean the atheism vs theism thread and I already pointed that out two days ago.

The Ancient_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

Genetic fallacy, dysphemism, and just plain fucking stupid butthurt from a shitty human being.

Congrats on that, faggot.

The Ancient_sl said:

You keep making it so personal. You are so angry all the time now about getting demodded it's ridiculous.

Click to expand...

You're a shitty troll and should try harder.

Palum_sl said:

blah blah blah

Click to expand...

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_sl said:

You can't read. Take a break, come back with your glasses later.

Click to expand...

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.

Uh huh.

Let us know when you have anything of substance to contribute to, well, anything at all. Because you have failed to do so in any recent thread that you've taken part in that I'm aware of.