Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-21-2015, 12:25 AM
 
12,595 posts, read 6,611,108 times
Reputation: 1350

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
So did Jesus walk on water or not? Are there Angels? The Devil? Is God watching us all, every minute? Does he hear us even when we think? Can God see us nakey? These are the important questions I want answered.....lol
PoppySead!! One of my very favorites!
Are you sure you are ready to wade back into these murky waters?

It only looked like Jesus walked on the water...he knew where the rocks just under the surface were.

There are Angels. My Mom was one...and I miss her so bad I can hardly stand it.

Okay, I'll admit it...I'm the Devil.

I don't think there are any Deity type Gods. But if there was/is...what good would it do to be a God if you couldn't watch everyone, read their minds, or check out the hottie chicks like you while neekid? That God thing sounds like a tough contract...there has to be some perks!

This made my day!

 
Old 10-21-2015, 12:41 AM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,943 posts, read 6,032,436 times
Reputation: 1359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Of course it's "faith based" Nozz. EVERYTHING is...and "science" is no exception.
I still have hope...your "Faithophobia" is in a flare-up, that's all. Love ya, man!
Getting smacked in the face by truth isn't faith-based. Ask anyone. Test it.
 
Old 10-21-2015, 12:42 AM
 
7,801 posts, read 6,343,605 times
Reputation: 2988
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Conflating the morality of the intentions of bakers assembling the ingredients to bake cakes...to those of scientists inventing and designing nuclear bombs!!
Nope, not what I am doing at all. Quite the opposite in fact which you would notice if your campaign of misrepresentation and dishonesty was not blinding you. I am showing that the intentions of both are irrelevant to how other people use the product. The fact is that science is morally neutral. It just finds out what things are, how things work. The morality of how to use that knowledge lies elsewhere, and we all bear the burden of that morality. You can not scape goat the methodology of science for that.

But still your irrelevancy of tangents (nice collective noun there) is still transparently only for one purpose, to deflect and derail from my point which you can not rebut. Which is that there is no faith in science or requirement for it. The opposite is in fact true which I have shown using reference to the method of science, quotes from actual science, working examples and more. You, in response, have just flapped around a need not to concede when you are entirely wrong, by deflection, dodge, dismissal, and repetition of unsubstantiated assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy View Post
Didn't we establish that there is no faith involved in science at the very beginning of this thread? It's not hard to grasp really, science isn't a religion and doesn't run on faith. It's not a belief system. Does anyone have any proof to the contrary?
No they have nothing except assertion, and repetition of assertion, to offer here. But some people are so steeped in theistic narrative that they can not parse the world views of others in any other way. So they are forced by their own limitations to parse atheism and science as religions because it is the only glasses they own by which to do so.

They are not alone in this. Take the Law for example. There have been several cases, cases which GldnRule in the past has misconstrued as being the definition of atheism as a religion, where judges have had to treat Atheism as a religion in order to correctly interpret or execute the law. Of course most people, the likes of GldnRule excluded, can tell the difference between "Treat X as Y for some purpose" and "Define X to be Y", but you will find the likes of such people gleefully clinging spittle mouthed onto such rulings as evidence that Atheism is a religion.
 
Old 10-21-2015, 01:10 AM
 
12,595 posts, read 6,611,108 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
Getting smacked in the face by truth isn't faith-based. Ask anyone. Test it.
You only have faith that anything you know is "truth"...it might not be...and you can never be sure.
So...all "knowledge" is based on faith...faith that the info and data you believe supports it is accurate. Nothing is infallible.
Without infallible evidence...one is left relying on faith. Since there is no such thing as absolutely infallible evidence...ya gotta have FAITH.
THAT is the truth smacking anyone that thinks they actually "know" something in the face.
 
Old 10-21-2015, 01:33 AM
 
12,595 posts, read 6,611,108 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy View Post
Didn't we establish that there is no faith involved in science at the very beginning of this thread? It's not hard to grasp really, science isn't a religion and doesn't run on faith. It's not a belief system. Does anyone have any proof to the contrary? (Beliefs don't count - I don't believe in the beliefs of others and don't consider beliefs to facts).

So did Jesus walk on water?
Science and the Scientific Method are necessarily faith-based...EVERYTHING is faith-based.
Unless one can objectively claim their evidence is infallible (and, of course, that is not possible), then they can't actually claim to "know" based upon evidence. Thus...faith is all you've REALLY got.
Science and the scientific method is really nothing but enhanced belief...based upon faith the research, testing, and experimentation has produced accurate results. You can NEVER be sure. You can't even be sure that what we behold as this universe even actually exists in reality. You can only have FAITH it is.
 
Old 10-21-2015, 01:54 AM
 
7,801 posts, read 6,343,605 times
Reputation: 2988
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
You only have faith that anything you know is "truth"...it might not be...and you can never be sure.
But not, as I keep schooling you, in science. In science we do not consider anything truth or presume we know what is true. Rather what we do is we evaluate the probability of anything being true, based on an ever changing data set, and place it on a probability continuum based on that evaluation. We do not "know" or have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow, but based on the data set available at this very moment, the idea it will rise tomorrow is very far along the probability continuum.

And that is how science works, which is the exact opposite of the uninformed and weak lay man interpretation you cling to with little more than feux jive language to support it. There is no faith required or involved, it is merely deductive reasoning based on the data set. The Data Set might be wrong, hell it might not even exist as you flappingly tried to suggest, but the deductive reasoning applied to it is no less valid all the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Science and the Scientific Method are necessarily faith-based...EVERYTHING is faith-based.
You are still wrong, and you still have not supported this assertion with anything but mere repetition of it. You appear to believe that merely saying it often enough will magically make it true. Yet I have shown you with reference to the scientific method, quotations from actual scientists, working examples from reality, and more, how wrong you are. But the fundie shield rarely stops to notice counter argument and evidence when merely "la la la I cant hear you" works fine for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Unless one can objectively claim their evidence is infallible (and, of course, that is not possible)
It is not possible, but neither is it required. Which is the key point you merely ignore in favor of clinging to your decimated narrative. The scientific method is merely a deductive methodology of reasoning based on the data set one is offered. The data set may be wrong, and we constantly test for this, or as you tried to point out with your layman armchair navel gazing "philosophy", it might not even exist in reality. But that does not change the deductive methods applied to it.

But we do not stop there. We make predictions and we obtain results. And both of those things lend heavy credence to the conclusions we reach by the scientific method. Contrast this to religion where people simply make things up, have no way to falsify it and would not even attempt it even if they had, make no actual predictions that are born out in reality, and display pretty much zero results or even negative results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
You can NEVER be sure.
And since, as I have pointed out multiple times with the result you merely bury your head further in the sand, we neither claim to be sure in science, nor are we required to. So what you are doing is NOT showing science is faith based, but erecting a straw man version of science that bears little resemblance to actual reality and attempting to show that that straw man version of it is faith based.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
You can't even be sure that what we behold as this universe even actually exists in reality.
Nor, as I have pointed out twice in this post alone, are we required to. The same deductive reasoning can be applied equally validly to a real data set as to a pseudo one. If all that data set is actually some "The Matrix" style non-reality and does not actually exist, that does not impact the validity of the scientific method applied to that data set one iota.

And as I said earlier this is a key, core, simple little point that entirely decimates everything you have flapped around saying on this thread so far, and you simply can not handle it. Instead it is head in the sand.... ignore all rebuttals.... dismiss the lot.... make a few personal comments.... throw out a few derailing tangential nonsense you hope to bait a response out of people with.... then simply repeat your errors all over again with fundie shield entirely intact.

When it comes to the scientific methods, what it is, how it works, what it is based on and how it is applied, you have done little more on this thread than display repeatedly that you simply have no idea what you are talking about on any level of it.
 
Old 10-21-2015, 02:56 AM
 
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
10,904 posts, read 5,877,981 times
Reputation: 5628
GldnRule, you speak with knowledge and conviction - are you a scientist?
 
Old 10-21-2015, 05:47 AM
 
2,826 posts, read 2,355,233 times
Reputation: 1011
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Science and the Scientific Method are necessarily faith-based...EVERYTHING is faith-based.
Unless one can objectively claim their evidence is infallible (and, of course, that is not possible), then they can't actually claim to "know" based upon evidence. Thus...faith is all you've REALLY got.
Science and the scientific method is really nothing but enhanced belief...based upon faith the research, testing, and experimentation has produced accurate results. You can NEVER be sure. You can't even be sure that what we behold as this universe even actually exists in reality. You can only have FAITH it is.
As much as I hate to agree with this sentiment, it's dead on. In fact, the "repeated experiments" is precisely the same as a ritual. We call this belief reinforcement.

It isn't that we are proving something true by repeated experiments, we are convincing ourselves it is. If I convinced myself that gravity always works, could I then build an anti-grav device? No.

In answer to the are you a scientist question, it's a stupid one. As if scientists are the only ones that can know about science or have sense.
 
Old 10-21-2015, 06:45 AM
 
5,458 posts, read 6,696,271 times
Reputation: 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
You only have faith that anything you know is "truth"...it might not be...and you can never be sure.
Faith isn't defined as "anything we don't have 100% absolute airtight certainty in". This is the same kind of argument creationists use - "you weren't there to see the first bird being born so you can't be certain it happened, therefore my religious beliefs are just as reasonable as your evidence-based ones." Nope, even without 100% certainty we still have lots of evidence for some things and none for others. Believing in the latter - that is, believing despite the evidence - is faith.
 
Old 10-21-2015, 07:17 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,759 posts, read 13,292,997 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
You only have faith that anything you know is "truth"...it might not be...and you can never be sure.
It might not be 100% certain that your car will not catch fire and explode when you start it, but you can rationally presume that it won't. That isn't faith, it is confidence in established probabilities and one's own experience. You are deliberately (because you are not stupid) conflating faith in the sense of "belief without basis in evidence" and the sense of "confidence based on evidence and experience" in order to make some sort of strained point. "Faith" that internal combustion engines are safe is a completely different sense of the word than, e.g., faith that god exists. To the point where an honest actor in a conversation like this would avoid using it in favor of terms such as expectation, confidence, or certainty. It is no "leap of faith" to not fear fiery explosions when on starts one's car. And it is no reasonable expectation of founded certainty to believe that gods exist.

All knowledge claims must defer to the fact that the beings making the claims are fallible, have imperfect senses and intellectual equipment, don't know what they don't know, and are subject to confirmation bias. The question is, whether you acknowledge epistemological uncertainty by controlling for it with proven methods (e.g., the scientific method) that lead towards more knowledge and greater certainty, or by exploiting those uncertainties with the failed epistemology of faith (belief without a requirement of substantiating evidence).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top