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.
I am perfectly clear on what you are saying thanks, I have heard it all before from other lay men to science, which is why I was able to so robustly rebut it with no response from you other than dismissal (calling it irrelevant and squat) and repetition of your errors as if repetition was argument. As I said, and supported with quotes, arguments, reference to the scientific method and examples, there is no faith required in science. Merely an observation of what the data set appears to be, and deductive reasoning to see where it leads. And where it leads we test with prediction and practice, and constantly attempt to falsify.
I will not let you dash my hope for you Nozz.
AS IF taking some more college courses to add enough credits to get another sheepskin that designates me a "scientist" makes me understand any better that any data or info I get as a result of any research, studies, or experiments is STILL faith based so-called "knowledge".
I probably wouldn't fit in anyway...I'm too honest and forthright a guy...and "science" is known to be a field of endeavor that is rife with scammers. One simply has to do a search for "Prevalence of the scientific community to put out intentionally skewed data known to be wrong"...to know what they are dealing with.
Porn workers are much more forthright. You typically get exactly what you pay them for 99.9% of the time...unlike "Scientists", that are epic in their propensity to scam and flimflam.
Since I am the one right, and have robustly rebutted your error, your hope is misplaced. Save it for yourself. The simple fact is that the description you have offered of science as being faith based is wrong. I have explained how it is wrong, I have given references to other scientists explaining how it is wrong, I have explained the workings of the scientific method which shows how it is wrong and I have given working examples of how it is wrong.
In response you have nothing to offer but dismissal, and repetition of the error, without rebutting a single counter point of mine, or offering any evidence or basis for yours. Game over, you lose.
Since I am the one right, and have robustly rebutted your error, your hope is misplaced. Save it for yourself. The simple fact is that the description you have offered of science as being faith based is wrong. I have explained how it is wrong, I have given references to other scientists explaining how it is wrong, and I have given working examples of how it is wrong.
In response you have nothing to offer but dismissal, and repetition of the error.
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!
Except it is an exception for the reasons I have given which you have not rebutted with anything but, and here you do it once again, merely repeating your error as if repeating it often enough makes it true.
The simple fact is that everything I have written about the scientific method, every quote I have offered from actual scientists, every working example I have given, explains how you are wrong. Yet the fundie shield of "ignore and repeat" remains unmoved on your side and you appear happy to remain wrong.
Except it is an exception for the reasons I have given which you have not rebutted with anything but, and here you do it once again, merely repeating your error as if repeating it often enough makes it true.
The simple fact is that everything I have written about the scientific method, every quote I have offered from actual scientists, every working example I have given, explains how you are wrong. Yet the fundie shield of "ignore and repeat" remains unmoved on your side and you appear happy to remain wrong.
YOU are the Fundie Nozz...few, if any, on this board (except you) have taken the time and effort to form a national, grass-roots organization to promote some religious (yes, Atheism IS a religion...even officially designated) view.
And as far as Religion VS Science...I see it from one main comparision. Religion NEVER has dedicated the efforts of its top people to figure out how to lay waste to an entire city and 20 + million people in 5 seconds like the scientific community has. Thanx for those nuclear munitions...great contribution to the ultimate evil in this world. I'm sure the scientists worked as hard on that as anything, ever...and still are.
It just proves that if you pay some scientists they will do A-NY-THING no matter how horrible or evil it is. But many of you rally to criticize some religious person for disagreeing with, and refusing to legally license, same sex marriage as if they are World Enemy #1. No greater hypocrites have ever been known of!!
So you are deflecting by simply making it personal now, and hitting reply to my post without actually replying to anything in it.
No atheism is not a religion and has not been thus designated ever. Is anything you say ever true? Further establishing an organisation does not make one a fundie. Being a fundie makes one a fundie, and thats you here. Dismissing counter arguments and ignoring them, repeating your arguments even though they are rebutted, head in the sand singing "la la la la" to ignore every rebuttal you can not cope with or counter-rebut.
The simple fact remains there is no faith required or relevant in science. The opposite is true. And I have shown this by reference to the scientific methods, working examples, and with quotations from actual scientists. In reply you have offered nothing but dismissal and repetition of your fail.
As for your even further fail of indicting science with the evils done with its products, that is merely a nonsense. If I beat you to death with a cake, would that be the fault of the art of baking? Clearly not. Similarly the products of science are merely just that. Products. What we DO with those products has nothing to do with science, that is all us, and we have to hold ourselves responsible for those failings, not science.
So the falsehoods are yours and yours alone. The failed arguments too. The hypocrisy also. You are on a roll, and the only thing even remotely impressive is how many deflection tangents not relevant to anything I have said you are willing to throw out (atheism a religion, me a fundie, science to blame for our use of bombs, homosexual marriage and more) in a desperate attempt to derail me from my main point, a main point that dessimated yours and you are unable to actually rebut or reply to. These shot gun tactics of peppering the discussing with random tangents in the hope I will bite one and follow it away from the point of your failure is a transparent as it is fetid and desperate.
The simple fact remains there is no faith required or relevant in science. The opposite is true. And I have shown this by reference to the scientific methods, working examples, and with quotations from actual scientists. In reply you have offered nothing but dismissal and repetition of your fail. And your shot gun tactics of tangential irrelevancies is not going to derail me from pointing that out.
So you are deflecting by simply making it personal now, and hitting reply to my post without actually replying to anything in it.
No atheism is not a religion and has not been thus designated ever. Is anything you say ever true? Further establishing an organisation does not make one a fundie. Being a fundie makes one a fundie, and thats you here. Dismissing counter arguments and ignoring them, repeating your arguments even though they are rebutted, head in the sand singing "la la la la" to ignore every rebuttal you can not cope with or counter-rebut.
The simple fact remains there is no faith required or relevant in science. The opposite is true. And I have shown this by reference to the scientific methods, working examples, and with quotations from actual scientists. In reply you have offered nothing but dismissal and repetition of your fail.
As for your even further fail of indicting science with the evils done with its products, that is merely a nonsense. If I beat you to death with a cake, would that be the fault of the art of baking? Clearly not. Similarly the products of science are merely just that. Products. What we DO with those products has nothing to do with science, that is all us, and we have to hold ourselves responsible for those failings, not science.
So the falsehoods are yours and yours alone. The failed arguments too. The hypocrisy also. You are on a roll, and the only thing even remotely impressive is how many deflection tangents not relevant to anything I have said you are willing to throw out (atheism a religion, me a fundie, science to blame for our use of bombs, homosexual marriage and more) in a desperate attempt to derail me from my main point, a main point that dessimated yours and you are unable to actually rebut or reply to. These shot gun tactics of peppering the discussing with random tangents in the hope I will bite one and follow it away from the point of your failure is a transparent as it is fetid and desperate.
The simple fact remains there is no faith required or relevant in science. The opposite is true. And I have shown this by reference to the scientific methods, working examples, and with quotations from actual scientists. In reply you have offered nothing but dismissal and repetition of your fail. And your shot gun tactics of tangential irrelevancies is not going to derail me from pointing that out.
Conflating the morality of the intentions of bakers assembling the ingredients to bake cakes...to those of scientists inventing and designing nuclear bombs!!
And what would the bakers figure to be the primary use and purpose of the cake recipie they were working to invent...compared to what the scientists would figure to be the primary (and exclusive) use and purpose of the nuclear bomb they were working to invent?
What else can ya do with a nuclear bomb except blow up a ultra amount of things and people in one pop? Like those scientists didn't know that!!
That I instigated THAT as your rebuttal:
♧♧♧♧
☆☆☆☆
♤♤♤♤
JACKPOT!
I'm good for the night Nozz...Thanx so much.
Tomorrow I'll post links to the official designation of Atheism as a religion. It will give you time to pick up a couple crows.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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).