|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Equating science with faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
tesla writes:
Tesla, here is the problem that the rest of us have with the way YOU personally confuse the words "faith" and "trust". Faith is: Action, based on belief, with no doubt to the outcome. Let me tell you a very short story. From when I was a toddler to about age 20, I was a devout christian fundamentalist. Then I became an atheist. Then recently I had a dream of Prometheus and have started to believe and worship the God Prometheus. The point is for the better part of my life I had always been taught by every, and I mean EVERYONE, from my parents to my pastors to everyone else that faith requires no evidence, proof, reason, logic, etc. That's what faith in god is suppose to be about. If you don't believe me, go talk to your local pastors. Go talk to catholic priests. Go talk to historians. Heck, just grab a person off the street and talk to him. It's pretty much unanimously agreed that faith is pretty much an unsupported belief. This is on contrast to trust, which is the belief based on experience. Walking across the room is trust, because we've never fallen right through the floor toward the Earth's core before. We walk across the room because there is no apparent danger from falling into the core. We type on the keyboard because it's always worked before. Occasionally, some keys go bad and we have to replace the keyboard. That's called trust because all of it worked before. Sure, you must have walked across the room or typing your keyboard the first time at some point. But think about it. You were scared shitless as a toddler to attempt to walk for the first time. Someone at some point had to show you how to use a keyboard. It's all trust. By equating faith in god and trust in the keyboard, you are undermining the whole of religion. Again, if you don't believe me, just start talking to random people. It pretty much is unanimously agreed that belief in god requires no evidence, otherwise religion as a whole is in big trouble. Seriously, tesla, I know people from time to time have weird ideas, but you seem to have the oddest ideas of them all lately. Again, if you don't believe me, just ask our resident preachers like ICANT and Buzsaw. I'm betting you 10 bucks that they will agree with me on this one in regard to faith in god and trust in the physical world. Thou shalt accept Prometheus as thy savior for HE is the true light of Humanity and the World.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ICANT, I think I have an idea of where you want to go with this. But step back for a moment and look at tesla's proposition. He is equating the faith in god to the belief that the keyboard will work the next time you try to type on it. Tell us right now. Are you in agreement with tesla or are you just keeping quiet about it? If you're keeping quiet about it, this proves that creationists/christians generally don't police themselves at all even if really weird ideas are proposed, as I have been trying to point out for a while now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
tesla writes:
You can try by starting to not copy iano's style of writing. Basically, what you look like right now is you bought a bag of fortune cookies, opened them up randomly, and wrote out to us what you read on the notes inside the fortune cookies. Someone here coined the term "fortune cookie language", and I agree with him. With this, how can i hope to make any sense to any of you? It really does help to try to talk in a linear manner rather. You can think in cryptic terms all you want, but communication relies on linear speech.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hey Beretta, good to see you again. I'd like to see your input in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
antiLIE writes:
And physicists tend to refer to the hydrogen fusion that goes on in the sun "hydrogen burning". Your argument is the same as arguing that since physicists use the term "hydrogen burning" to describe what goes on in the sun, they must really mean the sun is burning chemically. 2. Macroevolution / Microevolution is what Biology college textbooks call it.. I am just repeating what is taught. You really should stop arguing semantics and really try to understand the concepts in biological science. Being able to nitpick people's words doesn't impress anyone. We are all telling you right now. Yes, scientists tend to use the word "macroevolution" in text books simply because it is easier to convey the idea across to students much the same way that physicists tend to use "hydrogen burning" to convey the idea of fusion across to students. "Macroevolution" is nothing more than a description of lots and lots of evolutionary steps. Let me know when you're ready to stop arguing semantics and start getting down to the real business. By the way, there is a reason why I brought up "hydrogen burning". Your messiah Kent Hovind was one of those that didn't know that the term was meant by physicists to describe hydrogen fusion. Arguing semantics doesn't impress anyone. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
antiLIE writes:
Good, then you can start by telling your fellow christians to stop lying all the time. Hint: look at the Rover trial fiasco. anti-LIE means I am against LIES. In other words, I am for the never ending quest for truth. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
LIAR writes:
For the last time, the reason it is a strawman whenever you guys use it is because you're using it to mean something completely different than what science text books use it for. Okay, now you said "macroevolution, not a term that scientists tend to use." ... Indeed it is. I do not like this term, I just use it because Biology books call it that. This is NOT a straw man by any means. When science text books use the term, they are using it to refer to many many many tiny little changes in a population over a very long time added together. When you guys use the word, you want to give the impression that "macroevolution" means a dolphin morphs into a shark or a croc morphs into a crocoduck and into a duck. That's why it's a strawman everytime you guys use the term. In fact, just the other day I talked to someone just like you. He insisted that the theory of evolution stated that some time in the past a crocodile decided to morph into a duck and that's why evolution is silly. When I confronted him on it, he pointed out that science text books use the word "macroevolution" all the time. Isn't there a commandment that says thou shalt not lie or else thy god shalt pwnz thee? Stop purposely misusing the word. It's annoying as hell. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
And thus you just demonstrated my point exactly. You know what science text books meant when they use the word "macroevolution". And yet you continue to use the word to imply a croc morphing into a duck. This is using a strawman because you know damn well that the general public have absolutely no clue what "macroevolution" really means and so everytime you people use the word they will automatically assume we're talking about a croc morphing into a duck or a dog morphing into a snake. Even if you don't say outright what the lie is, this is bearing false witness because you're using advantage of people's ignorance.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
antiLIE writes:
They didn't use the word "appearance" to mean feathers started popping up in a population. This is like trying to portray the theory of walking as saying I could take a step forward and I've gone from New York to Austin, Texas. That's what you're doing. You're trying to discredit a theory by using a strawman and language ambiguity. The word "appearance" in there doesn't mean feathers started popping up on an individual in a generation. How is this not crock to duck ideology? You are playing that semantic game again. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Tesla, do you practice writing in fortune cookie language? Take a look at the following statement.
tesla writes:
This is the kind of statement you'd find in a fortune cookie. On the outside it sounds like something a wise Chinese Master would say, but on the inside it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. if a seed has no faith in its ability to grow, it would not grow. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024