How is one orgins story considered better than another

[robvalue]

Yeah, turn science class into a history of religious mythology class. And teach computer skills in swimming class.

[Mister Agenda]

False equivalence: The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal. d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.
Eg:
"Marijuana and alcohol are both drugs. An ounce is about the same as three bottles. If you think one should be (il)legal, you should think the same of the other."

Eg:
'Science and religion are both faith-based. A scientific conclusion is about the same as believing what your favorite scriptures say. If you think one is unreasonable, you should think the same of the other'.

So, no. this is not an example of false equivalence.

Except that yes, it is. It even follows the form of the fallacy you illustrated.

This is an example of one identifying faith in a system of thought that abhores faith, but refuses to look at it's own heavy dependance on faith in that very system.

To say that, you had to equivocate 'faith' to mean the same thing in 'faith enough to believe the moon landings weren't faked' with 'faith enough to believe the Hindu god Ganesh will remove obstacles from your path'. They aren't the same kind of faith, Drich.

Faith in facts is still faith. Why?

Because you're using 'faith' as a synonym for justified belief when you're talking about facts, but using it as 'spiritual apprehension' for talking about religion. If I wanted to make Christians look intellectually dishonest, I'd steal from you.

Because the facts that support your 'theory' are ever changing.

They certainly do tend to keep piling up in support of the theory, which in no way can honestly be put in scare quotes. It really is a theory, Einstein.

It takes a large measure of faith to believe with out doubt that the current version of 'facts' repersent the truth. especially when every few years all of the critical points and dates are changed when ever someone smarter comes along and thinks of something new to add or if something is found in the dirt that cant be explained by the current model.

True, our picture of evolution becomes ever more accurate as we do more research and make more discoveries. That's what happens when science is working correctly. The resolution of the picture never stops improving until there's nothing more to know.

Open your eyes and mind FF to the truth of the matter, that no matter what you believe you are still using faith to believe it.

I would like to present Drich's position as an example of a new argument from inference to assess the probability that someone is wrong: If this is the kind of pretzel a person has to bend their reasoning into in order to justify their position, they're probably wrong.

We could call it 'argument from you just tied your brain in a knot''. I found it pretty persuasive. Watching my religion professor try to justify his faith in similar fashion was one of the things that tipped me over to atheism. I remember thinking, 'If you have to try that hard to believe something, maybe you should start thinking you could be wrong'.

---

No what i have said a 1/2 dozen times now is that the 'science' behind the things you mentioned (practical/observiable Science) is not the same branch of science that is only theory based. Unless one can demonstrate every aspect of theory based science then he relies on a given theory to be true when speaking of it. This trust in the unknown is faith, no matter how you dress it up.

I'm sure you've had what a scientific theory is explained to you more than half a dozen times by now, so this 'only theory based' shit makes you either too stupid to learn or dishonest. Take your pick.

[robvalue]

Haha nice work my friend.

It's a sorry sight seeing them squirm, one part of their brain fighting the other, trying to silence their conscience and their logic and just say anything to not have to consider that they may be wrong.

I don't know how they keep it up. It would erode my brain.

I mean FFS you think God is obviously real but none of us have noticed? You think we're that stupid? God is fucking good at hide and seek, I'll give him that.

[Mister Agenda]

Yep, that's about the whole of it Drich. Every scientist in the world, in fact -all science- is a giant conspiracy to make you look like an ignorant twat.

Perhaps the most successful conspiracy evah.

[robvalue]

The thing is, I don't really think most believers do believe. If God did show up, they'd be more surprised than us.

Dillahunty said they believe in believing. I'm obsessed with quoting him, I know. But he nails it.

[Mister Agenda]

Not what I said sport.

I said The laws of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics were re-classified as theories. When I was in school they were laws, now they are refered to as theories

Their classification hasn't changed, Oppenheimer. The laws are what gravity and thermodynamics do, the theory is what explains them.

[FatAndFaithless]

Like I said earlier...5 minutes on google, bud.

[Mister Agenda]

Seriously I'm confused. You said you weren't going to re-evaluate what you believed, and now you say you do all the time?

That's not what he said, Galileo.

[robvalue]

You know, I used to think that arkhum's razor went like this:

I found a razor in Arkhum's bathroom. Whose razor is it? The simplest answer is its arkhum's. It was many years before I discovered it wasn't even spelled razor.

Live and learn.

Sorry to derail this very closely fought debate.

[Minimalist]

Not what I said sport.

I said The laws of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics were re-classified as theories. When I was in school they were laws, now they are refered to as theories

Their classification hasn't changed, Oppenheimer. The laws are what gravity and thermodynamics do, the theory is what explains them.

Too complex a distinction for the likes of drippy.