I've studied science. I know that if I scratch beneath the surface, I find substance. I've studied 'creationism'. I know that if I scratch beneath the surface, I find bullshit.

I've seen that science builds computers, phones, and rocket ships. Creationism just builds piles and piles of treacherous words. The fruits are different.

Faith in science rests on faith in an ordered society, where certain groups do certain things. I can see that with my eyes. I can live it.

Faith in creationism rests in blindly believing the words of anonymous writers who wrote over 2,000 years ago. It doesn't compare.

(December 3, 2014 at 3:49 pm)Drich Wrote: Wrong yourself. You believe in the interpretation of what has been identified as evidence for you. (I am assuming that you have not completed the equasions used to caculate out 'the big bang' nor dug deep enough into the strata or carbon dated anything yourself.)

Which again if you are taking the interpretation of another's 'evidence' for your own, then like it or not sport your actions fall under Faith.

Unless we independently verify the life's works of some of the world's most brilliant scientists, the evidence is invalid? That's not how it works. Evidence cannot be twisted into "faith" if one is simply not able to do something such as calculating the orbit of a planet, analyzing DNA, or something of that nature because he/she does not have the requisite scientific or technical training. Evidence is evidence despite how you endeavor to twist the word to fit your needs.

Faith is the belief of something even in the absence of evidence or, in many cases, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

(December 3, 2014 at 3:36 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Ugh, more of this false equivalence shit. Fuck off with your dishonest definition of "faith" and don't compare unsubstantiated claims of supernatural bullshittery from 2000 years ago to history of which we have physical writings, artifacts, and accounts.

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."

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

Faith in facts is still faith. Why? because the facts that support your 'theory' are ever changing. 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.

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.

Drich, you're like a kid in kindergarten trying to teach his teacher how to read.

False equivalence:

Faith is the set of uncertainty and belief based on unsubstantiated claims (or claims that cannot even be addressed).

Evidentiary Belief is the set of uncertainty and belief based on corroborated, demonstrable evidence.

Since both contain uncertainty, they are both faith-based.


So yes, you are pulling a false equivalence.

Absolute certainty is a bullshit useless concept for dealing with anything in reality. We take the our best guess with the current evidence, and nobody here is claiming that our beliefs are constant or absolute or even true in an epistemological sense. On the contrary, the only constant thing about evidentiary belief is that is must change when new evidence comes to light. Honestly admitting that we don't know for sure is the only rational thing to do, but it certainly isn't "Faith" in any sense.

(December 3, 2014 at 4:02 pm)Drich Wrote: Why? because the facts that support your 'theory' are ever changing. 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.

So, what you're saying is that the only way to use something, like electricity or gravity or medicine, is if we know everything there is to know about it and we know it right now.....

(December 3, 2014 at 4:17 pm)LostLocke Wrote: So, what you're saying is that the only way to use something, like electricity or gravity or medicine, is if we know everything there is to know about it and we know it right now.....

And that's the result when someone thinks to know it all. Kids are usually on the receiving end.



Look up Zeus for further reference.

Drich's position is also self refuting if true: let's just take it as a given that if you can't directly replicate the experiments that lead to a given conclusion yourself, you have faith in it. Therefore, there are certain people who don't have faith in those conclusions, given that they performed them themselves. Those people know the conclusions are true. So, how do we differentiate between knowledge and faith? Well, those people who know can demonstrate how they came to those conclusions... in books... so that... oh. I think we've just described how science classrooms work.

Can the religious demonstrate how they came to their conclusions about origins? No, they cannot, or they would have done so by now. What this means is that we have science, which doesn't rely on faith at its foundations, and religion, which does. In short, there's something factual to science, but nothing but faith in religion.

The point is that someone out there can demonstrate the truth of science. That's why it's taught in classrooms; we may not all have done the research for ourselves, but we don't have to, owing to the long history of honesty and demonstrated efficacy within the scientific community. The truth of science can be demonstrated, while the truth of religion can only be endlessly, and baselessly, asserted. That is the difference, and it's why the label of faith does not apply.

Anyone else seen Louis CK's "Pig Newtons" monologue? The OP reminds me of Louis' 3-year old.

(December 3, 2014 at 4:34 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Anyone else seen Louis CK's "Pig Newtons" monologue? The OP reminds me of Louis' 3-year old.

Haven't. Is it good?