Originally posted by googlefudge"Belief without evidence or despite of it, and blind trust, are bad and to be avoided.
Belief without evidence or despite of it, and blind trust, are bad and to be avoided.
There is no true faith.
Only an idiot believes without evidence, and there's no such thing as blind trust. What are you trying to prove stating the obvious?
"There is no true faith."
Of course there is! It is the faith of Jesus Christ. His faith is the only faith there is worth having. Without which there is no life. It is by the faith of Jesus Christ that those of us who have it have eternal life.
Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Recieve this faith and live.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMaybe you're not, but there is a definite wheezing making its way through.
In your imagination.
There is (and has been) much discussion on how the scientific method is to be defined.
Literally books have been written on the topic, some taking one view while others insist the other is preferred.
Consensus has not been found.
I haven't read those books. How are they relevant?
Confused... about what?
The scientific method is inductive in nature.
The scientific method is deductive in nature.
The scientific method is abductive in nature.
You do know each of these are in opposition to each other, don't you?
Who says the scientific method must be one and only one? It certainly doesn't say so on Wikipedia. It seems to be an assertion by you.
I will ask again: which scientific method is the one, true scientific method, the one we can all trust?
There is only one scientific method. And I suggest you try to understand it before you come to trust it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadreligion " A smile on a Dog"
This is related to the thread on whether atheists answer questions.
I have often noticed that certain topics or questions result in avoidance by theists and one reason given by them is that they are afraid that atheists are trying to trap them. Does the same ever happen with atheists? Do you ever see atheists worrying about getting trapped and thus not a ...[text shortened]... hat if you are confident of your position/beliefs then you shouldn't be afraid of being trapped.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI haven't read those books. How are they relevant?
[b]Maybe you're not, but there is a definite wheezing making its way through.
In your imagination.
There is (and has been) much discussion on how the scientific method is to be defined.
Literally books have been written on the topic, some taking one view while others insist the other is preferred.
Consensus has not been found.
I h ...[text shortened]... only one scientific method. And I suggest you try to understand it before you come to trust it.[/b]
Is that a trick question?
Why do you think it would be relevant?
If there are proponents claiming their particular approach is the right one, how can it not be relevant to the topic?
Who says the scientific method must be one and only one?
It's that pesky 'the' word which makes it such a bugger.
It certainly doesn't say so on Wikipedia. It seems to be an assertion by you.
Oh, well then: case closed.
Guess I should have gone to Wikipedia first, since it is the recognized authority on all matters.
You do realize that Wikipedia is a website with openly editable content, right?
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedWow, THAT I didn't know. He moves down a few notches then. No pedestal for him!
I have to be in the category of atheist, at least the bible god atheism. That is not to say that precludes the possibility of real deities out there. It is a noticeably large universe🙂
But the bible god? Not a chance, fully man made and in man's own image.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, not at all.
Is that a trick question?
Why do you think it would be relevant?
I don't, hence my question.
It's that pesky 'the' word which makes it such a bugger.
There is only a 'which' if you make them exclusive. Something you seem desperate to do, but have failed to give reasons for.
You do realize that Wikipedia is a website with openly editable content, right?
Yes, I know what Wikipedia is.
1. I have not claimed it is an authority to be trusted.
2. I do not generally think any authority should be trusted.
3. You clearly have nothing worth saying hence you have to point out something everyone knows - that Wikipedia can be edited, in the hope that that will make it go away. It doesn't.
[edit]
The biggest mistake you are making in the whole conversation, is that you seem to be under the impression that I hold science to be a god or religion. It isn't.