Originally posted by @wolfgang59When you throw a die you can predict that it will land on one of six options. Whoopy. Ground breaking indeed.
Wrong.
Quantum Mechanics
Chaos Theory
The roll of a die.
All are random but predictions are made.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWhat are you on about?
When you throw a die you can predict that it will land on one of six options. Whoopy. Ground breaking indeed.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59I've given up trying to work that out.
What are you on about?
When I have a conversation with a normal person (with a reasonable education) I take it for granted that we'll have some 'shared knowledge' that will enable constructive conversation or argument. - So, for example, if I referenced Winston Churchill, the person I spoke to would not question the existence of Winston Churchill but would accept the reference matter of factly and not allow it to derail the discussion.
With Becker however he is just as likely to respond 'prove that Winston Churchill existed' and then reject any source provided, or else claim my assertion that Winston Churchill existed was subjective.
Originally posted by @js357Yep.
Science relies on faith (definition 1).
Therefore science relies on faith (definition 2).
Can we all agree that this argument is patently (definition 1) stupid (definition 2)?
That would be the a vast majority consensus on what those words mean.
I hope.
Originally posted by @divegeesterfaith
Disagree. Faith is a religious term and a spiritual phenomena.
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"
Originally posted by @dj2beckerAccepting conclusions based on well-researched evidence isn't "faith". Accepting that a talking snake caused the downfall of mankind—that's faith.
Atheists put their faith in science. Do you agree or disagree?
02 Nov 17
Originally posted by @vivifyIf no one has ever seen it happen, yet the claim is made, then it must be taken by faith.
Accepting conclusions based on well-researched evidence isn't "faith". Accepting that a talking snake caused the downfall of mankind—that's faith.
Of course trying to convince a true believer that his faith isn't simply the truth is impossible.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeAnd yet how many times have people on both sides of this seeming divide done the exact same thing? Hardly a topic goes by anymore, when someone reacts to the conundrum of not having anything better to say by saying, "what do you mean by 'X'?"
I've given up trying to work that out.
When I have a conversation with a normal person (with a reasonable education) I take it for granted that we'll have some 'shared knowledge' that will enable constructive conversation or argument. - So, for example, if I referenced Winston Churchill, the person I spoke to would not question the existence of W ...[text shortened]... t any source provided, or else claim my assertion that Winston Churchill existed was subjective.
I mean, I generally only see one language in these forums (for the most part), and yet people still have to resort to filling up the gaps in their argument (and, yes, to derail the discussion) by stalling with, "what do you mean by 'X'?"
And yes, both sides do it.
02 Nov 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeHistorical claims about people that lived during the past century can't really be compared to historical claims about myths that supposedly happened thousands of years ago if the only reference you have is a blog.
I've given up trying to work that out.
When I have a conversation with a normal person (with a reasonable education) I take it for granted that we'll have some 'shared knowledge' that will enable constructive conversation or argument. - So, for example, if I referenced Winston Churchill, the person I spoke to would not question the existence of W ...[text shortened]... t any source provided, or else claim my assertion that Winston Churchill existed was subjective.
02 Nov 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerDo you accept the facts from the Miller-Urey experiment and similar which followed?
Do you accept the conclusions offered by the Miller-Urey experiment?
02 Nov 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Which 'facts' exactly?
Do you accept the facts from the Miller-Urey experiment and similar which followed?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerVery well, then why not write:
Faith can also be defined as : "complete trust or confidence in someone or something."
Atheists put their complete trust and confidence in science. Do you agree or disagree?