Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today.... part 2

[Chief]

Reminder: This isn't the Israel/Hamas thread. Go to the Israel/Hamas thread if you want to talk about that. Thanks.

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

Part I: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack.1371828/page-47#post-81443295 Thread Rules: Alright. I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[evolved2]

Some people pray to god. It works and helps them - trust or faith?

It doesn't work. Prayer studies have shown that prayer is ineffective.

That's a good example of science vs faith. One is based on evidence - stats showing that prayer doesn't work. The other is based on faith - the belief prayer works despite science showing it doesn't.

There's two different usages of the word "faith" at play here.

I have faith that science methodology works, as does anyone who uses a computer or phone to post here. I have no faith in bible or quran gods because there's no evidence they exist.

Believing in Allah is the same as believing in unicorns or anal probing aliens.

The bible defines faith as follows: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." The Bible says it's belief based on a lack of evidence.

 

[Roylion]

Again, you are so certain it's not faith but you are completely unable to tell me what it is.

What is this 'it' you speak of ?

Acceptance that a phenomena is true based on overwhelming empiricial evidence that supports the existence of said phenomena?

For example, I accept evolution is most likely true because of the overwhelming empirical evidence that supports that evolution has, and is, occurring. I accept that scientific explanation over a creationist explanation for the appearance of the variety of life on earth, including humanity, because of the weight of scientific evidence gained and altered through repeated observation and experiment, across a variety of scientific fields.

That acceptance of evolution as most likely true or as the more likely explanation for the variety of life over creationism hence does not require faith. A adherence to creationism over that of evolution does require faith as there is no empirical evidence to support creationism by a deity as an explanation for the variety of life on earth.

If you don't even know what it is, then how TF can you claim that it definitely is not something?

I've provided a definition of 'faith'.

Don't be ****ing ridiculous.

Read the definition of 'faith' again.

 

[burge13]

It doesn't work. Prayer studies have shown that prayer is ineffective.

Needed actual studies for this?!

 

[sr36]

It doesn't work. Prayer studies have shown that prayer is ineffective.

That's a good example of science vs faith. One is based on evidence - stats showing that prayer doesn't work. The other is based on faith - the belief prayer works despite science showing it doesn't.

There's two different usages of the word "faith" at play here.

I have faith that science methodology works, as does anyone who uses a computer or phone to post here. I have no faith in bible or quran gods because there's no evidence they exist.

Believing in Allah is the same as believing in unicorns or anal probing aliens.

The bible defines faith as follows: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." The Bible says it's belief based on a lack of evidence.

There's heaps of research connecting prayer and meditation to positive wellbeing outcomes.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Some people pray to god. It works and helps them - trust or faith?

Simple, there’s zero evidence or reason for a god, the universe works perfectly well without the need for god/gods.
Studies have been conducted on prayer, it doesn’t work, in fact, it was proven that if patients knew they were being prayed for, their health outcomes declined.
If prayer or faith healing worked, hospitals would be filled with the religious not doctors.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Come on guv.
What the hell is trust if not 'feels'?

Evidence, I’ve told the forum that I build shit, much of it highly complex, many moving parts, much of it mobile and weighing tonnes.
These structures are for public use, we have strict engineering and guidelines for every process that must adhere to the highest of standards.
Australia has close to the highest standard practices in my line of work on the planet.
I trust these principles and practices because of evidence.
They’ve been tested and retested yearly.
Our materials are tested, we know their capabilities, capacities and abilities because they’ve been tested to withstand the forces that will be applied to them.
Zero faith is required because we run the numbers constantly.
We trust the engineering because it works, we know it works, because our shit doesn’t fail, ever.
You don’t get to do what we do at the biggest events Melbourne puts on without measures in place, we have anywhere from 3 to 10 different engineers go through each of our works before being signed off.
Zero faith, all science, engineering and math, failure isn’t an option and if I told any engineer to have faith, we’d be sent home and laughed at vigorously and never be allowed to work in this town again!
Zero faith mate!

 

[carltonchelsea]

There's heaps of research connecting prayer and meditation to positive wellbeing outcomes.

The placebo effect!

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Simple, there’s zero evidence or reason for a god, the universe works perfectly well without the need for god/gods.
Studies have been conducted on prayer, it doesn’t work, in fact, it was proven that if patients knew they were being prayed for, their health outcomes declined.
If prayer or faith healing worked, hospitals would be filled with the religious not doctors.

I'm sure if i prayed that the sun would rise tomorrow it would boost the stats.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Evidence, I’ve told the forum that I build shit, much of it highly complex, many moving parts, much of it mobile and weighing tonnes.
These structures are for public use, we have strict engineering and guidelines for every process that must adhere to the highest of standards.
Australia has close to the highest standard practices in my line of work on the planet.
I trust these principles and practices because of evidence.
They’ve been tested and retested yearly.
Our materials are tested, we know their capabilities, capacities and abilities because they’ve been tested to withstand the forces that will be applied to them.
Zero faith is required because we run the numbers constantly.
We trust the engineering because it works, we know it works, because our shit doesn’t fail, ever.
You don’t get to do what we do at the biggest events Melbourne puts on without measures in place, we have anywhere from 3 to 10 different engineers go through each of our works before being signed off.
Zero faith, all science, engineering and math, failure isn’t an option and if I told any engineer to have faith, we’d be sent home and laughed at vigorously and never be allowed to work in this town again!
Zero faith mate!

I will pray that your buildings don't fall down, boosting the stats yet again.

 

[sr36]

Simple, there’s zero evidence or reason for a god the universe works perfectly well without the need for god/gods.
Studies have been conducted on prayer, it doesn’t work, in fact, it was proven that if patients knew they were being prayed for, their health outcomes declined.
If prayer or faith healing worked, hospitals would be filled with the religious not doctors.

That's being prayed for. There's enormous amounts of research suggesting prayer is beneficial for wellbeing.

 

[sr36]

The placebo effect!

Nah. It's stilling the mind, meditation, mindfulness, prayer - golf for me, surfing for some

 

[Number37]

What is this 'it' you speak of ?

Acceptance that a phenomena is true based on overwhelming empiricial evidence that supports the existence of said phenomena?

For example, I accept evolution is most likely true because of the overwhelming empirical evidence that supports that evolution has, and is, occurring. I accept that scientific explanation over a creationist explanation for the appearance of the variety of life on earth, including humanity, because of the weight of scientific evidence gained and altered through repeated observation and experiment, across a variety of scientific fields.

That acceptance of evolution as most likely true or as the more likely explanation for the variety of life over creationism hence does not require faith. A adherence to creationism over that of evolution does require faith as there is no empirical evidence to support creationism by a deity as an explanation for the variety of life on earth.



I've provided a definition of 'faith'.


Read the definition of 'faith' again.

Your arguments amount to nothing more than...
This doesn't fit the definition of faith because I say it doesn't.

Which isn't an argument.

Also not an argument is religious faith is bla-bla-bla.
Also not an argument is compared to religious people bla-bla-bla.

It seems to me that the entire argument that 'faith' in science isn't the same as faith as it is elsewhere consists of nothing but 'because I say so'.

 

[Number37]

Evidence, I’ve told the forum that I build shit, much of it highly complex, many moving parts, much of it mobile and weighing tonnes.
These structures are for public use, we have strict engineering and guidelines for every process that must adhere to the highest of standards.
Australia has close to the highest standard practices in my line of work on the planet.
I trust these principles and practices because of evidence.
They’ve been tested and retested yearly.
Our materials are tested, we know their capabilities, capacities and abilities because they’ve been tested to withstand the forces that will be applied to them.
Zero faith is required because we run the numbers constantly.
We trust the engineering because it works, we know it works, because our shit doesn’t fail, ever.
You don’t get to do what we do at the biggest events Melbourne puts on without measures in place, we have anywhere from 3 to 10 different engineers go through each of our works before being signed off.
Zero faith, all science, engineering and math, failure isn’t an option and if I told any engineer to have faith, we’d be sent home and laughed at vigorously and never be allowed to work in this town again!
Zero faith mate!

Any definition of trust includes the word belief.

How is belief, in the trust sense, any different to any other belief?

 

[Roylion]

Your arguments amount to nothing more than...
This doesn't fit the definition of faith because I say it doesn't.

The definition of faith that I provided is a standard definition of faith. You are yet to explain how an acceptance of any scientific finding (for example evolution) is somehow accepted as a result of 'faith'.

You've also failed to explain your claim that....

"Even atheists have faith. Their faith is in things like science and objective truths, but it is still faith."

Under the definition of 'faith', your statement that atheists somehow have faith in science and objective truth is not correct. You certainly haven't demonstrated how it is supposedly 'faith'.

 

[skipper kelly]

faith
/feɪθ/


noun
noun: faith

1. 1.
   complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   
   
   

 

[SaintsSeptember]

For most of the noughties i had faith that those recruiting at StKilda were competent and would draft some good players.
Despite the complete lack of evidence.

 

[Number37]

The definition of faith that I provided is a standard definition of faith. You are yet to explain how an acceptance of any scientific finding (for example evolution) is somehow accepted as a result of 'faith'.

You've also failed to explain your claim that....

"Even atheists have faith. Their faith is in things like science and objective truths, but it is still faith."

Under the definition of 'faith', your statement that atheists somehow have faith in science and objective truth is not correct. You certainly haven't demonstrated how it is supposedly 'faith'.

LOL

I have said many times. It is no different...
It is no different because there is no other way to characterize it.

Why do people believe in science?
Believing in anything is faith, there is no other way to characterize it, IMO.
If you can characterize it some other way, let's hear it.


You keep saying it is different because it is different.
That's not an argument.

 

[burge13]

Fair play to you blokes going around in circles for multiple days. I get killing time at work but that's commitment to still be going 48+ hours later

 

[JackOutback]

faith
/feɪθ/

noun
noun: faith

1. 1.
   complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   
   

You left out the second definition.

2.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual convictionrather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"

Words have multiple meanings and nuance. A third definition is it’s an Irish exclamation and no one is suggesting belief in science is an Irish exclamation.

Number37 is trying to conflate the two separate meanings to suggest a belief in science is the same as a belief in religion. It is not, as has been explained several times by several posters.

 

[Roylion]

LOL

I have said many times. It is no different...

You haven't explained why it is 'no different'. I've explained why it cannot be characterised as 'faith'.

It is no different because there is no other way to characterize it.

Why do people believe in science?

They don't 'believe' it by faith. People accept an explanation as being the best explanation for a phenomena until an explanation that is better supported, by the evidence that has been observed or tested extensively supplants it. That is not 'faith'.

For example, there only needs to be one piece of evidence that falsifies evolution for that explanation to be abandoned in favour of another. Until then, the consensus of scientists and 'people' is that they accept evolution as the best explanation of the existance of a variety of life on the planet. Including humanity.

Meanwhile the evidence in favour of evolution continues to mount, even though the actual model of evolution may be altered in light of any newly discovered evidence.

That is the same for any scientific theory.

 

[Number37]

You haven't explained why it is no different. I've explained why it cannot be characterised as 'faith.


They don't 'believe' it by faith. People accept an explanation as being the best explanation for a phenomena until an explanation that is better supported, by the evidence that has been observed or tested extensively supplants it. That is not 'faith'.

For example, there only needs to be one piece of evidence that falsifies evolution for that explanation to be abandoned in favour of another. Until then, the consensus of scientists and 'people' is that they accept evolution as the best explanation of the existance of a variety of life on the planet. Including humanity.

Meanwhile the evidence in favour of evolution continues to mount, even though the actual model of evolution may be altered in light of any newly discovered evidence.

That is the same for any scientific theory.

It's not faith.
It's not faith.
It's not faith.

So what is it?
Why do you keep avoiding answering the question???????
You can't say what it is, but somehow, magically, it's not faith.

 

[Number37]

You left out the second definition.

2.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual convictionrather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"

Words have multiple meanings and nuance. A third definition is it’s an Irish exclamation and no one is suggesting belief in science is an Irish exclamation.

Number37 is trying to conflate the two separate meanings to suggest a belief in science is the same as a belief in religion. It is not, as has been explained several times by several posters.

I'm not trying to conflate anything.
It's up to those who say 'it' isn't faith to make the distinction between faith and whatever 'it' is.
So far, nobody has been able to make that distinction.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I'm not trying to conflate anything.
It's up to those who say 'it' isn't faith to make the distinction between faith and whatever 'it' is.
So far, nobody has been able to make that distinction.

So far you have not been able to comprehend the distinction people have made.

 

[Roylion]

It's not faith.
It's not faith.
It's not faith.

So what is it?
Why do you keep avoiding answering the question???????
You can't say what it is, but somehow, magically, it's not faith.

You can't demonstrate it is 'faith'. You haven't even addressed the definition of faith I've provided.

I've given you a definition of 'faith' and said why acceptance of certain scientific theories - such as evolution - by the scientific community and by extension the public does not qualify as 'faith'. Why don't you address that?

Why don't you explain exactly how acceptance of scientific theories such as evolution the evidence in support of which is based on repeated empirical observation and experiment qualifies as 'faith'? Clearly you think it does and given you made the claim in the first place, explain it.

I've explained quite clearly why it doesn't and provided a definition of 'faith' for you to address. You haven't refuted any of what I've said, except to demand I come up with another word for that acceptance. And if no word is forthcoming.....oh... it must default to faith. That's not even an argument.

Then I explain yet again why that isn't faith and you completely fail to address again what I've said, or the definition I've provided and again demand I come up with another word for that acceptance.

And then we just go around in circles.

Acceptance of a scientific theory as the best explanation for a phenomena, based on significant, overwhelming, robust, empirical evidence is not 'faith'. Under no circumstancesm do I accept that evolution, for example, is the best explanation for the variety of life on this planet, by faith.

 

[burge13]

Otherwise we're just going around in circles.

I don't want to ruin your Friday but I have some bad news here...