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.

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

Thanks.

 

[Roylion]

Did somebody say science does accept things as true by faith?

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

It is not 'faith'.

By its very definition, faith is the belief in something, despite insufficient knowledge and evidence to be certain of its veracity.

 

[JackOutback]

I am not saying faith is the right word.
I am saying it is no different to faith.

What is the right word for it?
If not faith, what is the right word for it?

And everyone else is saying this is incorrect.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I am not saying faith is the right word.
I am saying it is no different to faith.

What is the right word for it?
If not faith, what is the right word for it?

I have no faith in your baseless claim.

 

[sr36]

LOL

What the hell are you on about?
Who the hell is telling you to believe a preacher?
Not me.

You seem very defensive.
Is it because you can't explain your position?
Your strawmen cum ad-homs don't advance your point of view.

I get what you're saying. And in many ways the disagreement is semantic. Many have absolute faith in widely accepted scientific theories. But the dispute is because you're calling that faith science, whereas it isn't actually science. Science is the process of not having faith and continually questioning and testing belief and theory. Some apply their faith to scientific theory, rather than religious doctrine and in that case their faith can be compared.

 

[evolved2]

I get what you're saying. And in many ways the disagreement is semantic. Many have absolute faith in widely accepted scientific theories. But the dispute is because you're calling that faith science, whereas it isn't actually science. Science is the process of not having faith and continually questioning and testing belief and theory. Some apply their faith to scientific theory, rather than religious doctrine and in that case their faith can be compared.

Does anyone have absolute faith in scientific theories? I truly doubt it.

I mean, even if they did, it would be more valid than religious faith which isn't based on any evidence while scientific theories are.

It's just false equivalence.

The best example is creationism vs the theory of evolution. There's no evidence for biblical creationism while there's plenty of evidence in many scientific fields for evolution. If anyone comes up with a better explanation for the development of lifeforms on Earth, it will be accepted by the scientific community.

If anyone comes up with a better explanation for the development of life on earth than the bible/qur'an, people of faith won't accept it because their belief doesn't depend on evidence.

Religious faith is equally valid as any conspiracy theory (at best). I don't know why so many are scared to call it out for what it is.

 

[the_interloper]

Science isn't faith, it views everything as a theory which is either supported or not supported by evidence obtained within the scientific process. The scientific process is the opposite of faith as it requires the questioning of everything. It positions "truth" as always being testable and never certain or proven.

This sums it up pretty well I reckon

 

[sr36]

Does anyone have absolute faith in scientific theories? I truly doubt it.

I mean, even if they did, it would be more valid than religious faith which isn't based on any evidence while scientific theories are.

It's just false equivalence.

Gravity, climate change, evolution, the earth revolving around the sun.i have faith in all of them. And it's only from what I've been told. I can't assess any of them myself

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Gravity, climate change, evolution, the earth revolving around the sun.i have faith in all of them.

Gravity very sure and reliable and relatively static. Absolutely calculatable.
Earth revolving around the sun is based on gravity and momentum. Also calculatable to a fine degree.
Climate change is kind of iffy due to a huge number of variables.
Its happening for sure, we are getting more solar energy into the atmosphere, but its not clear which models are correct.

 

[Number37]

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

It is not 'faith'.

By its very definition, faith is the belief in something, despite insufficient knowledge and evidence to be certain of its veracity.

I have clarified, repeatedly, what I said.

Yes, I call it faith, because TO ME, it is no different.
Not a single person has been able to tell us what it is, if it is not faith.

Answer the question.
It's not faith, what is it?

It's not faith because it's not faith isn't an argument.

 

[Number37]

I get what you're saying. And in many ways the disagreement is semantic. Many have absolute faith in widely accepted scientific theories. But the dispute is because you're calling that faith science, whereas it isn't actually science. Science is the process of not having faith and continually questioning and testing belief and theory. Some apply their faith to scientific theory, rather than religious doctrine and in that case their faith can be compared.

The disagreement is not semantic.
On the one hand there is the subject matter.
On the other hand there are people and their beliefs in that subject matter.

We are not talking about the subject matter.
We are talking about people and their belief.

 

[Number37]

I have no faith in your baseless claim.

You should go see a preacher.

 

[Number37]

And everyone else is saying this is incorrect.

Other than it's not faith because it's not faith, there hasn't been an argument presented.
Fine, if it's not faith.
What is it?
So sure that it isn't faith, but unable to say what it is.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The disagreement is not semantic.
On the one hand there is the subject matter.
On the other hand there are people and their beliefs in that subject matter.

We are not talking about the subject matter.
We are talking about people and their belief.

its not about belief, its about evidence.

 

[carltonchelsea]

You said to be 'scared of the irrational' was rational.
It's not.

Having faith is different to believing in the spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn or Allah.
Perhaps you don't understand the distinction.

I would have thought that someone, like you, who is anti-religion, would understand that because your primary argument against religion is that it is a con.
If religion never existed, people would still have faith.

Even atheists have faith.
Their faith is in things like science and objective truths, but it is still faith.
Scientific knowledge changes everyday. Everyday we learn new things.
If you 'believe', or have faith, in science, what are you believing in? Just the objective truths we know today? Or the objective truths we are still to learn?

If it's the former, how is that different to religion?
If it's the latter, how is that different to religion?

The answer is, the difference is the subject matter of the faith, not faith itself.
Other than that is it not any different.
It's no different to faith in the spaghetti monster, unicorns or Allah.

Oh please, it’s not faith, it’s trust.
We trust the science because it works, we can “trust” it works.
I build shit, much of that shit relies on our Engineer, it’s all based upon, “I’ve run the numbers and they check out, build that thing”.
Faith is “feels”, trust in the scientific method and math is trust because our shit has evidence, “science, it works, bitches”.

 

[carltonchelsea]

No. I understand why the light turns on. It's not a mystery.

Anyone got an answer to how the universe started from nothing?
Nope.
One minute there's nothing. Nek minnit there's something.
Please explain.

There was this thing called the singularity guv, it might ackchually be…..wait for it, eternal and without cause, as Lemaître said to Napoleon of his working theory on galaxies and the universe when Napoleon asked, “where is god in all of this”, he said, “it works without the need for that assumption.
Georgie boy was a Catholic priest!

 

[sr36]

The disagreement is not semantic.
On the one hand there is the subject matter.
On the other hand there are people and their beliefs in that subject matter.

We are not talking about the subject matter.
We are talking about people and their belief.

I agree with you, but the bit that is semantic is around the word science - whether or not people are talking about the method or the beliefs that have flowed from that method.

 

[sr36]

Oh please, it’s not faith, it’s trust.
We trust the science because it works, we can “trust” it works.
I build shit, much of that shit relies on our Engineer, it’s all based upon, “I’ve run the numbers and they check out, build that thing”.
Faith is “feels”, trust in the scientific method and math is trust because our shit has evidence, “science, it works, bitches”.

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

 

[the_interloper]

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

I think it’s both to be honest

 

[sr36]

I think it’s both to be honest

I'm more with 37 and suggesting it's the same thing. The difference is where the belief comes from, but the belief/trust/faith itself is much the same.

Personally though I think the prioritisation of faith is the big flaw in Christianity and Islam. Science and it's doubt is a better basis for forming belief.

 

[Gethelred]

I have a question, then.

Can it be a belief if you're willing to discard it the second something better/more accurate/more pertinent comes along?

 

[Roylion]

Yes, I call it faith, because TO ME, it is no different.

It is different.

It's not faith because it's not faith isn't an argument.

I've given you the definition of 'faith'.

Scientific practices - observation and experiment, the development of falsifiable hypotheses and the relentless questioning of established views are not 'faith'.

To put it very simply we know that science works because we get to observe it or replicate it through experimentation over and over again. Faith is not required. Science doesn't explain everything.

But if there are explanations put forward for phenomena that scientific practices can't prove as true through observation and experiment, then belief in those explanations as truth, without robust supporting evidence, are arrived at by faith.

 

[Number37]

It is different.


I've given you the definition of 'faith'.

Scientific practices - observation and experiment, the development of falsifiable hypotheses and the relentless questioning of established views are not 'faith'.

To put it very simply we know that science works because we get to observe it or replicate it through experimentation over and over again. Faith is not required. Science doesn't explain everything.

But if there are explanations put forward for phenomena that scientific practices can't prove as true through observation and experiment, then belief in those explanations as truth, without robust supporting evidence, are arrived at by faith.

FMD

I don't need a lesson on the definition of faith.
I didn't ask you why we know that science works.

 

[Roylion]

FMD

I don't need a lesson on the definition of faith.

Clearly you do.

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

It is not faith.

I didn't ask you why we know that science works.

I told you anyway to clarify why its isn't faith.

 

[Number37]

Oh please, it’s not faith, it’s trust.
We trust the science because it works, we can “trust” it works.
I build shit, much of that shit relies on our Engineer, it’s all based upon, “I’ve run the numbers and they check out, build that thing”.
Faith is “feels”, trust in the scientific method and math is trust because our shit has evidence, “science, it works, bitches”.

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

 

[Number37]

Clearly you do.

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

It is not faith.


I told you anyway to clarify why its isn't faith.

Again, you are so certain it's not faith but you are completely unable to tell me what it is.
If you don't even know what it is, then how TF can you claim that it definitely is not something?
Don't be ****ing ridiculous.