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

Remove this Banner Ad

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 www.bigfooty.com

Thanks.
 
Number37 said:
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.
Click to expand...
They have, you're just not listening.

It is clear the discussion is about religious faith versus scientific method, the differences between which have been explained in excruciating detail. But you're using a different definition of faith, the one that does not apply to religious doctrine, then claiming it's all the same.

You're arguing a completely different point to everyone else.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Carringbush2010 said:
Same same then,

You're swearing an oath to something most of or all of the courtroom don't subscribe to, so still farcical then.
Click to expand...

No, you swear either the Oath or the Affirmation. One of them (the Oath) is to a deity or spiritual entity of your choice (God, Ganesha, Allah, Thor, Poseidon, Yahweh, Buddha, Satan etc) and often (but not necessarily) while holding the relevant religious text (Bible, Torah, Quran, Dianetics etc) and the other one (the Affirmation) is a personal promise.

You get to choose which one you want to swear, and if you choose the Oath, can pick your religious text and deity of choice.
 
Malifice said:
No, you swear either the Oath or the Affirmation. One of them (the Oath) is to a deity or spiritual entity of your choice (God, Ganesha, Allah, Thor, Poseidon, Yahweh, Buddha, Satan etc) and often (but not necessarily) while holding the relevant religious text (Bible, Torah, Quran, Dianetics etc) and the other one (the Affirmation) is a personal promise.

You get to choose which one you want to swear, and if you choose the Oath, can pick your religious text and deity of choice.
Click to expand...
All of which doesn't change the point that swearing an oath or affirmation to whatever fairy god, is a farce regardless.
 
JackOutback said:
They have, you're just not listening.

It is clear the discussion is about religious faith versus scientific method, the differences between which have been explained in excruciating detail. But you're using a different definition of faith, the one that does not apply to religious doctrine, then claiming it's all the same.

You're arguing a completely different point to everyone else.
Click to expand...

You have perfectly encapsulated what has been wrong with all of the arguments against what I stated.

It's not about religious faith v scientific method.

It is not about the subject matter of people's faith. Religious or non-religious.

It's about people's faith/trust (or whatever you want to call it.).

Forget what your faith/trust is aimed at.
Focus on just faith/trust.
What is the difference between one person's faith/trust and another person's faith/trust???
To me, there is no difference.
The argument that because your faith/trust is in science somehow, magically, it elevates it to something more than just faith/trust and definitely isn't the same as the faith/trust of a religious person. Hells no.
 
carltonchelsea said:
Evidence
Click to expand...

Take one step back.
The evidence doesn't relate to your faith/trust.
The evidence relates to the subject matter of your faith/trust.

How is faith/trust in science different to any other faith/trust in anything??
It is no different.
 
Roylion said:
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. :rolleyes:

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.
Click to expand...

JFC.

The only one going around in circles is you.
Your entire argument relies on including the subject matter of people's faith in order to use the subject matter rather than the faith to argue that it is different.
How many times do I have to say, it's not about the subject matter?
 
Number37 said:
JFC.

The only one going around in circles is you.
Your entire argument relies on including the subject matter of people's faith
Click to expand...

Faith is not used in science. A process is used to ascertain the likelihood of a proposed explanation for a phenomena.

Perhaps you should explain more clearly how you think 'faith' is used in science.

Then maybe we might take a closer look at your claim that:

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

Which I reject. That is not 'faith'.
 
Last edited:
Number37 said:
JFC.

The only one going around in circles is you.
Your entire argument relies on including the subject matter of people's faith in order to use the subject matter rather than the faith to argue that it is different.
How many times do I have to say, it's not about the subject matter?
Click to expand...
How about this - faith in science, a prosperity preacher, Donald Trump, a deity, whatever - is still faith/belief/trust.

If we can get past that, maybe we can discuss why you think religious beliefs should be respected beyond any conspiracy theory.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Roylion said:
Faith is not used in science. A process is used to ascertain the likelihood of a proposed explanation for a phenomena.

Perhaps you should explain more clearly how you think 'faith' is used in science.

Then maybe we might take a closer look at your claim that:

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

Which I reject. That is not 'faith'.
Click to expand...
He's not discussing faith as part of scientific methodology, rather people having faith or trust in anything - be it science, religion or a person.

It's not wrong per se. I'm just wondering where he's heading with this.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
For a myriad of reasons, technicalities letting off scumbags when guilt is clear, swearing on the bible in cases where prosecution and / or defence uses 'belief in god' as an argument against - yet you can swear on the bible.:rolleyes:

Or 'trust me' on my affirmation, yeah sure Jan.

But you're right it's a thread derailer.
Click to expand...
When is belief in god used as part of a defense or as a reason to prosecute?

I assumed people who do crimes because god told them to are a good chance of being judged insane.
 
Number37 said:
You have perfectly encapsulated what has been wrong with all of the arguments against what I stated.

It's not about religious faith v scientific method.

It is not about the subject matter of people's faith. Religious or non-religious.

It's about people's faith/trust (or whatever you want to call it.).

Forget what your faith/trust is aimed at.
Focus on just faith/trust.
What is the difference between one person's faith/trust and another person's faith/trust???
To me, there is no difference.
The argument that because your faith/trust is in science somehow, magically, it elevates it to something more than just faith/trust and definitely isn't the same as the faith/trust of a religious person. Hells no.
Click to expand...

To you.

Yes...you are special.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cmarsh
Society/Culture To what extent are Universities to blame for the current children's literacy crisis?
Replies
23
Views
1K
kickazz
kickazz
evolved2
Politics Young people won't embrace progressive politics when they see its failures
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
245
Views
10K
greyhound punter
G
Alite
Politics Japan has gone it’s own way on fighting inflation
Replies
12
Views
772
undefined
undefined
S
Society/Culture Which is the best unbiased media outlet in Australia?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
ElectricG
ElectricG
Gethelred
Society/Culture "Grifting" versus ethics: Is it anything goes?
Replies
8
Views
581
demondavey
demondavey
ferball
David Mcbride's trial started today.
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
Theseventhhamster
Theseventhhamster
Bunk Moreland
The major parties versus social media
Replies
7
Views
445
Pakenhamsaint
Pakenhamsaint

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top