religion

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't have a better way. But the fact that you believe that this system is infallible, like a devout catholic believes in the Pope, proves that you are in fact treating "science" in a religious fashion. Everything can fail, especially when that thing involves human beings. I'm not saying it does, and I certainly don't believe that evolution is a hoax like everyone else in this thread, but nonetheless it's healthy to challenge even confirmed science. I believe that's part of the scientific method?

I missed the point of your post... You're right about most of it.

I still think that science is treated like a religion. I thought you said perfect where you had in fact said not perfect... Whoops

[paulgiamatti]

No, we believe it is fallible, and falsifiable, which is the mark of anything that is rational and sane.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well, thanks for that, I think? I'm not sure why the definitions of words which are easily looked up and serve to the credit of my last two posts warrant their own post, but in case anyone needs to brush up on vocabulary, there you are.

So what you are implying is that definitions of things are based off of what you want and that common use of the word is invalid even though that it is..... common use. Basically, scientists who disagree with what religion is (or people like you) have some book held in some deep dark cellar that no one will ever find, and they have different definitions for everything, and that what everyone else in the world defines these things as is incorrect.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, we believe it is fallible, and falsifiable, which is the mark of anything that is rational and sane.

I'm not saying that you don't... I misread leewong's post. But there are tons of people that believe scientists, doctors, etc... Anyone dealing with higher learning, are infallible. I agree with both sides of this debate, but I think Eliseus is right to say that many treat scientists as modern clergymen issuing divine edicts that are not to be challenged

[Patriam1066]

Anyway, nice to have a civil discussion here, that's a first. I'm off to watch Alabama... Roll tide

[paulgiamatti]

No, I just to carefully consider what the intellectual majority of people including scholars, authors, scientists, teachers, and yes, even theologians, regard as semantically correct.

It's like when people bring up egalitarianism as an end unto itself rather than a means to an end. Egalitarianism doesn't operate in a void - you can't just take one interpretation of it or one definition of it from a textbook and shoehorn it into the real world. There are more factors at play when considering huge, sweeping ideas like egalitarianism just like there are with every single word in the English lexicon.

A textbook definition isn't direction for application. It's just a definition. That's why dictionaries are constantly updated, refined and adapted to modern society.

[paulgiamatti]

*choose to carefully consider

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because the last time I posted definitions, you and the 2 other constant responding idiots tried saying it was irrelevant because it was against your points. One of you also tried saying something that scientists don't have beliefs or something similar. So I just saved you the time of arguing more misinformation, cut out the middle bs, and gave you the definitions now. Sadly, proven wrong, instead of arguing more on being incorrect, you try to attack my knowledge of giving you irrelevant info.

Just because you believe or have faith in something doesnt make you religious anymore than being able to swim makes you a fish.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyway, nice to have a civil discussion here, that's a first. I'm off to watch Alabama... Roll tide

It's actually been pretty far from civil at some points. I do agree though that is is fun to discuss, even though from the time I've been around, you never can change any minds here, everyone thinks there knowledge is the superior knowledge no matter what evidence you point out. Then (this thread for example), you find yourself repeating the exact same thing several times in the same thread to the exact same person because everyone is just running in circles re-debating stuff that has already been brought up and dismissed, because one side feels the others information is better. Really though, it becomes just such a hassle, for example, I legitimately pointed out in a response how trying to say what God could of done or not is irrelevant because the other side would deny it anyways. The dude literally quoted me supporting that, so it is almost why argue in the first place, it's mostly to not let them have the last word, because I really don't want these ignorant people to leave and think they won some kind of war when they really didn't.

Anyways though, to your first comment, most outbursts to destroy this "civil" attitude have mostly been brought upon this side that thinks God doesn't exist. I would assume though their moral compass is probably a bit off, so it's somewhat expected.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just because you believe or have faith in something doesnt make you religious anymore than being able to swim makes you a fish.

No one said it does, it was along with the religion definition because, like I already said (please stop just reading what you want to read in posts), one of you already pointed out how scientists don't have a "belief", so I gave the definition of belief and faith, to remove any middle-ground argument BS that having belief is only to have a belief in the supernatural blah blah blah or that faith is only prevalent in the supernatural or blah blah blah.