Einstein or Newton

[Baler]

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

faith, which means "the reasons we believe stuff that we can't prove is true."

This is false. I already posted the widely accepted definition of faith amongst people from all walks of life, on any side(s).
But if you've proven it yourself then what I or anyone says shouldn't matter.

[bdastomper58]

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

I'm a moron because I have more faith in the people that wrote the TV Show?

Have you poured through the numbers yourself?

I rest my case.

can shared knowledge exist?

lil babbys first flirtation with solipsism

[mgellan]

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

This is false. I already posted the widely accepted definition of faith amongst people from all walks of life, on any side(s).
But if you've proven it yourself then what I or anyone says shouldn't matter.

Originally Posted by Baler

Faith -complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

Our definitions of faith are not mutually incompatible because when you say "complete" you infer "even in the face of no evidence or even disconfirming evidence."

The difference is science means accepting things that have evidence, and abandoning positions based on no evidence, or contrary evidence.

Regards,
Mg

[maskedmelon]

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

Calling what the Nazis did as the result of Science is ridiculous.

And to add, calling it the product of religion is equally ridiculous. It was the product of great cunning and ambition.

ALL ideology is open to exploitation by the exceptional.

[Baler]

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

not mutually incompatible

I'm glad you agree with me. (double negative makes a positive).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
"strong belief or trust in someone or something"
This time it says Strong not complete. There is that better?

blame google for defining faith as being complete.

[Nihilist_santa]

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

Hitler was a Catholic who believed the Jews killed Christ and deserved to be destroyed because of it. At best he was a Deist:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"His [the Jewish person's] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties—and this against their own nation."

Calling what the Nazis did as the result of Science is ridiculous.

Regards,
Mg

So you are saying (((they))) didnt kill Christ? How can you say he was a deist and then in the next few paragraphs give quotes clearly outlining his christian faith? His antisemitism while having historical backing from religion was not brought about because of religious doctrine nor was he on a crusade to genocide Jews.

The above is exactly what Baler was talking about. Love how you come in here all "SCIENCE" and then go into a bunch of hyperbole based on repeated information.

[mgellan]

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

I'm glad you agree with me. (double negative makes a positive).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
This time it says Strong not complete. There is that better?

blame google for defining faith as being complete.

I don't disagree with you. You demonstrate my point with your definition that faith is believing stuff without evidence.

Regards,
Mg

[mgellan]

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

His antisemitism while having historical backing from religion was not brought about because of religious doctrine nor was he on a crusade to genocide Jews.

The point being refuted was Hitler genocided Jews because of science, which is clearly not true given his religiously motivated statements.

Regards,
Mg

[Ravager]

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

Difference is, with science one can determine the veracity of claims if they like :/

This isn't exactly the difference of Science and Religion, but it's close. The strength of a theory is not in what it can explain, it is in what it can accurately predict. This is where every single religious theory falls flat on its face. While "God did it" serves as an explanation, it tells you nothing new about a phenomenon, nor can you use that theory to make any kind of accurate prediction of what you expect to find about the phenomenon.

For example, with the Theory of Evolution there have been thousands of predictions made about the kinds of fossils we'd expect find in the ground without explicitly knowing about them first that proved to be true. Intelligent Design could not have made those predictions, nor can anyone make any predictions about what they can expect to find given Intelligent Design as a premise. It's a useless theory.

With Science, you're not doing anything more than making a guess about what you are observing. Then, using that guess you make predictions about what you can and cannot expect to observe if your guess is true. For instance, if you guess that hail is caused by ice makers in the sky, you would predict that if you were to go up to the sky in a hail storm you'd see some ice makers plugged into a cloud. If you go up there and see no ice makers, you would predict that there is no hail. If you do go up in the sky during a hail storm to test your theory, and you find no ice-makers, but it's still hailing, you know your theory is wrong and it's time to make another guess.

Religion makes guesses (guesses that quite frequently contradict each other), but it doesn't test guesses and the guesses it makes predict nothing. That is the difference between Science and Religion.

[maskedmelon]

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

This isn't exactly the difference of Science and Religion, but it's close. The strength of a theory is not in what it can explain, it is in what it can accurately predict. This is where every single religious theory falls flat on its face. While "God did it" serves as an explanation, it tells you nothing new about a phenomenon, nor can you use that theory to make any kind of accurate prediction of what you expect to find about the phenomenon.

.....

Religion makes guesses (guesses that quite frequently contradict each other), but it doesn't test guesses and the guesses it makes predict nothing. That is the difference between Science and Religion.

Intelligence is the ability to reliably predict outcomes ^^Science is a method of learning. The fundamental distinction between faith based claims and scientific claims is that is that scientific claims can be tested while their supernatural counterparts cannot be tested. Both can make predictions, but neither matters if you are unable to test the predictive capacity.

For example, Christianity teaches Christ will return, people who accept Christ will go to heaven and those who do not will go to hell.

Those are all predictions. You cannot test any of them though. That was my point ^^