| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Cardiology Forum » What is faith?
Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dubh Ghall |
 Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:50:15 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org>
wrote:
Quote: On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:33:09 -0500, Phobos wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:16:52 -0500, monkfish wrote (in message
lPudnaMhMqFZBo7VnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@ptd.net>):
Do you have faith in the scientific method?
I believe the scientific method will give us answers.
Believing something, like the scientific method, and having faith in
something, liek a God, are two different things. If you cannot
understand that and do not know the difference, then no sense continuing
since we are not using the same meanings of the words.
What does it mean for you to "believe"
in the scientific method?
It means that the evidence has shown, that the scientific method
works.
Quote: Is it rather like to believe in logic?
Not exactly.
Logic has many uses. It comes into play as a *discipline* of users of
the scientific method.
An excellent example is Occam's Razor.
Unfortunately it also comes into play in philosophy, and theology, in
which instances it can give subjectives, and other utter bullshite, a
veneer of quasi-validity.
Quote: But is the scientific method logically true?
The question is meaningless outside of a philosophical, or
theological, debate; You might as well ask "Is red more real than
blue?"
Science, OTOH, is about reality, which, in my experience, has no place
in the fantasy world of philosophers, and theologians.
Quote: What is the scientific method?
If you do not already know that, then it makes your previous question,
rather dishonest.
Of course, if you do know, then it makes this question, dishonest.
Quote: Is it even falsifiable?
I suspect that you are just plucking words out of the air, and
stringing them together.
So, before we go any farther, explain what is meant by
"falsifiability", within the scientific community, because I don't
think that you know.
You might have changed you nym, but method, remains the same. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:53:54 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
Quote: On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:50:15 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:33:09 -0500, Phobos wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:16:52 -0500, monkfish wrote (in message
lPudnaMhMqFZBo7VnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@ptd.net>):
Do you have faith in the scientific method?
I believe the scientific method will give us answers.
Believing something, like the scientific method, and having faith in
something, liek a God, are two different things. If you cannot
understand that and do not know the difference, then no sense
continuing since we are not using the same meanings of the words.
What does it mean for you to "believe" in the scientific method?
It means that the evidence has shown, that the scientific method works.
Is it rather like to believe in logic?
Not exactly.
Logic has many uses. It comes into play as a *discipline* of users of
the scientific method.
An excellent example is Occam's Razor.
Unfortunately it also comes into play in philosophy, and theology, in
which instances it can give subjectives, and other utter bullshite, a
veneer of quasi-validity.
But is the scientific method logically true?
The question is meaningless outside of a philosophical, or theological,
debate; You might as well ask "Is red more real than blue?"
Science, OTOH, is about reality, which, in my experience, has no place
in the fantasy world of philosophers, and theologians.
What is the scientific method?
If you do not already know that, then it makes your previous question,
rather dishonest.
Of course, if you do know, then it makes this question, dishonest.
Is it even falsifiable?
I suspect that you are just plucking words out of the air, and stringing
them together.
So, before we go any farther, explain what is meant by "falsifiability",
within the scientific community, because I don't think that you know.
You might have changed you nym, but method, remains the same.
You seem to think the scientific method is
something fixed, unchanging, and eternal.
Think again, please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method
It's an evolving set of faith.
Is the scientific method falsifiable?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dubh Ghall |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:01:02 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org>
wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:53:54 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:50:15 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:33:09 -0500, Phobos wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:16:52 -0500, monkfish wrote (in message
lPudnaMhMqFZBo7VnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@ptd.net>):
Do you have faith in the scientific method?
I believe the scientific method will give us answers.
Believing something, like the scientific method, and having faith in
something, liek a God, are two different things. If you cannot
understand that and do not know the difference, then no sense
continuing since we are not using the same meanings of the words.
What does it mean for you to "believe" in the scientific method?
It means that the evidence has shown, that the scientific method works.
Is it rather like to believe in logic?
Not exactly.
Logic has many uses. It comes into play as a *discipline* of users of
the scientific method.
An excellent example is Occam's Razor.
Unfortunately it also comes into play in philosophy, and theology, in
which instances it can give subjectives, and other utter bullshite, a
veneer of quasi-validity.
But is the scientific method logically true?
The question is meaningless outside of a philosophical, or theological,
debate; You might as well ask "Is red more real than blue?"
Science, OTOH, is about reality, which, in my experience, has no place
in the fantasy world of philosophers, and theologians.
What is the scientific method?
If you do not already know that, then it makes your previous question,
rather dishonest.
Of course, if you do know, then it makes this question, dishonest.
Is it even falsifiable?
I suspect that you are just plucking words out of the air, and stringing
them together.
So, before we go any farther, explain what is meant by "falsifiability",
within the scientific community, because I don't think that you know.
You might have changed you nym, but method, remains the same.
You seem to think the scientific method is
something fixed, unchanging, and eternal.
It is, pretty well.
It is a bit like cooking.
The modern Blue Riband Chef, uses the same basic methods as out fore
bears used once they had discovered fire?
I'll grand you that today's high tech kitchen would be totally beyond
the comprehension of Ug, but he would soon learn where to put his leg
of mammoth, to get it properly charred.
So also with the scientific method.
I can only assume from that, that you do not know.
You are trying to test us on something about which you know sweet
Fanny Adams.
That is dishonest. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:05:07 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:01:02 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:53:54 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:50:15 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:33:09 -0500, Phobos wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:16:52 -0500, monkfish wrote (in message
lPudnaMhMqFZBo7VnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@ptd.net>):
Do you have faith in the scientific method?
I believe the scientific method will give us answers.
Believing something, like the scientific method, and having faith in
something, liek a God, are two different things. If you cannot
understand that and do not know the difference, then no sense
continuing since we are not using the same meanings of the words.
What does it mean for you to "believe" in the scientific method?
It means that the evidence has shown, that the scientific method
works.
Is it rather like to believe in logic?
Not exactly.
Logic has many uses. It comes into play as a *discipline* of users of
the scientific method.
An excellent example is Occam's Razor.
Unfortunately it also comes into play in philosophy, and theology, in
which instances it can give subjectives, and other utter bullshite, a
veneer of quasi-validity.
But is the scientific method logically true?
The question is meaningless outside of a philosophical, or
theological, debate; You might as well ask "Is red more real than
blue?"
Science, OTOH, is about reality, which, in my experience, has no place
in the fantasy world of philosophers, and theologians.
What is the scientific method?
If you do not already know that, then it makes your previous question,
rather dishonest.
Of course, if you do know, then it makes this question, dishonest.
Is it even falsifiable?
I suspect that you are just plucking words out of the air, and
stringing them together.
So, before we go any farther, explain what is meant by
"falsifiability", within the scientific community, because I don't
think that you know.
You might have changed you nym, but method, remains the same.
You seem to think the scientific method is something fixed, unchanging,
and eternal.
It is, pretty well.
It is a bit like cooking.
The modern Blue Riband Chef, uses the same basic methods as out fore
bears used once they had discovered fire?
I'll grand you that today's high tech kitchen would be totally beyond
the comprehension of Ug, but he would soon learn where to put his leg of
mammoth, to get it properly charred.
So also with the scientific method.
Think again, please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method It's an evolving set of
faith.
I can only assume from that, that you do not know.
You are trying to test us on something about which you know sweet Fanny
Adams.
That is dishonest.
The scientific method itself is not falsifiable.
"Taking Science on Faith" By PAUL DAVIES
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?
ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
IN the New York Times
November 24, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Taking Science on Faith
By PAUL DAVIES
Tempe, Ariz.
SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge
about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by
contrast, is based on faith. The term “doubting Thomas” well illustrates
the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional
necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is
regarded as a virtue.
The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,”
as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has
its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption
that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t
be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of
odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper
level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their
instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical
order. And so far this faith has been justified.
The most refined expression of the rational intelligibility of the cosmos
is found in the laws of physics, the fundamental rules on which nature
runs. The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, the laws that
regulate the world within the atom, the laws of motion — all are
expressed as tidy mathematical relationships. But where do these laws
come from? And why do they have the form that they do?
When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off
limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws
and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated
as “given” — imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment
of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist,
you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable,
immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified
origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t
wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of
light changing by the hour.
Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of
physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific
question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason
they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist
reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a
scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered
logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one
traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the
laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a
mockery of science.
Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about
us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a
fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow
masquerading as ingenious order and rationality.
Although scientists have long had an inclination to shrug aside such
questions concerning the source of the laws of physics, the mood has now
shifted considerably. Part of the reason is the growing acceptance that
the emergence of life in the universe, and hence the existence of
observers like ourselves, depends rather sensitively on the form of the
laws. If the laws of physics were just any old ragbag of rules, life
would almost certainly not exist.
A second reason that the laws of physics have now been brought within the
scope of scientific inquiry is the realization that what we long regarded
as absolute and universal laws might not be truly fundamental at all, but
more like local bylaws. They could vary from place to place on a mega-
cosmic scale. A God’s-eye view might reveal a vast patchwork quilt of
universes, each with its own distinctive set of bylaws. In this
“multiverse,” life will arise only in those patches with bio-friendly
bylaws, so it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a Goldilocks
universe — one that is just right for life. We have selected it by our
very existence.
The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much
explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a
physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them.
This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come
from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the
universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.
Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely,
on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an
unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge
ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic
religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of
physical existence.
This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical
law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many
scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute,
universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God
created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage
God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while
physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent
realm of perfect mathematical relationships.
And just as Christians claim that the world depends utterly on God for
its existence, while the converse is not the case, so physicists declare
a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by eternal laws (or meta-
laws), but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the
universe.
It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical
universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-
laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The
alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern
as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together
within a common explanatory scheme.
In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the
universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics
of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science
comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to
be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
Paul Davies is the director of Beyond, a research center at Arizona State
University, and the author of “Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just
Right for Life.” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dubh Ghall |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:38:36 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org>
wrote:
Quote: I think even atheists need faith in something
to be able to function in this world.
But not *blind* faith, only trust in the empirically tried and tested. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dubh Ghall |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:16:52 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org>
wrote:
Quote: Do you have faith in the scientific method?
Dishonest semantics.
Besides: In science, faith is irrelevant |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:18:24 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
Quote: On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:16:52 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
Do you have faith in the scientific method?
Dishonest semantics.
Besides: In science, faith is irrelevant
Where did you get that blind faith?
Can you say the same thing without resorting to faith?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:16:58 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
Quote: On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:38:36 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
I think even atheists need faith in something to be able to function in
this world.
But not *blind* faith, only trust in the empirically tried and tested.
Good for you!
That basically means you trust other people.
Of course, we all prefer it to be
experimentally repeatable.
But we cannot always have it our way.
It all comes down to whether you are going to trust
the eyewitnesses of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I can understand why you just cannot believe them.
But we need to figure out what the resurrection means
in terms of modern scientific worldview.
Many people believed that
a certain animal is the ancestor of them.
Some still do.
We can see why they would say that.
Can you see why anyone would say that
she saw a bodily resurrected person?
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to say that
he didn't die or she saw a ghost?
Was the idea of bodily resurrection
in vogue at that time?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dubh Ghall |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:14:06 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org>
wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:05:07 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:01:02 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
snip
You are trying to test us on something about which you know sweet Fanny
Adams.
That is dishonest.
The scientific method itself is not falsifiable.
So if you know that also, then your question wrt it, was also
dishonest.
You see, this is the sort of thing that makes me ask if you are
capable of civilised discourse.
Clearly, you are not: or perhaps you do not consider honesty, a
prerequisite of civility? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:09:29 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:14:06 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:05:07 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:01:02 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
snip
You are trying to test us on something about which you know sweet
Fanny Adams.
That is dishonest.
The scientific method itself is not falsifiable.
So if you know that also, then your question wrt it, was also dishonest.
You see, this is the sort of thing that makes me ask if you are capable
of civilised discourse.
Clearly, you are not: or perhaps you do not consider honesty, a
prerequisite of civility?
You are being disingenuous and not even aware of it.
It was an almost, but quite, rhetorical question.
You seem to hate Christians.
Christians are told to love even their enemies.
I do my best not laugh at atheists.
Do you know of any atheist who love her enemies?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dubh Ghall |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:52:20 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org>
wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:16:58 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:38:36 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
I think even atheists need faith in something to be able to function in
this world.
But not *blind* faith, only trust in the empirically tried and tested.
Good for you!
That basically means you trust other people.
In so far as I can check their claims/work/whatever, or I have
previous observations to indicate that their words/acts, are reliable.
Quote: Of course, we all prefer it to be
experimentally repeatable.
But we cannot always have it our way.
It all comes down to whether you are going to trust
the eyewitnesses of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
You have no evidence that such ever existed, and there is nothing in
the bible, written by any of the supposed "eyewitnesses", or by your
Jesus.
Quote: I can understand why you just cannot believe them.
Actually, you have no idea why.
Quote: But we need to figure out what the resurrection means
in terms of modern scientific worldview.
It is a myth, and so has no meaning in a scientific world view.
Quote:
Many people believed that
a certain animal is the ancestor of them.
Which animal would that be?
Quote: Some still do.
We can see why they would say that.
Can you see why anyone would say that
she saw a bodily resurrected person?
What makes you so sure that she did say that?
What makes you so sure that she existed?
Why could her existence, and therefore her words, not be a fiction.
Quote: Wouldn't it be a lot easier to say that
he didn't die or she saw a ghost?
As there is no empirical evidence that your Jesus ever existed, would
it not be easier to just ignore it?
Quote: Was the idea of bodily resurrection
in vogue at that time?
Well Jesus wasn't the first, nor was he the last, to have that claim
made for him. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dubh Ghall |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:41:06 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org>
wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:18:24 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:16:52 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
Do you have faith in the scientific method?
Dishonest semantics.
Besides: In science, faith is irrelevant
Where did you get that blind faith?
Can you say the same thing without resorting to faith?
I already did. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dubh Ghall |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:34:24 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org>
wrote:
Quote: You are being disingenuous and not even aware of it.
It was an almost, but quite, rhetorical question.
You seem to hate Christians.
What makes you think that I rate xtians, that highly?
Quote: Christians are told to love even their enemies.
We know, it is another difference between us.
When xtians care, it is because they are told to, when atheists care.
it is simply because we care.
You do right, because you are told to, in your book of rules, as a
prerequisite of your entry into heaven; We do right, because it is
right to do so.
You do it for pay, we do it for charity.
Quote: I do my best not laugh at atheists.
Let your self go, kid; It will not affect us, one iota.
Quote:
Do you know of any atheist who love her enemies?
Yes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:19:03 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:52:20 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:16:58 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:38:36 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
I think even atheists need faith in something to be able to function
in this world.
But not *blind* faith, only trust in the empirically tried and tested.
Good for you!
That basically means you trust other people.
In so far as I can check their claims/work/whatever, or I have previous
observations to indicate that their words/acts, are reliable.
So you have blind faith in your judgment?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:20:37 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:41:06 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:18:24 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:16:52 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
Do you have faith in the scientific method?
Dishonest semantics.
Besides: In science, faith is irrelevant
Where did you get that blind faith?
Can you say the same thing without resorting to faith?
I already did.
Is it your blind faith
that faith is irrelevant in science?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:18 pm
|
|