- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 16,560
- Reaction score
- 10,794
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I don't care where the difference came from. The fact is that there is a difference. And you arguing otherwise is insane. My knowledge that elevators are generally safe isn't "faith" and your belief in god is. You are trying to break down the work faith so that your views don't seem silly and so that you don't have to defend them and you aren't able to do it with me. I know the meanings and you are obviously wrong.On the contrary, you've made a rather large one. First the arbitrary division in the definition of faith originates around the time of Kant. Faith was separated into that which was rational, and that which was considered irrational. There were reasons for this that had to do with the Catholic Church at the time, and a host of others which have no bearing on this discussion. It's an exhaustive topic in and of itself. I would have no objection to such a delineation except that somehow the differentiation has become a spring board for denigration of religious faith.
Science says nothing about "complete lucidity". But if you want to know how it's coming, it's coming much better than any bull**** that you've been sold by a religion. Because science doesn't follow faith.Science endeavors to uncover all of the truths of the universe to achieve complete lucidity. How's that coming?
You are arguing that because science has not figured out every single thing that therefor it's the same as religion. That's complete bull****. You are making a false argument that it is all or nothing so that you can throw out all of the findings we have in science and act like it's the same as religion which has given us virtually nothing. That argument is so disingenuous it's not even funny. Is this really what you're going to resort to? You can't defend your faith therefor you're going to try to tear down science with the argument that it hasn't figured out everything? And by muddying the definitions of faith? Ridiculous.Looks like those supporting that view have a long way to go to produce the evidence that such can be achieved.
You made up a stated objective. Science has never claimed that it's goal is to "uncover all truths". You are just plain making **** up and comparing things that aren't comparable.It seems, then, that taken at face value today, faith in science has the very same attributes as faith in religion. As it stands, no empirical evidence exists that either one has offered it's stated objectives. As such, they are on equally bad footing by the very measure you claim.