Fact, Belief, and Faith

[Revoltingest]

No joke! Again . . .
Your attack of the science of evolution and the scientific method.....

Oh...please stop....I might wet myself!

 

[Skwim]

I believe atheists respond to religion from a deep, emotional place of faith, rather than fact.

I think they approach religion with more rational considerations than do believers.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh...please stop....I might wet myself!

Adult diapers may help your incontinence.

Again . . .

Your attack of the science of evolution and the scientific method of falsification are very very suspicious of false representation of your beliefs. There are others on this cite that have done the same thing. Denton did this as s a phony advocate of of scientific Intelligent Design.

Your phony use of bogus "evolution by chance," and your selective bogus attack on Popper's falsification smells rotten of Creationism.

Tell me if not the natural course of our physical existence and natural origin and evolution of life; 'What is your explanation of the evidence?'

 

[Skwim]

I think your idea of faith in incomplete. In my mind, faith is having a belief that is considered to be true without any proof.

Absolutely, which is why I said that it's basis, belief, is "The acceptance that a non-factual thing exists or is true."

And then based on that belief, living your life accordingly as if the belief were a fact. I don't know about all the "trust" connotations you are adding to the word faith.

I'm not. I'm "adding" trust to belief, which in turn begets faith.

.

 

[Skwim]

It's funny how people who believe in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism simply cannot accept the results of quantum experiments:

Who says we can't? What we, at least I, can't accept is the atrocious video you've presented. As shunyadragon points out, it's bogus, and If it wasn't so filled with crap I might address some of its faults, but I have far better things to do. My suggestion is that you find some other source for your science information other than Christian apologetic videos.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

Who says we can't? What we, at least I, can't accept is the atrocious video you've presented. As shunyadragon points out, it's bogus, and If it wasn't so filled with crap I might address some of its faults, but I have far better things to do. My suggestion is that you find some other source for your science information other than Christian apologetic videos.

.

This video has been discredited point by point in previous threads. There is no need to address it any further.

Like social diseases, boomerangs, counterfeit money, and stray dogs it will likely return again and again.

. . . also undercover theists claiming to be atheists.

 

[sayak83]

But F=ma became dependent upon the frame of reference.
It's not as universally applicable as it once was. Because it
changed, it was never "true", even though it was factual.

And I'll bet your left one that if QM &GR are ever reconciled,
both of those theories will be merely special cases for something
more comprehensive. So were they true or not? I say not.
But they're useful.

While I understand what you are getting at, I think most folks would like to preserve true and false as words applicable outside the real of strict deductive statements. Of interest here is the epistemology of fallibilism
https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallibil/

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Several definitions I put together tonight while bored and watching Frasier. ... (Put in the Science Religion forum because facts are the operational basis of science whereas faith is the operational basis of religion.)

Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case.

Fact is rooted in conviction that a thing is confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold acceptance* The core of science and day-to-day living.

​

Belief: The acceptance that a non-factual thing exists or is true.

An occasional encouragement in our day-to-day musings. It serves as the basis of faith.

​

Faith: Trust in a belief.

For some, the balm of everyday concerns. Most notably, the trust put in the supernatural and some religious writings. For others, it's simply the confidence that the other guy at the intersection isn't going to T-bone you as you proceed.​

Okay, it's bedtime, any deletions, revisions, or ?



* With a nod to Stephen Jay Gould

.

My working definitions:

Fact - a linguistic string that accurately maps some aspect of reality, with reality being the collection of things that exist and processes that occur, and knowledge being the collection of facts

Belief - any idea considered true or likely true. Degree of belief can range from likely to certain.

Faith - unsupported or insufficiently supported belief (another definition of faith is justified belief, such as having faith that one's car will start in the morning based on the last 200 successful trials, but I avoid the use of the word faith in such cases because of the ambiguity).​

Here's another:

Proof - that which convinces​

 

[shunyadragon]

While I understand what you are getting at, I think most folks would like to preserve true and false as words applicable outside the real of strict deductive statements. Of interest here is the epistemology of fallibilism
https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallibil/

I consider fallibilism an important philosophical concept that limits human ability to make "Truth Claims," Science reduces the influence of fallibilism by its redundancy of research, and the continuous skepticism and the evolving nature of the knowledge of theories and hypothesis of science.

 

[Skwim]

Here's another:

Proof - that which convinces​

In as much as one could also say this applies to "evidence," It think the definition would have to be narrower. I suggest a general dictionary definition such as.

noun: proof;

1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

In science "proof" is restricted mathematics and logic, and in a much different sense to alcohol content.

.

 

[Revoltingest]

. . . also undercover theists claiming to be atheists.

Like a dog who won't let go a stick,
is a Poe who who won't give up his shtick.
Or is he not feigning
his endless complaining?
So perhaps he's just being......

You'll have to imagine the last line to this limerick.
(I donna wanna get banned.)
It's a good'n!

 

[shunyadragon]

Like a dog who won't let go a stick,
is a Poe who who won't give up his shtick.
Or is he not feigning
his endless complaining?
So perhaps he's......

You'll have to imagine the last line to this limerick.
(I donna wanna get banned.)
It's a good'n!

Amazing self-reflective limerick on your never ending fallacious mindless complaining erroneous argument against the science of evolution. The last line is yours . . .

Still waiting . . .

 

[Revoltingest]

Amazing self-reflective limerick on your never ending fallacious erroneous argument against the science of evolution. The last line is yours . . .

Still waiting . . .

Oh, you.....with your dedication to this comedy routine,
I expected a snappier retort....a clever rhyme perchance!

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh, you.....with your dedication to this comedy routine,
I expected a snappier retort....a clever rhyme perchance!

Like a scot who won't let go a rope,
is a Poe who won't take up the soap.
Or is he not feigning
his endless complaining?
So perhaps he's going out with the goat.

I do not trust scots who go out with goats.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Revoltingest]

Like a scot who won't let go a rope,
is a Poe who won't take up the soap.
Or is he not feigning
his endless complaining?
So perhaps he's going out with the goat.

I do not trust scots who go out with goats.

Still waiting . . .

I expect something more original than that.
And you're not even on topic. Anyone can
just ape another's work with a random topic.
So no, no, no....that will not do.

 

[shunyadragon]

I expect something more original than that.
And you're not even on topic. Anyone can
just ape another's work with a random topic.
So no, no, no....that will not do.

Your attack of the science of evolution and the scientific method of falsification are very very suspicious of false representation of your beliefs. There others on this cite that have done the same thing. Denton did this as s a phony advocate of Intelligent Design.

Your phony use of bogus "evolution by chance," and your selective bogus attack on Popper's falsification smells rotten of Creationism.

Tell me if not the natural course of our physical existence and natural origin and evolution of life; 'What is your explanation of the evidence?'

Still waiting on topic . . .

 

[Revoltingest]

Your attack of the science of evolution and the scientific method of falsification are very very suspicious of false representation of your beliefs. There others on this cite that have done the same thing. Denton did this as s a phony advocate of Intelligent Design.

Your phony use of bogus "evolution by chance," and your selective bogus attack on Popper's falsification smells rotten of Creationism.

Tell me if not the natural course of our physical existence and natural origin and evolution of life; 'What is your explanation of the evidence?'

Still waiting on topic . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Your attack of the science of evolution and the scientific method of falsification are very very suspicious of false representation of your beliefs. There others on this cite that have done the same thing. Denton did this as s a phony advocate of Intelligent Design.

Your phony use of bogus "evolution by chance," and your selective bogus attack on Popper's falsification smells rotten of Creationism.

Tell me if not the natural course of our physical existence and natural origin and evolution of life; 'What is your explanation of the evidence?'

Still waiting on topic . . .

 

[Revoltingest]

Your attack of the science of evolution and the scientific method of falsification are very very suspicious of false representation of your beliefs. There others on this cite that have done the same thing. Denton did this as s a phony advocate of Intelligent Design.

Your phony use of bogus "evolution by chance," and your selective bogus attack on Popper's falsification smells rotten of Creationism.

Tell me if not the natural course of our physical existence and natural origin and evolution of life; 'What is your explanation of the evidence?'

Still waiting on topic . . .

Even dolphins can appreciate your brand of comedy.

 

[shunyadragon]

Even dolphins can appreciate your brand of comedy.

Your attack of the science of evolution and the scientific method of falsification are very very suspicious of false representation of your beliefs. There others on this cite that have done the same thing. Denton did this as s a phony advocate of Intelligent Design.

Your phony use of bogus "evolution by chance," and your selective bogus attack on Popper's falsification smells rotten of Creationism.

Tell me if not the natural course of our physical existence and natural origin and evolution of life; 'What is your explanation of the evidence?'

Still waiting on topic . . .