Not quite the way faith requires belief. Science is a method that LEADS to belief . . . belief based upon evidence and valid logic. The scientist believes what he sees.
This is true. Belief is without question the starting point of faith--it's also the end point. The faithful sees what he believes.
Wrong. This is the faulty paradigm of the faithful. The faithful demand that reality is subject to their beliefs--that by believing hard enough they can make something real. Ask the faithful about the power of prayer. It's a hoot!
Wrong. This is how the superstitious understand reality--percieving something to be real is what makes it real. When a scientist discovers something about reality, the validity of that discovery is validated by evidence and/or valid logic--NOT belief.
Your friend is wrong--you don't have to believe the promise first; but if you do, you're excersizing faith. If you suspend your belief until you have evidence, then you are not excersizing faith, but rather rationality.
No. You still have the belief that the detergent gets your clothes clean, just now your belief is based on evidence, rather than faith--you have a rational belief.
Wrong. Faith is belief unfounded in evidence or belief held in denial of contrary evidence. If you have no evidence that validates the promise--or the evidence contradicts the promise--yet you still believe that the promise is valid, you are excercising faith.
No. YOU might have faith that scientists will eventually cure things, as well as invent newer and better stuff, but scientists are just describing reality based on evidence available to them, and applying the knowledge gained in a manner consistent with their understanding of reality.
I have. You should too. But for real.
Wow. Fascinating.
What makes you presume I'm ingnoring any evidence? What you've managed to present is nothing more than the assertion that some scientists somewhere have demonstrated that when folks use their brains to pray, bio-feedback machines can detect them using their brains**. BRAVO!
First, I'd like to point out that both of my predictions appear to be valid so far.
I can only assume this baseless assumption is presented to divert attention from the fact that your ass has been thoroughly handed to you.
First, I'd like to point out that both of my predictions appear to be valid so far.
Secondly, I'd like to point out to you that cheeseburgers and mangos are undigested food, and ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Just like cud and feces are not the same thing.
I can only assume this baseless assumption is presented to divert attention from the fact that your ass has been thoroughly handed to you.
You're right, it doesn't--but theres no evidence that suggests that God made us all; you just believe it anyway.
This depends upon your threshold of proof--the evidence certianly supports the notion that all life shares common ancestry.
There's no evidence that suggests that God facilitated our development; you just believe it anyway.
This much is true; the faithful are stioc and definitive in their certainty they're correct--despite the fact that the evidence contradicts their certainty.
The capacity to revise ones beliefs to accomodate a better understanding of reality is the hallmark of an open mind--the refusal to revise ones beliefs in the face of contradicting evidence is the hallmark of arrogant stupidity.
Sure they have. Take the biology of the rabbit for example.
The superstitious always seem to think that their stoicly obtuse denial of reality drives anyone nuts--it's a notion consistent with their conviction of certainty in the of the reality of things for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established..
I also pointed out that they are not the same thing--that they are distinctly different from each other--a reality you insist upon denying.
Yet, again, cud and feces are not the same thing--that they are distinctly different from each other--a reality you insist upon denying.
It's clearly not. Cud is brought up from a fore stomache, through the throat, into the mouth--just as it is understood in the Bible. Feces, OTOH, passes entirely through the digestive system and exits via the anus.
Again; denial of reality.
Your certainty in the fact that I'm angry is yet another denial of reality.
The notion that someone who confuses cud and feces should have some informed opinion on intelligent behavior is just riotous.
All of which had at least one intellectual leg up on you, in that they had some kind of notion that there's a distinct difference (even if it's only a culinary difference) between cud and feces.
Relatives of yours, I presume . . .
Do these same people refer to everything the animal chews upon as cud, or is their confusion limited to feces and cud? I'm interested in the depth of their ignorance.
No. Cud comes, as previously explained, throught the throat, into the mouth--feces is different in that it passes through the digestive tract entirely.
