What are you fucking blabbering about now?
Does religion require a leap of faith?
- Thread starter Lord Vutulaki
- Start date
I'm explained that my location on this planet isn't by chance but by the grace of God.
I also let you know that on average 2-4 people die of snake bites in Australia so not as hellish as you want us to believe, perhaps there's more Christians than you are aware of?
Then I did a victory lap.
We have the largest most widely and strategically distributed stockpile of scientifically developed anti venom on earth, thats why not many die, we have in excess of 3,000 snake bites per year here.
Science just crip walked its victory lap
Your stock pile sucks, start praying.We have the largest most widely and strategically distributed stockpile of scientifically developed anti venom on earth, thats why not many die, we have in excess of 3,000 snake bites per year here.
Science just crip walked its victory lap
By June 2016, the world may have run out of snakebite antivenom
Go and read the article you posted, we dont give a fuck about sub saharan snake bite victims, not our problem, thats Europe's problem mate
There is no Vutu, only Ladyboy
Except that test results can be (and are) incorrectly reported.
I missed you Super Dave.
Sure but a standard for testing exists within the method, no such thing exists with religion.
Not true. Someone publishing a study can publish whatever results they choose. They can be disproved later, but it's tough to put that genie back into the bottle once it's been reported.
P
Punch
Guest
Science has plenty of theories that are unproven as well. These contradict one another.
P
Punch
Guest
Also, you can't point to 200 people and say that they aren't the exception.
I get what you're saying, and I generally agree with you. But I just want to clarify that a theological leap of faith is very different than a scientific one. This is the kind of comparison that groups such as Christian fundamentalists like to exploit (not saying that's your view, just giving an example).
The phrase 'leap of faith' applies to both science and religion, it's just the context that is differing.
In religion it would mean believeing in a literal interpretation of the Bible, believing a virgin gave birth, believeing Jesus performed miracles, and that he died and was resurrected, the earth is 6000 years old, etc.
In science (and I'm referring to the hard sciences) a leap of faith is made following the scientific method - formulating a hypothesis, conducting testing and experimentation, observation, evaluation of data, and ultimately re-evaluating the hypothesis. And where I believe they differ is that science is conducted with the intention of demonstrating or proving a fact/truth that was previously unknown. In that regard, religion has no track record.
(I'll go back to being a defensive scientist elsewhere now
)
Scientific studies have to withstand the rigors of peer reviews, reviews by peers who are mainly set out to disprove them.
What authority is religion reviewed by? According to the bible 75% of every human being who will ever live is condemned to hell, where's the proof?
I showed you a scientific method of proving water is h2o
Show me a method of proving that those who arent baptized and believe in the gospel are destined to hell, no circular reasoning please.
NO YOU FUCKING PRICK I NEED YOU HERE!(I'll go back to being a defensive scientist elsewhere now
P
Punch
Guest
Here's a perfect example of why i don't see science and faith as mutually exclusive: the 6000 year thing.I get what you're saying, and I generally agree with you. But I just want to clarify that a theological leap of faith is very different than a scientific one. This is the kind of comparison that groups such as Christian fundamentalists like to exploit (not saying that's your view, just giving an example).
The phrase 'leap of faith' applies to both science and religion, it's just the context that is differing.
In religion it would mean believeing in a literal interpretation of the Bible, believing a virgin gave birth, believeing Jesus performed miracles, and that he died and was resurrected, the earth is 6000 years old, etc.
In science (and I'm referring to the hard sciences) a leap of faith is made following the scientific method - formulating a hypothesis, conducting testing and experimentation, observation, evaluation of data, and ultimately re-evaluating the hypothesis. And where I believe they differ is that science is conducted with the intention of demonstrating or proving a fact/truth that was previously unknown. In that regard, religion has no track record.
(I'll go back to being a defensive scientist elsewhere now
It was marked down that way by James Ussher taking the interpretation of all the recorded generations in the bible, and adding the "7 days".
Here's where i differ greatly from many of my fellow theologians.
What is a "day" to God? If someone were to think of it as a day to man, i feel they are sadly mistaken. The universe is 14 billion years old according to current science. I'd say a "day" to God equaling 2 billion years seems properly majestic.
Because science doesnt set out to prove preconceived ideas, it TESTS them and reports back unbiased (if using the scientific method)
The bible claimed the world is 6,000 years old, science said "Okay lets see about that" and proved the bible wrong beyond any possible doubt
Unless you want to go the "well, carbon dating is only accurate up to a window of 60 years" route
P
Punch
Guest
Then why use the term a "day" why not a period of time, was god retarded?Here's a perfect example of why i don't see science and faith as mutually exclusive: the 6000 year thing.
It was marked down that way by James Ussher taking the interpretation of all the recorded generations in the bible, and adding the "7 days".
Here's where i differ greatly from many of my fellow theologians.
What is a "day" to God? If someone were to think of it as a day to man, i feel they are sadly mistaken. The universe is 14 billion years old according to current science. I'd say a "day" to God equaling 2 billion years seems properly majestic.
P
Punch
Guest
Bible never claimed that. A man named James Ussher did.
P
Punch
Guest
What is a day to God?
Yeah my atheist boys will jump you from behindStarts discussion "brawl". Asks for backup.
Remind me never to drink with you.
Okay which is the original bible and where can I download a PDF version?
Well fuck was he talking to himself, wanting us to read his mind, trying to fuck us over knowing you and I would be having this exact same conversation instead of wrestling him in order to keep our foreskins?
Sort of true. As I said someone can publish whatever they want, with whatever outlandish headline they deem fit and it's up to everyone else to prove them wrong. There are so many examples of incorrect scientific "facts" that are regularly stated they couldn't even be counted.
The rest of your post is irrelevant as I'm not stating that Religion doesn't require a leap of faith. I'm simply stating that belief in science requires a similar leap being as science is an entirely human perpetuated concept.