If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[Hasbinlulz]

What a maroon.

[theaetatus]

Nice try quoting half of the definition....

"2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof:"

As the scientific method only applies to definition 1, we can agree that 'faith' in science and 'faith in religion' are indeed two different things linked only by semantics.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by theaetatus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nice try quoting half of the definition....

THAT IS NOT HOW DICTIONARIES WORK

Each definition is complete unto itself, and only one applies to a given context of a word. For instance, revolution can apply to motion or society, but they are different meanings and you would not use one definition to think of the other.

[theaetatus]

Also, I pointed out the uncertain nature of our own perception and sense-data previously. As this applies to everything we know, it is hardly a reason for equating the two things.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by theaetatus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also, I pointed out the uncertain nature of our own perception and sense-data previously. As this applies to everything we know, it is hardly a reason for equating the two things.

I'm not attempting to equate science with religion. I am saying they are both faith based systems. That is not an equivalence in any way but semantically if you understand what the faiths are based in.

[Hasbinlulz]

That being said, you absolutely have it sort of right. Faith in the scientific method is based on it working most of the time, and faith in religion is based in chicken bones and ox blood, but they are both still faith, even tho slightly different in origin and validity.

[theaetatus]

So we can agree that the definition of 'faith' when applied to science and 'faith' when applied to religion are two totally different things, making such comments as 'science and religion are both faith-based' downright fallacious at worst and disingenuous word-play at best.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by theaetatus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So we can agree that the definition of 'faith' when applied to science and 'faith' when applied to religion are two totally different things, making such comments as 'science and religion are both faith-based' downright fallacious at worst and disingenuous word-play at best.

Absolutely not. They are equally faith based, but in my opinion faith placed in the scientific method is EXTREMELY valid, whereas faith placed in religion is not.

[theaetatus]

Such statements are analogous to: "Peasants and faeces are essentially the same, they are both revolting", or to use your own example, "Society and wheels are essentially the same. They are both prone to revolution."

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by theaetatus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Such statements are analogous to: "Peasants and faeces are essentially the same, they are both revolting", or to use your own example, "Society and wheels are essentially the same. They are both prone to revolution."

No it's not lol. Those are different definitions being abused. The same definition of faith applies to science as it does to religion, but one is foolish and the other not so much.