But that is exactly the point, science is malleable, assumptions are made based on observation and if later on new discoveries are made thanks to the advancement of technology those assumptions can be revised. That is the beauty of science and what most strongly differentiates it from religion. There is no "faith" as you described in science because it IS changeable, as opposing to religion which from the very definition cannot be changed. Faith stops change, it ends rational though and makes observation and learning impossible.Nieroshai said:In my view, even science has not really been able to undeniably prove anything, and any ethical scientist will say any law at all can and will have to be revised in the future. Science isn't set in stone.So "fact" is as much faith as my beliefs, but justified by claiming to be based on observations, which are often fallible.icaritos said:So your belief stems mostly from the "god within the cracks" ideology. I'm not criticism you but that is still mostly (if not 100%) faith, rather than fact.Nieroshai said:My reasoning with atheists is about the possibility of the supernatural existing, and the fact that scientists haven't yet invented something that can detect psionic presence doesn't mean it does not exist, in fact quantum theory shows how it's possible. To other religions, I look for loopholes in their religions and ask them to do the same to me. One must believe in the supernatural in order to believe in God, so I don't argue God with atheists, only the possibility of the immaaterial.Nimcha said:You find your religion reasonable because of your belief I suppose. That's fine. But also irrelevant since you can't reason about that belief to someone who doesn't share it.Nieroshai said:But I do find mine reasonable. I myself joined it because I could not reason against its reality, I have defended it using reason, etc. Just because others don't doesn't mean the whole religion is like that. The apostle Paul was a philosopher that convinced people to join through reason and debate. Being reasonable and having reasonable premises doesn't make ANY belief the absolute truth, however, because science is unable to prove or disprove, thus leaving "proof" up to philosophers to find holes in arguments.Nimcha said:Oh sure, I find religion interesting from an anthropological standpoint. And I sometimes like having an insight in how religious zealots think. Maybe I should have written 'belief is not meant to be reasonable'.Nieroshai said:One COULD argue that religion is about reason, just from a different philosophy. But I respect your right not to be curious.Nimcha said:Like any other person I think. I never reason with them about their own religion simply because religion isn't supposed to be reasonable. Besides that I have only ever met a few people who were the close-minded religion type, and that was because they didn't like me dating their daughter. That's when I learned there is no point in even trying to reason with such people.
But I digress. I don't want to hijack this thread, so suffice to say I don't worship on blind faith alone.
The key difference here is that when a scientists observes something the mindset is "here is some evidence, lets find out the result". The religious mindset however is closer to "here is the result, now how can we make this evidence fit into it".
Sorry but while i believe everyone is entitled 100% to their own religious belief, don't try to correlate something that has changed almost every single year since the dawn of mankind with a belief based on a 2000 year old book. Believing on the weight of factual, tangible evidence can't be even remotely compared to believing in some archaic concept of creation, perpetuated by a invisible father figure. To even suggest such is quite frankly a bit ridiculous.