Your claims are only justified to your satisfaction not mine. You can think whatever you want of me; I don't know you enough to care.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your claims are only justified to your satisfaction not mine. You can think whatever you want of me; I don't know you enough to care.Nope. At this point, I can justify my claim by quoting you, buddy. I don't need to argue for it anymore.
Would you please acknowledge that when a scientist writes a grant proposal they have faith?You know there's a lot more to science that writing grant proposals, right?
Please condense what you think they are saying into one sentence explaining why they should get funds.And a grant proposal isn't, "Give me some money, and I'll go and find evidence to support this particular conclusion for you."
Would you please acknowledge that when a scientist writes a grant proposal they have faith?
Please condense what you think they are saying into one sentence explaining why they should get funds.
Would you please acknowledge that when a scientist writes a grant proposal they have faith?
Please condense what you think they are saying into one sentence explaining why they should get funds.
More like unwilling to admit an obvious defeat.This would seem a fallacy of equivocation.
Strawman!!! Never said it was. Can you bring yourself to admit scientists have faith??They do NOT have the same kind of faith that you have in God. Let's make that abundantly clear right now.
First admit straight out that scientists have faith at all. If you won’t bring yourself to admit that they have any faith at all, it’s useless to talk about what kind.Secondly, what do you think they have faith in? Let's say a scientist is writing a grant proposal to study the effects of Drug A on Disease B. What faith do you think they have?
You accuse me of saying all of what scientists do in one sentence is wrong and when I ask for a better one sentence description, you ad hominem me.They are saying that they want to investigate a particular thing.
Honestly, you really don't seem to understand how science works.
The word "faith" carries a lot of baggage with it. People don't want to deal with all that baggage where it isn't applicable, so why not use a different word? Sort of like how a lot of Christians hate it when an atheist refers to miracles as "magic".More like unwilling to admit an obvious defeat.
Maybe the problem is that a christian has no aversion to the word faith and having experienced this, knows that faith is the same and only the objects change. Those who have an aversion to christ don’t want to touch faith of any kind with a ten foot pole. So all faith in anything or anyone is removed from their vocabulary. They don’t understand what the word means but think the object of faith defines what faith is. It doesn’t.
As I said, unbelievers have an aversion to that word. But in deference to your negative emotional connection, what word would you suggest? I’m open.The word "faith" carries a lot of baggage with it. People don't want to deal with all that baggage where it isn't applicable, so why not use a different word?
Touché although we think it’s not accurate. Faith has many objects and is a commonly used word. “Have a little faith, bro” is common.of like how a lot of Christians hate it when an atheist refers to miracles as "magic".
When there is 100% certainty there is no faith needed. I can believe it will rain Monday but come Monday and it’s raining I don’t say “I believe it’s raining” anymore. The requirement of 100% certainty is a fallacy.I mean I'll go ahead and admit that basically everything everyone believes can't be proven with 100% certainty. So everyone's belief about basically everything is "faith". Now the term is watered down to near meaninglessness, isn't it? So what is it that you're trying to argue because people don't have 100% certainty? I'd really like to see this multi-user discussion get to a point.
I dunno because I don't know what you're trying to get at by pointing it out.As I said, unbelievers have an aversion to that word. But in deference to your negative emotional connection, what word would you suggest? I’m open.
There is no 100% certainty for basically everything. Maybe it isn't raining, maybe you're dreaming.When there is 100% certainty there is no faith needed. I can believe it will rain Monday but come Monday and it’s raining I don’t say “I believe it’s raining” anymore.
It's a fallacy? Why isn't "belief without absolute proof" an acceptable definition for "faith"?The requirement of 100% certainty is a fallacy.
Strawman!!! Never said it was. Can you bring yourself to admit scientists have faith??
First admit straight out that scientists have faith at all. If you won’t bring yourself to admit that they have any faith at all, it’s useless to talk about what kind.
You accuse me of saying all of what scientists do in one sentence is wrong and when I ask for a better one sentence description, you ad hominem me.
I seem to understand science at its heart better than others. I’m not afraid of any words. You are afraid of at least one word....faith.
I said scientists have faith and asked you to admit it. You said they have a different kind of faith which I never addressed at all. That is not misrepresenting mebut answering something I didn’t say. There aren’t kinds of faith in any case except blind faith and faith based on evidence.In what way was I misrepresenting you?
Please stick to what was actually said.You used an argument that I've only ever seen used to disparage science. I was getting in before that could happen.
Not at all. But if you cannot see that scientists actually believe in their pursuits because the word is repugnant, how can we discuss it? Admit they have faith and we can discuss the details.Sounds like you just want me to agree that you're right so you can show that you're right. If you want to say that they have faith, you should at least be able to DESCRIBE the way they have faith. Seems like you are just trying to set things up so you can say the faith they have is just like religious faith.
Certainly was. Was against me as a person, not my argument.That wasn't an ad hominem.
I’m not in the least upset. I actually enjoy talking to you because you are educated and pretty intelligent.Honestly, it seems that you are getting very upset that I'm not playing by your rulebook.
I never said that’s the biggest part. I never said their faith is faith in God and laid out what their faith is in, are you getting upset?And yet all I've done is make the statement that scientists do not use the same kind of faith that you have in God, and I've asked you a question to clarify what you meant by faith. I've also pointed out that you seem to think the biggest part of science is when the scientist tries to get grants.
I’m afraid I laughed out loud at that one or ar least chuckled. Not true.Now, it seems to me that your plan is to show that scientists are not reliable because they are motivated to produce the results that they are expected to get. If a scientist tries to get a grant to see how Medicine A cures Disease B, then they will cherry pick their data to show that result. I've seen people try to use that argument before, and you are, in my opinion, setting this topic up for the same argument. I'm not going to fall for it.
I said NONE of the above. We’ve not even begun to discuss my knowledge of science. I only said scientists BELIEVE what they are applying to do will further knowledge. That’s it. Do you disagree with that???Oh, and you said that I used an ad hominem argument against you. All I did was point out that you don't understand how science works, and if you think that 1: the biggest and most influential part of science is the grant application process and 2: scientist routinely cherry pick their data to fit the result they want to get, then you really don't understand science.
Where did I say that?I am not afraid of faith.
You, however, seem to think everything is faith, and that's deeply concerning.
We haven’t begun to discuss what I think on reaching conclusions in science. Not a word.If you can't see that there are other ways to reach conclusions about how the world works, then you really don't understand science at all, despite your claims that you do.
I said scientists have faith and asked you to admit it. You said they have a different kind of faith which I never addressed at all. That is not misrepresenting mebut answering something I didn’t say. There aren’t kinds of faith in any case except blind faith and faith based on evidence.
Please stick to what was actually said.
Not at all. But if you cannot see that scientists actually believe in their pursuits because the word is repugnant, how can we discuss it? Admit they have faith and we can discuss the details.
Certainly was. Was against me as a person, not my argument. I’m not in the least upset. I actually enjoy talking to you because you are educated and pretty intelligent.
I never said that’s the biggest part. I never said their faith is faith in God and laid out what their faith is in, are you getting upset?
I’m afraid I laughed out loud at that one or ar least chuckled. Not true.
I said NONE of the above. We’ve not even begun to discuss my knowledge of science. I only said scientists BELIEVE what they are applying to do will further knowledge. That’s it. Do you disagree with that???
Where did I say that?
Really? One poster point blank refuses to admit scientists BELIEVE in the work they are doing cause of the word believe. She has an aversion to the word. That’s all Im getting at.I dunno because I don't know what you're trying to get at by pointing it out.
Nonsense. I’m 100 % certain the sun is shining. I can name a hundred things I’m 100 % certain of.There is no 100% certainty for basically everything.
Sorry but I work in science, not metaphysics.Maybe it isn't raining, maybe you're dreaming.
Because defining something by what it lacks or is not tells us nothing. Faith is accepting the evidence for something that cannot yet be completely seen but will be at some point.It's a fallacy? Why isn't "belief without absolute proof" an acceptable definition for "faith"?
Do you admit that scientists have any faith at all first?Okay then, tell em this: What do scientists have faith in?
Ok, fair enough.Okay, but you gotta understand, when I see a Christian apparently setting something up that I've seen plenty of Christians do before, you can't blame me for it, right?
Sigh! You really won’t admit they have any faith in anything at all, will you?Again, you need to specify: Faith in what?
That’s what you said about me except the tidy bit (that connection makes no sense, btw.). An a hominem doesn’t focus on the argument but on the person. We haven’t discussed science itself at all but you nevertheless spoke negatively about my knowledge of science. You haven’t a clue as to what I know. You didn’t focus on the argument but my education.No, an ad hominem is when you say something like, "Joe Bloggs doesn't understand science. How could he when he can't even keep his house tidy?"
Yes you did.Since I was not attacking you,
You never addressed my claim that when a scientist propose a project they believe their work will add to understanding. You will need to address how this argument is false. I repeat, please address how that scientists don’t believe that their work will advance understanding. That’s the argument.but pointing out that your claims about science do not seem to match what science actually is, it's not an ad hominem.
Please start presenting how my argument is false.If someone claimed to be a pilot, but didn't know what yaw, pitch and roll were, I'd call them out on it too. And that wouldn't be an ad hominem.
That their project will aid in understanding.Sorry, I don't recall when you said what scientists have faith in.
That’s a personal prejudice. Get over it.Ah, so THAT'S what you claim they have faith in?
I wouldn't say it is FAITH, since that word brings with it connotations of religious faith.
Knowing about a number of proposals that is not correct. They don’t all suggest they will find information. A library or google offers information.How about we say they expect to find information about the thing they are studying. I'd agree to that.
Admit you were wrong and try to stick to what I actually say.You didn't SAY it, but that's certainly the impression I've got from your posts.
They have faith. I could goAnyway, as I've said, I will agree that when a scientist writes a grant proposal, they do so with the expectation that study in that particular area will result in information and knowledge being found that wasn't known before. Is that good enough? They expect to learn things that weren't known before.
Do you admit that scientists have any faith at all first?
Ok, fair enough.
Sigh! You really won’t admit they have any faith in anything at all, will you?
That’s what you said about me except the tidy bit (that connection makes no sense, btw.). An a hominem doesn’t focus on the argument but on the person. We haven’t discussed science itself at all but you nevertheless spoke negatively about my knowledge of science. You haven’t a clue as to what I know. You didn’t focus on the argument but my education.
Yes you did.
You never addresses my claim that when a scientist propose a project they believe their work will add to understanding. You will need to address how this argument is false. I repeat, please address how that scientists don’t believe that their work will advance understanding. That’s the argument.Please start presenting how my argument is false.
That their project will aid in understanding.
That’s a personal prejudice. Get over it.Knowing about a number of proposals that is not correct. They don’t all suggest they will find information. A library or google offers information. Admit you were wrong and try to stick to what I actually say.
They have faith.
You sure you’re not afraid of that word??
Shall I respond that have mortal fear of writing that scientists believe? It’s a word and you seem to be in deep angst over using it in any way, shape or form. You won’t suddenly (horror or horrors) believe in God be suse you type out f a i t h, you know.Why are you so determined to have me use that word? You claim I am afraid of it. You, however, seem to have an obsession with it.
You have. You’re scared to death to type out faith.I've made my position clear. If you don't like my position, that's on you, not me.
Really? One poster point blank refuses to admit scientists BELIEVE in the work they are doing cause of the word believe. She has an aversion to the word. That’s all Im getting at.
Nonsense. I’m 100 % certain the sun is shining. I can name a hundred things I’m 100 % certain of.
Sorry but I work in science, not metaphysics. Because defining something by what it lacks or is not tells us nothing. Faith is accepting the evidence for something that cannot yet be completely seen but will be at some point.
Would you please acknowledge that when a scientist writes a grant proposal they have faith?
Please condense what you think they are saying into one sentence explaining why they should get funds.
As the trolley problem has the trolley heading for the track towards the 5 people in the first place those who do nothing are really saying I will kill the 5 people. What I am saying is for any other option besides going down the track with the one person on it can be shown to be morally wrong.Some people would say that they will NEVER take an action which would take a life, and so if they are true to that, then they'll take no action.
The point isn't that most people would do the same thing doesn't prove objective morality. The point is it can be shown that going down the track with 1 person is the objectively best thing to do as logically argued above. Someone who chooses to kill the 5 cannot justify that it is a better thing to do than killing the one.Two problems here. This is a binary situation. Either the trolley is diverted or not. Also, once again, the fact most people would do the same thing does not make it objective.
Because people are expressing their subjective views. But is two people both have an objective view of the moral situation then they will come to the same conclusion. That is why Christians agree that abortion is wrong except if the mother's life is at risk. They all agree on the fundamental laws of God.Then why doesn't it happen? Why do we see such differing views about things like the death penalty or marriage equality if there really is an objective moral position on these things?
Because in the overall system of subjective morality both options are equal and one is not more right than the other because you have no independent reference point to determine that apart from the personal opinion which cannot determine if one option is better than the other overall.So? I make a decision based on my own subjective morality. That doesn't mean I see both options as equal, and it doesn't mean I won't find it a difficult choice. Why are you confused by this?
I guess if this was like God speaking directly to the prophets then I guess I would have to kill as part of God's command. The same as God commanded Joshua to kill in the battle of Jericho.Then let me put it as simply as I can. You are told by some entity which is God (not claiming to be God but actually IS God, and you are utterly convinced that it is God) that you are required to kill a particular person.
Would you do it or not?
I intuitively felt there wasn't something right about the Trolley problem and especially applied to automated cars as they are automated and no human drives them so how can a machine be moral in deciding what to do in a real-life situation on the road. That skepticism seems to be backed up by most of the articles I have read and your position that it is a realistic example seems to be in the minority where many ethical experts say automated cars ios not a good example of the Trolley problem. For exampleYou keep saying it's an unreal situation. Once again, I will point out that this issue is one that is facing the people developing driverless cars. It has also ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Your claim that it is unreal is demonstrably false, and your continued insistence that it is unreal only serves to show you are ignoring me. If you continue to ignore what I say, I don't see how a rational discussion is possible with you.
Yes on the bases that mass murder regardless of age and status is still wrong. The entire idea that we should start discriminating about who lives and dies is a dangerous slippery slope to acting immoral. Should we take out 5 sick and disabled people over 1 healthy one? This opens the door for personal bias to come in where people will be saying I don't like certain ethnic races so it's better if they are wiped out or because the 5 have criminal histories they don't deserve to live etc.So your objective morality tells you that it is better to kill a five-year-old rather than 5 ninety-year-olds?
But they were not blamed alone for the injuries caused, the outcome of the inquiry found it was a joint responsibility and no one person was to blame. Therefore we cannot hold the track controller guilty for the final outcome. Whereas in the Trolley problem there is only one person to blame and there is a direct link between their actions and the killing of someone.So what? Someone was still being faced with the trolley problem. What sets the events in motion does not change the fact that SOMEONE had to make the decision whether to reroute or not.
How do you define faith?More like unwilling to admit an obvious defeat.
Maybe the problem is that a christian has no aversion to the word faith and having experienced this, knows that faith is the same and only the objects change. Those who have an aversion to christ don’t want to touch faith of any kind with a ten foot pole. So all faith in anything or anyone is removed from their vocabulary. They don’t understand what the word means but think the object of faith defines what faith is. It doesn’t.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?