Happy x day(s) after easter

2011-04-25 17:53:46

#226

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6542|what

VYWang wrote:
No you're missing my point. What would happen in science if no one had faith in the results? It wouldn't be believed. Now, say that the evidence was OVERWHELMING, but still no one had faith in it. It still wouldn't be believed. This actually happened when a person invented bikes that shifted gears. Most, if not all, professional bikers refused to believe that it was better dispite the fact that the owner beat many, many of these professional bikers. They just didn't have faith in the results. Or the case with weight lifter's shoes. For the longest time they had a peice of wood in the sole for support, in 2008 (I believe) Nike had invented a better pair, one that was scientifically proven through tests, to provide better support, cushioning, etc. Yet weight lifters still switched back to the wooden shoes after trying out the scientifically superior one. They just didn't have faith in the results.

If you don't have "faith" in the results you retest your hypothesis and then analyse the result. It's called the scientific method.

Please point out in what point faith comes into the below:

https://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9837/scientificmethodpic.gif

You have no understanding at all of how science progresses if you really believe that faith plays a role anywhere.

2011-04-25 18:00:12

#227

VYWang: Member; +4|5691

AussieReaper wrote:
VYWang wrote:
No you're missing my point. What would happen in science if no one had faith in the results? It wouldn't be believed. Now, say that the evidence was OVERWHELMING, but still no one had faith in it. It still wouldn't be believed. This actually happened when a person invented bikes that shifted gears. Most, if not all, professional bikers refused to believe that it was better dispite the fact that the owner beat many, many of these professional bikers. They just didn't have faith in the results. Or the case with weight lifter's shoes. For the longest time they had a peice of wood in the sole for support, in 2008 (I believe) Nike had invented a better pair, one that was scientifically proven through tests, to provide better support, cushioning, etc. Yet weight lifters still switched back to the wooden shoes after trying out the scientifically superior one. They just didn't have faith in the results.
If you don't have "faith" in the results you retest your hypothesis and then analyse the result. It's called the scientific method.

Please point out in what point faith comes into the below:

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9837 … hodpic.gif

You have no understanding at all of how science progresses if you really believe that faith plays a role anywhere.

Even if you retest it, you still have to have faith in the result. Obviously our definitions of faith are different. Sure eventually you'll get to a point where you'll have a lot of the same data. But you still need to have faith that you did everything correctly and that your way of testing is the correct way of doing so. Then you'll have faith that the data is correct. Doesn't matter how many times you test the hypothesis, each and every time you test it you're still believing that the data you get is correct.

2011-04-25 18:01:00

#228

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5648|foggy bottom

so are your definitions of reality

Tu Stultus Es

2011-04-25 18:05:15

#229

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,068|7161|PNW

[ ] is easter

e: reopen request

2011-04-25 20:18:07

#230

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6887

Jesus wept.

John 11:35

2011-04-25 20:18:47

#231

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,068|7161|PNW

lol EE

2011-04-25 20:21:30

#232

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,745|7126|Cinncinatti

lol confused me at fist

2011-04-25 20:22:41

#233

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6887

RTHKI wrote:
lol confused me at fist

i hope that everyone else who's posted in this thread fists themselves

2011-04-25 20:24:30

#234

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,068|7161|PNW

Everyone else?

2011-04-25 20:25:15

#235

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6887

exactly. it's nice to have a mod that can read.

2011-04-25 20:26:14

#236

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,068|7161|PNW

I was trying to make sure I understood it correctly. Now I'm sorry I asked.

2011-04-25 20:31:18

#237

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6887

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I was trying to make sure I understood it correctly. Now I'm sorry I asked.

all the hate in this thread underscores the myth of resurrection, corrupting faithful and skeptic alike.

what started out as a simple shout out about a holiday that always falls on Sunday became a rallying cry to shit on both those that believe and those that consider themselves 'rational'.

it's what this forum has devolved to, pick a side or be picked on. everyone else who's posted in this thread should fist themselves.

2011-04-25 20:34:50

#238

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5648|foggy bottom

jesus never existed

Tu Stultus Es

2011-04-25 20:35:54

#239

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6887

go fist yourself, hey sus

2011-04-25 20:37:08

#240

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5648|foggy bottom

https://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsJ/8591-5004.gif

Tu Stultus Es

2011-04-25 20:44:18

#241

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6890|so randum

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7G-yY0aCHyU/TN_vpCENenI/AAAAAAAANe4/gbZNmVfPN44/s1600/bb.jpg

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2011-04-25 20:44:47

#242

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6887

LoL

2011-04-25 22:42:52

#243

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,068|7161|PNW

Oh shit, what movie was that? It's on the tip of my tongue.

2011-04-25 23:21:27

#244

Sisco: grandmaster league revivalist; +493|6733

Die Hard with a vengeance.

https://www.abload.de/img/bf3-bf2ssig0250wvn.jpg

2011-04-25 23:36:21

#245

Ultrafunkula: Hector: Ding, ding, ding, ding...; +1,975|6863|6 6 4 oh, I forget

eleven bravo wrote:
jesus never existed

He actually might really have existed, but the bullshit he was talking about is a whole other thing. Studies show there was a ton of other prophets wandering aroud too preaching different stuff and trying to get folks to jointheir clubs but apparently this guy was a genuine salesman since he got the big crowd.

2011-04-25 23:39:43

#246

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6495|eXtreme to the maX

Plus he gave out free booze.

Fuck Israel

2011-04-25 23:48:20

#247

Ultrafunkula: Hector: Ding, ding, ding, ding...; +1,975|6863|6 6 4 oh, I forget

True salesman. Kinda like those caribbean jewelry stores. "Hey come in, wet your whistle, have a couple free drinks at the table and come look at our nice jewels!". Booze lets your guard down. I fell in that pit too and bought a Panthers (NFL) poncho after getting some cheap alcohol in me in Mehiko

2011-04-26 01:30:19

#248

globefish23: sophisticated slacker; +334|6713|Graz, Austria

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There's two sides of the coin. The faithful can't prove that he exists, and disbelievers cannot prove that he or something like him cannot.

DefCon-17 wrote:
The whole "prove me wrong" argument has to be the dumbest/weakest ever.

Indeed.
If someone makes an assertion, he should prove it anyone who has doubts.
Because you can always come up with ludicrous claims that no one can disprove.

And unfortunately, you can not disprove god (nor prove for that matter).
However, all empiric, measurable facts indicate that god does not exist, outside of faith or religious dogma, that is.

Ultrafunkula wrote:
Studies show there was a ton of other prophets wandering aroud too preaching different stuff and trying to get folks to jointheir clubs but apparently this guy was a genuine salesman since he got the big crowd.

2011-04-26 02:23:11

#249

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5568|Sydney

VYWang wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
VYWang wrote:
No you're missing my point. What would happen in science if no one had faith in the results? It wouldn't be believed. Now, say that the evidence was OVERWHELMING, but still no one had faith in it. It still wouldn't be believed. This actually happened when a person invented bikes that shifted gears. Most, if not all, professional bikers refused to believe that it was better dispite the fact that the owner beat many, many of these professional bikers. They just didn't have faith in the results. Or the case with weight lifter's shoes. For the longest time they had a peice of wood in the sole for support, in 2008 (I believe) Nike had invented a better pair, one that was scientifically proven through tests, to provide better support, cushioning, etc. Yet weight lifters still switched back to the wooden shoes after trying out the scientifically superior one. They just didn't have faith in the results.
If you don't have "faith" in the results you retest your hypothesis and then analyse the result. It's called the scientific method.

Please point out in what point faith comes into the below:

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9837 … hodpic.gif

You have no understanding at all of how science progresses if you really believe that faith plays a role anywhere.
Even if you retest it, you still have to have faith in the result. Obviously our definitions of faith are different. Sure eventually you'll get to a point where you'll have a lot of the same data. But you still need to have faith that you did everything correctly and that your way of testing is the correct way of doing so. Then you'll have faith that the data is correct. Doesn't matter how many times you test the hypothesis, each and every time you test it you're still believing that the data you get is correct.

I think you're missing the point entirely.

2011-04-26 02:24:04

#250

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6860

VYWang wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
VYWang wrote:
Hey guys, it's HaiBai's friend. I finally remembered that I had an account. Lol oops.

To address the evolution point:
The theory of evolution is incomplete. That's why people are still arguing about the types of evolution. A slow gradual change vs. period of stability then rapid change (the names elude me at the moment). You can believe one or the other if you believe in evolution, but this belief is simply based on faith. You have faith in the evidence that it's correct. Science definitely still has roots in faith. Those ties might be weaker, but people always have faith in SOMETHING. No matter how many times you test a hypothesis and theory, you still have faith in the results. If not, then there is no point in testing it. Same deal with religion, except you need more faith.
The theory is not incomplete.

Take a look at the breeds of dogs and tell me they didn't evolve from wolves. Go on.

The bulldog was especially bred to look the way it does. That's evolution through selective breeding. Same has happened through cows, wheat, cats every other domestic animal and every other foodstock man has cultivated. We have used the process of evolution to change flora and fauna to suite as better.

We don't need faith in the results. We don't need faith in the theory of evolution. We have evidence it works. We have millions of years of evolutionary science to back this up. There is no faith required in anything at all to do with evolution because the evidence is so overwhelming.

You need faith in God, the Church and religion, because there is no evidence. If there was, you wouldn't need faith.
No you're missing my point. What would happen in science if no one had faith in the results? It wouldn't be believed. Now, say that the evidence was OVERWHELMING, but still no one had faith in it. It still wouldn't be believed. This actually happened when a person invented bikes that shifted gears. Most, if not all, professional bikers refused to believe that it was better dispite the fact that the owner beat many, many of these professional bikers. They just didn't have faith in the results. Or the case with weight lifter's shoes. For the longest time they had a peice of wood in the sole for support, in 2008 (I believe) Nike had invented a better pair, one that was scientifically proven through tests, to provide better support, cushioning, etc. Yet weight lifters still switched back to the wooden shoes after trying out the scientifically superior one. They just didn't have faith in the results.

you don't have 'belief' in the results in science... you have factual, logical proof.

you're misusing the word 'belief' in a vague and semantic way... that's not an argument at all

you need to look up the word 'empiricism' and the date 1750 and get with the fucking program, kid

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

BF2S Forums Happy x day(s) after easter

VYWang wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

VYWang wrote:

RTHKI wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

DefCon-17 wrote:

Ultrafunkula wrote:

VYWang wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

VYWang wrote:

VYWang wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

VYWang wrote:

Board footer