4 ms·

> I have yet to meet a scientist who [...] And yet you've also never met a scientist who says: "This is my current hypothesis so I've vanquished all possibili

> I have yet to meet a scientist who [...] And yet you've also never met a scientist who says: "This is my current hypothesis so I've vanquished all possibility of doubt. I'm going to publish it without even testing because it MUST be right." You should entertain the notion that the word means something entirely different to religious people than to others. > The fact of the matter is that everyone still believes in something at all times. Even if that were true, the only reason you're saying it is to show that even scientists make that mistake. You're trying to drag them down to your level, hoping the equivalence lends weight to your unsupported ideas. The difference, to the degree that belief isn't just an empty word to a scientist, is that it's not seen as a good thing in the scientific community. You might believe that god ensures your slippers remain under the bed where you left them but if you use that in an argument nobody will take you seriously and there's no social pressure to do so.

PakG1 10y ago
You should entertain the notion that the word means something entirely different to religious people than to others. You have a very narrow definition and/or experience of what religious people are like. You should entertain the possibility that there are religious people who are more open-minded than you think. Even if that were true, the only reason you're saying it is to show that even scientists make that mistake. You're trying to drag them down to your level, hoping the equivalence lends weight to your unsupported ideas. I don't say this lightly: you have issues, man. We should not propose that we know what's going on in other people's minds. It leads us to become spiteful, frustrated, unhappy people.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > Everyone at the end of the day relies on faith > We should not propose that we know what's going on in other people's minds. Both are you, and incompatible with each other. It seems that you think you should tell other people what's in their minds, but that nobody should tell you what you think... And yes, we should not under normal circumstances. But when someone tries to tell us something crazy, such as that we are belief focused, we should examine their motives and see if they have a reason to want us to think we do... You obviously do because you're trying to normalize the idea of belief. > I don't say this lightly: you have issues, man. Yes, apparently you do. You don't even read the thread again before saying it, to see if you were the one throwing stones.

PakG1 10y ago

You should entertain the notion that the word means something entirely different to religious people than to others. You have a very narrow definition and/or experience of what religious people are like. You should entertain the possibility that there are religious people who are more open-minded than you think. Even if that were true, the only reason you're saying it is to show that even scientists make that mistake. You're trying to drag them down to your level, hoping the equivalence lends weight to your unsupported ideas. I don't say this lightly: you have issues, man. We should not propose that we know what's going on in other people's minds. It leads us to become spiteful, frustrated, unhappy people.

EdHominem 10y ago
> Everyone at the end of the day relies on faith > We should not propose that we know what's going on in other people's minds. Both are you, and incompatible with each other. It seems that you think you should tell other people what's in their minds, but that nobody should tell you what you think... And yes, we should not under normal circumstances. But when someone tries to tell us something crazy, such as that we are belief focused, we should examine their motives and see if they have a reason to want us to think we do... You obviously do because you're trying to normalize the idea of belief. > I don't say this lightly: you have issues, man. Yes, apparently you do. You don't even read the thread again before saying it, to see if you were the one throwing stones.