Science is based on faith?

[Jonluw]

That doesn't weaken the case of those who criticize religion as being based on faith though.

Religion is not based on faith. Only certain religions care about faith, mostly Christianity. In most religions throughout history (with many existing and prominent today), participation in the religion was not based on one's faith but on one's willingness to engage in the practices of the religion. A Japanese Buddhist who goes to a temple, makes a donation, prays for something, and does it not because they have faith that any Bodhisattva will hear their prayer and assist them but because they just like doing it, this person is a completely valid Buddhist. And in that instance criticizing faith will have no impact on this particular religion, which means it's impossible to criticize religion as a whole as being based on faith.

It disturbs me that I have to continually point out that not all of religion, not even all "important" religions are Christianity-like in their emphasis on faith.

Ah, this discussion again.
I can't be bothered to debate this, so if you want to know my opinion on orthopraxy vs orthodoxy, read page 4 in this thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.381277-Not-Mentally-Capable-of-Faith?page=4

Short version: I recognize that in some circumstances, for example in sociological studies, defining religion by practice rather than faith might be useful, but I also mean that in ordinary conversation the term 'religion' is not used in accordance to the definition used in that part of academia; nor should it be, based on what it will most often be used to discuss. I personally would not call the actions of the Buddhist you mention religious for example. I'd call them cultural, unless the context is such that including that particular flavour of culture under the definition of religion is convenient, as mentioned above.
So in my opinion, the burden of clarifying lies with the one that includes practices that do not involve faith/belief in their definition of the word religion.

 

[Jacco]

Faith does not search for truth. It dictates it. It does not in any way belong in the realm of science.

I don't think that's necessarily fair to say. Religion dictates truths, faith, at its core, is the believe in truths. It is important to distinguish them.

 

[Jacco]

I don't believe in a deity. That does not mean I think it is impossible or claim to know with absolute certainty. But I do not believe in a deity. Disbelief is not the same as saying that it is impossible.
So try again without making shit up.

So you admit that you do not BELIEVE in God/god/gods/etc. And you are correct in saying disbelieving and impossibility are not the same. However, in this case, they often come together and for the sake simplicity, I refer to them as one since most others do as well, ie "I believe God does not exist" has essentially the same meaning in this area of argument as "I know God does not exist."

For most practical purposes it does. It doesn't when you're trying to pass arguments off as belonging to people who say the former when it would only apply to the latter.

I'm not trying to pass off anything. Most other places, no one would distinguish them. But if you want get into the semantics here, we can do that. Going back the beginning, I will claim atheism as a system of faith in an unprovable belief. I ask you: Does a universal diety exist?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

There is not even a degree of faith involved in science.
Science is a process by which knowledge is gained from observation and evidence.
Faith is belief regardless of observation and evidence. A faith based belief is not inherently incorrect, but it is not a belief based on evidenc of its correctness, but on a personal desire for its correctness.

 

[Jacco]

I don't think that's necessarily fair to say. Religion dictates truths, faith, at its core, is the believe in truths. It is important to distinguish them.

Well we are quite obviously talking about religious faith here, which makes my point valid. Not faith in that the airplane will be on time or similar. But faith is often a trap for the human intellect. It tend to make you stop looking for truths.
This is evident when the faithful is confronted with plain scientific evidence but still believe the earth is 6000 years old. Thinks like that.

I see what you're saying but I would still argue that it is the "religious" that maintain the 6000 year old rule. The faithful would accept the 4 billion year age and still hold that God exists. At least in the way I interpret the definitions of the words.

 

[Jacco]

Yes, you're trying to claim you know what my reasons are as an atheist.

Perhaps you'd like to provide where I said anything close to that?

Okay, prove it's a system of faith in an unprovable belief.

And here we see my entire point. I allowed you to say this by making the claim first. Had I re-worded it to get you to make yours first, I would be in the position to ask YOU for proof. And thus, this entire argument comes back to language semantics.

As for the answer to that, I do not think so.

A la:

As an atheist, it isn't just 'because that's what I think'.

 

[Macgyvercas]

While it is true that science can not conclusively prove something, I've seen a hell of a lot more evidence for science working than I have for an invisible all powerful sky-god.

 

[Jacco]

And now your definition of faith has become almost entirely immaterial to the conversation. I honestly can't even figure out what lets you make the distinction you're making. Have you actually defined the way you use the word? Because as it stops making sense in the conversation you're in, I think there's no better time to do it.

Perhaps you might explain where my definitions are wrong?

 

[Jacco]

Yes, you're trying to claim you know what my reasons are as an atheist.

Perhaps you'd like to provide where I said anything close to that?

Perhaps you'd like to read that garbage I first quoted which made claims on behalf of atheists?

Okay, prove it's a system of faith in an unprovable belief.

And here we see my entire point. I allowed you to say this by making the claim first. Had I re-worded it to get you to make yours first, I would be in the position to ask YOU for proof. And thus, this entire argument comes back to language semantics.

Nope. Because my question is not a claim.

As for the answer to that, I do not think so.

A la:

As an atheist, it isn't just 'because that's what I think'.

Are you really so pathetic in your attack on atheism that you need to try and take me out of context? It isn't just about what I think. Me saying 'I think' does not mean the whole fucking thing is about what I think. Are you some kind of religious nut that's so threatened he needs to pull stupid shit like that?

I'm not religious at all, actually. And we're done. You are not answering or thinking about anything I am saying and thus this debate has no value. When the names and insults start coming out, it's over. Good day.

 

[Jacco]

Perhaps you might explain where my definitions are wrong?

The part where they allow you to make distinctions you made in your post at the very top of the page. Something about faith in one thing having to do with accepting evidence for another. From what you were saying, it's almost like you think the people who think the world is 6000 years old are not faithful.

Define the way you use the word, it's not a herculean task. It just makes it clearer if you are making a nonsense statement or simply working with some definition different from other people's. Right now I'm leaning towards the former.

No, no. I'm simply saying we need to make sure to make a distinction between the two as definitions. Religious people can be faithful, certainly. But faith and religion are not necessarily one in the same. I don't think that's so different from the common definition.