Atheists The New Theists ?

Hitler was a theist actually.

Also, you missed the part where I demonstrated that theistic societies are ran by the most dogmatic of those groups. Go be an openly gay guy in Iran and tell me how that goes for you.

OH OK! This is where we re-define things to mean what we want them to mean!

Gotcha.

Ok, faith is just trust, and trust is based on experience (observable evidence), so faith overlaps reason. Even though faith and trust are separate words describing completely different things!

That's right folks, when we're proven wrong, change the definition of what we're defending!

From dictionary.com. (The dictionary on my desk, which I consulted before we got into this, says something quite similar.)
FaithReasonYeap, I change definitions all the time.

you are still defending a poor generalization.

I discussed earlier that "Hypothetically, you have faith in your best friend because he's never let you down. That is to say, "he's never let you down" is your reason for having faith in him."

That's not "faith". That's a "rational belief". There's an actual term for it.

Just a quick one, but you're telling me to believe everything Science has discovered takes 0 Faith? If you believe you don't need any faith to connect some Theories, there is no hope.

No, actually that is another use of the word faith. Although, its not the same.

Which is the right one in lieu of this quote:
wouldn't you be isolating faith to mean trust?
I'm not trying to prove any points with this past clarification.

Who said they believe everything Science(AKA your strawman for science) has discovered?
I'd say people "prefer" to believe in something that is supported by the scientific method.
do you understand what the scientific method is?
what part of the scientific method do you disagree with?
I'm not arguing about the theories you disagree with, just the fundamentals.
Big question:
What part of the scientific method requires faith?

also here is what theory means:

None of the Scientific Method requires faith. The way it is applied does.

I still say some things are accepted by science, although they cannot be tested by an experiment. See: Big Bang.

See:

if you have a problem with a "theory", challenge it with the scientific method.
without the scientific method you are basing things solely on faith rather than observable evidence.

Give me an example or get off the pot.
the way that scientific method is applied requires....the scientific method.
at which point does faith come into the mix?
care to add that in with your example?

Right, I'm trying to show that when we narrow a word or idea to support only our viewpoint (cf. both sides claiming to have or not have Einstein or Hitler on their side), it will do so. We all do this every time we argue, but the truth of it is that we're all almost always being narrow-minded.

Arguing assumes that you are right while your opponent is wrong. The whole debate is pointless, and I think it goes right in line with the notion that none of us is really better or more correct than the other. We all just do and think what we believe is right based on the information we've been given, and we need to stop being so f-ing critical of each other.

I've missed your posting Wombie

Macro-Evolution.

Or we need to start being more critical of others without getting pissed about it.
:D

and?
you need to use more words if you want to illustrate your point.

since you said macro-evolution, what point does faith enter the fray?
where does scientific method become/require faith?

I'd say, we should be critical while knowing how to temper our criticism appropriately.

But, yeah, same idea =P

Sophistry. Of course one side can be more right or more wrong than the other.

Also, this idea of letting people be wrong normally only applies to areas where that person doesn't affect you in any way or you care nothing for truth or the other person's well being. If you think a friend is being taken in by a cult who is out to take their money you stop them.

Also, on the topic of Faith and Trust. Faith and Trust can mean the same thing depending on how you use them. I think the matter is more the reasons behind faith. Believing in a random stranger you've never met and walking into an alleyway at midnight is bonkers. Trusting that random guy, the one who has a pocket full of condoms and a video camera peeking out of his backpack, to get you a drink at a party is stupid. So too, trusting in things you don't have reason to believe is rather silly. Then, how can you expect other people to have faith?

I could get into a long argument about instilling faith in the unknowable, unseeable, and arguably non-existent entity in young children and through a mix of peer pressure and shared delusions continuing the trend but alas... It serves no real purpose.

Scientific method requires an experiment. An expirement cannot be conducted that can prove where cosmic dust came from, therefore, that" theory" is faith based itself.

Oh god LOL, hahahaha, /cough /cough.

Oh wait, you're serious.

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.

I did not say the Scientific Method requires faith. I said the Theories do. Stop saying that please, you're just becoming redundant.

And you don't know enough about Macro-Evolution to see it's faults, so tell me where it takes no Faith to go "ok, so over time we went from Hardcore exoskeletons to skin....because the strongest survived!" It takes some sort of faith to think we evolved from an Ape that is able to live on its own after a few years into something that takes 5 years to even learn how to keep it's clothes on.

Nope.

You're confusing theory, hypothesis, faith, and reasonable belief.

Take some time and understand the difference before attempting to contribute to the debate.

No scientific theory requires faith.

Not one.

Edit: Inuyasha - I'm not getting into an evolution debate with you. You just proved you weren't worth the time wasted on you.

Discussing faith and reason is one thing, but when you start attacking evolution you just reveal your ignorance.

Show me where cosmic dust came from then.

Thank you, could not have said it better myself. And yes, I am serious about Macro-Evolution. Please save the laughing for behind your screen. Now you're just truly showing how dumb you are.

Or I could just act like you.

Because not having all the answers = faith, right?

You're confusing the concept of us not having all the answers with the concept of us placing a false conclusion there.

Current cosmological models are based on evidence, mathematical models, and observation.

Not faith.

Wait wait wait, is Inuyasha a creationist??