quote Rome
No, there are not. Having faith will inherently set you up to be more easily duped and exploited. This has been the case throughout all of history and why faith-based assumptions have been losing their impact in life.
I posted sources Rome. Repeating yourself doesn't say shit against repeatable studies.
Your disregard for the difference between faith and blind faith isn't helping. They are two terms that describe two kinds of faith. When we want to describe a faith that is inherently blind, we say "blind faith". And just having faith alone doesn't necessarily set you up to be more easily duped or exploited because the characteristics that can prevent such exploitation can co-exist with faith. Faith isn't inherently blind, and so you can question things and still have faith.
quote Rome
No, it's not. Faith is believing without seeing. I've never met anyone else to disagree on that.
Why are you changing your definition Rome? You first claimed it was belief without evidence. Do you think "seeing" and "evidence" are interchangeable and equivalent? You can certainly use the word faith as describing a belief without seeing, but such a description says nothing about whether or not you have evidence to believe in what you haven't seen. There are lots of things in which you don't have to see for yourself but you could have evidence for.
quote Rome
Nice debating trick there, misusing and oversimplifying doubt to make it seem like it played no role at all.
I wasn't arguing that doubt never had a ROLE. if all you are trying to do is say that doubt has a role, we wouldn't be having this conversation Rome. No, instead you claimed that doubt is what makes us better people over faith. Instead you claimed that every scientific accomplishment is based on doubt.
And lay off the personal insults. Turning the argument to about me isn't going to help your position. Your bullshit personal comments are not wanted, warranted, appreciated or necessary. Attack the argument not the person.
Now, I never claimed or implied that doubt had no role. I claimed it wasn't necessary, but that isn't the same thing. But you have drastically over inflated the role that doubt plays. I certainly agree that doubt spurs questions. But scientists don't spend years or even their lifetimes investigating a subject matter because they doubt what they are working on is the answer. Doubt might redirect, it might cause a question or instigate a new direction, and it might even be the cause to a new concept or idea that would lead to a human feat. But to actually achieve the human feat, to endure, persist, labor and spend time and energy on achieving that feat, that is because of faith, not doubt.
quote Rome
Faith is the antithesis of science. Again, you are misusing doubt here for the sake of looking clever. Science is about acquiring knowledge, not developing faith.
Didn't I just say that science is a methodology to remove faith? Why would you imply that I stated science is about developing faith? Why do you have to make that clarification when I just got done writing an entire paragraph stating that science is bent on removing faith?
But I have no idea why you think I am misusing doubt. You claimed doubt was a key characteristic of the scientific method. How am I misusing doubt? How can doubt be a key characteristic to a methodology that is bent on removing doubt? If anything I think you have confused a reason for the scientific method for a characteristic of the method. You might be able to argue that doubt is a reason (note not the only one) for the scientific method, but its not part of the method itself. Its not a key characteristic of the method. Nothing in the methodology requires doubt. You don't need doubt to hypothesize, to observe or to adjust one's hypothesis at the end of the experiment. Doubt is not necessary.
quote Rome
People who don't doubt their leaders let them get away with tyranny.
Doubt has nothing to do with letting them get away with tyranny, at least not inherently. You could let them get away with tyranny out of fear, or ignorance or out of spite. Maybe you aren't the one that is being terrorized and so you don't give a shit. Doubt plays no necessary role here.
quote Rome
Businessmen who don't doubt offers and potentials might get led into poor investments or scams. Easy, right?
But that doesn't show its required. The fact that you used the word "might" contradicts your previous absolute statement that you made. Do i think having a little bit of doubt is healthy or could ensure good choices? Sure. But that is not to say that one has to have doubt to be successful. I look around the world and see success that is brought about through faith, not doubt. That doesn't mean doubt didn't play a role, but your stance that doubt makes us better people as though success is brought about by doubt doesn't align with reality. Its faith that one has in themselves or in others that is inspirational and the bases for success, and absolute this is true with human feats. Without that faith, no one would bother to endure or persist to take the steps to change or break through barriers.
quote Rome
Teaching people to be kind to one another is wrong? How?
You're forcing your beliefs on to them. Maybe they don't want to be kind. maybe they don't want to share their toys.
quote Rome
Doesn't it seem nonsensical to say, essentially, that morality is immoral?
Doesn't it seem hypocritical and nonsensical to say that we shouldn't force our beliefs onto others, and then turn around and force our beliefs onto others? The fact is we force our beliefs onto others all the time. Not only personally but socially through laws.
