Well this is long and drawn out. But I think before we can Science or Religion (believe in something) we must have intellect. God, if that's what you believe, gave us this intellect. He did as much as set up the game of Life and we're the ones in charge of playing it. You can use your intellect to enforce your science or religion on others. Should you with out asking? Well that's where morals come in and another slew of religions/beliefs. The best that I can do personally is collaborate as best as possible with my fellow Man and Woman to discuss the things that come up and come to agreements. But as you get more and more people and more disagreements we tend to conflict. That's why we think we have borders. You believe what you want over there and we'll agree to disagree with our border over here. But then you have local disputes and uprising. At the end of the day society can't help that people are different. People think differently. That's a fact of life we will always have that right/wrong possibility. Good/Bad. Good/Evil. Dark/Light. Positive/Negative. That's how our atoms are built. With friction. It seems as though with this friction that life/death is possible. I guess try to find some balance along the way before the next Big Bang.

"Your point was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence""

ok i didn't remember that i said presently, so that was a mistake, but i mean obviously if you believe that we'll make progress as we refine our technology then there'll be methods and ideas that we use now that will be discarded

its a perpetual practice for humanity, but regardless as a present example i'd mention singularities

" That doesn't mean that obsolete theories and practices can be regarded in hindsight as 'faith in bs'. It was valid science of the time."

but we aren't looking at this from the context of being there at the time but from here in the present

"The theory of the origin of the universe  was developed based on observations and evidence. People may support this theory, but to say people believe in it is wrong. "

really? you don't think people just believe in some things because an authority in the field told them and they just trust the authority?

"Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought)"

i'd disagree with that, for example, religious people look for their proof in their holy books

i know that faith is defined as belief with evidence but i don't think that's really the case, i think the hang up is with regards to what type of evidence

"Where is your supporting evidence that nobody can disagree with the fact that science has a more negative impact than religion?"

you reworded what i said, this is what i said and i already addressed this but lets go again then

“i do think science has had more significant negative impacts on the planet than religion... and i don't think anyone can really disagree with that”

all situations where the planet has been damaged on a large scale by humans have been caused by science... examples would be oil spills, bombings, nuclear tests, nuclear accidents etc etc etc

can you forward anything on the religious side that is comparable?

"using the word arguably is not a get-out clause. If there's an argument for something, there should be something supporting it"

the billions of people that have died throughout the centuries due to guns, knives, swords, bombs, synthetic substances etc etc etc do you have a counterpoint?

"You have made unsubstantiated claims that ignorance and greed are indispensible attributes of scientists. "

but i mean what am i supposed to say to someone that doesn't acknowledge that greed and ignorance are inherent to human beings?

you're pretty much expecting me to argue something that's fundamental to existence, like asking me to prove that water is wet

wouldn't it be stupid for me to ask you to prove that water is wet? that's what you're doing right now

". You have claimed, without supporting evidence, that science has caused more loss of life than religion"

this is a lie

"that nobody can disagree that science has had a more negative impact than religion."

and this is a misquote presumably to worm away from the answer i gave

"ou have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the difference between theory/hypothesis and faith."

can you show me where i said that a hypothesis or theory is the same as faith?

the practices i spoke of were not regarded as hypotheses, they were accepted as verified treatments at the time... to try to use that to say that i have said that a hypothesis and faith are the same thing is a looooooooonnnnnnnnnnng stretch

" You have also demonstrated your lack of understanding about the continuing progress of scientific study by describing historical knowledge and practices as utilising 'faith', having 'ignorance' and 'pushing lies'."

uh are you really denying that piltdown man was a lie? i could see you trying to make that argument for the medical procedures sure but piltdown man? lol

uh and are you really saying that these people were not ignorant? are you kidding me right now? lol

so people that bled people out to cure them weren't ignorant? ok lol

and finally as i said above the procedures i referred to were not regarded as hypotheses... its not like these people were coming to this from the pov of testing the validity of the procedures, they were accepted as legitimate during those time periods

that would be like saying that if we find better cancer treatment methods in the future, that radiation therapy was just a "hypothesis" lol

"Your point was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence""

ok i didn't remember that i said presently, so that was a mistake, but i mean obviously if you believe that we'll make progress as we refine our technology then there'll be methods and ideas that we use now that will be discarded

its a perpetual practice for humanity, but regardless as a present example i'd mention singularities

" That doesn't mean that obsolete theories and practices can be regarded in hindsight as 'faith in bs'. It was valid science of the time."

but we aren't looking at this from the context of being there at the time but from here in the present

 "The theory of the origin of the universe  was developed based on observations and evidence. People may support this theory, but to say people believe in it is wrong. "

really? you don't think people just believe in some things because an authority in the field told them and they just trust the authority?

"Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought)"

i'd disagree with that, for example, religious people look for their proof in their holy books

i know that faith is defined as belief with evidence but i don't think that's really the case, i think the hang up is with regards to what type of evidence

“i do think science has had more significant negative impacts on the planet than religion... and i don't think anyone can really disagree with that”

“The development of these and other weapons and the other peripheral effects i touched briefly on (global warming for example) have arguably lead to the loss of more life than the conflicts of religion have...”

(in response to Pemalite’s comment "Ironically, it's the far-right, typically religious conservatives that are against the idea of things like climate change and thus the solution to many of those issues you have listed.") 

"how is it ironic? it could only be ironic if religion caused the problem to begin with... i'd argue that since religion is against technology advancement that its actually quite the opposite"

"i think what you are missing is that " ignorance, greed" are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science "

(In response to Pemalite’s “That's not evidence that the Scientific Community uses faith.

That is just evidence that the Science wasn't fully understood.") 

"they had faith that the evidence presented in these cases was accurate and as a result they used harmful procedures or pushed lies... how can you really deny that?"

(Hedra42 said:) I would love to see some real supporting evidence for these. Maybe then we could have a proper discussion.

"Where is your supporting evidence that nobody can disagree with the fact that science has a more negative impact than religion?"

you reworded what i said, this is what i said and i already addressed this but lets go again then

“i do think science has had more significant negative impacts on the planet than religion... and i don't think anyone can really disagree with that”

all situations where the planet has been damaged on a large scale by humans have been caused by science... examples would be oil spills, bombings, nuclear tests, nuclear accidents etc etc etc

can you forward anything on the religious side that is comparable?

"using the word arguably is not a get-out clause. If there's an argument for something, there should be something supporting it"

the billions of people that have died throughout the centuries due to guns, knives, swords, bombs, synthetic substances etc etc etc do you have a counterpoint?

"that nobody can disagree that science has had a more negative impact than religion."

and this is a misquote presumably to worm away from the answer i gave

 "You have made unsubstantiated claims that ignorance and greed are indispensible attributes of scientists. "

but i mean what am i supposed to say to someone that doesn't acknowledge that greed and ignorance are inherent to human beings?

you're pretty much expecting me to argue something that's fundamental to existence, like asking me to prove that water is wet

wouldn't it be stupid for me to ask you to prove that water is wet? that's what you're doing right now

". You have claimed, without supporting evidence, that science has caused more loss of life than religion"

this is a lie

"You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the difference between theory/hypothesis and faith."

can you show me where i said that a hypothesis or theory is the same as faith?

the practices i spoke of were not regarded as hypotheses, they were accepted as verified treatments at the time... to try to use that to say that i have said that a hypothesis and faith are the same thing is a looooooooonnnnnnnnnnng stretch

" You have also demonstrated your lack of understanding about the continuing progress of scientific study by describing historical knowledge and practices as utilising 'faith', having 'ignorance' and 'pushing lies'."

uh are you really denying that piltdown man was a lie? i could see you trying to make that argument for the medical procedures sure but piltdown man? lol

uh and are you really saying that these people were not ignorant? are you kidding me right now? lol

so people that bled people out to cure them weren't ignorant? ok lol

and finally as i said above the procedures i referred to were not regarded as hypotheses... its not like these people were coming to this from the pov of testing the validity of the procedures, they were accepted as legitimate during those time periods

that would be like saying that if we find better cancer treatment methods in the future, that radiation therapy was just a "hypothesis" lol

I will tackle each of your responses to those statements of mine that you've quoted, in the boxes below.

You had, up until this point, been arguing about scientists in the past using faith in their work in the absence of future evidence, and I responded that this wasn't the case. So I am assuming that you are now arguing that scientists of the present use faith in their work.

You said in a previous post that we were talking about people who are educated on the subject. Please do not move the goalposts.

For the second time, you have taken a quote of mine out of context. The full quote is "Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought) with hypotheses and theories, for which scientists strive to obtain proof and verification in their quest for knowledge and understanding."

You do not understand the difference between belief/faith, and the methods scientists use in their work.

On to the (still) unsupported claims. For convenience, I have copied them from a previous post and put them in the box here.

Note that I didn't ask for you to give your own clarifications, I asked for supporting evidence - twice. So far you have not provided any evidence, and I will therefore not be drawn into any discussion about them.

These comments are related to the list of unevidenced claims. See my comment above this box.

What you mean is that ignorance and greed are indispensible attributes of scientists. In fact, what you actually said was: "i think what you are missing is that 'ignorance, greed' are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science". This implies that ignorance and greed are specifically necessary in order to be a practitioner of science.

Now you are trying to wriggle out of it by including scientists as a subset of humanity and applying the traits to humanity as a whole.

I will assume, then, that you are backing away from your original claim.

It is actually a misquote from your OP, and I apologise for getting it muddled. I did, however, quote it correctly in the list of unevidenced claims further up the post, and I will therefore not engage in discussion unless you provide evidence.

Now on to your analysis of my final paragraph.

You asked me if I believed electrons existed. I pointed to evidence that showed images and a video of an electron. You replied that it was a bad example, but the point you were making was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence."

Faith is defined as a complete trust in someone or something. Belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially without proof.  

Theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.  If conclusive evidence of the existence of electrons were not available, a scientist would not exhibit faith or belief in the existence of electrons. They would continue to work on the hypotheses and theories.

I have not said that you think hypothesis and faith are the same, I have said you have confused the two. In fact, I said that you had a lack of understanding of the difference between faith and hypothesis/theory. This lack of understanding was shown in your attempt to provide evidence supporting your claim "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence."

You are correct that bloodletting practices were accepted as verified treatments.  These were based on the scientific theories and knowledge of the time, backed up by a history of bloodletting going back thousands of years. Within that example, a scientist tested a hypothesis in 1828 to see just how effective bloodletting was on 'flu sufferers. No belief or faith was involved.

When did I deny that Piltdown Man was a lie? Piltdown Man was a hoax, but at the time, to the scientists involved, it was a real and exciting find. The scientists were the victims - the only people pushing lies were the people who devised the hoax in the first place - and those individuals were never identified.

The people that bled people were not ignorant. Definition of ignorant: lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. They may appear ignorant in comparison to the medical professionals of today, but they were knowledgable physicians of their time. Bloodletting is beneficial in certain cases, and it is used in medicine today.

You are right that the bloodletting procedures were accepted verified treatments of the time. Where did I ever deny that? But you were trying to pass the practice off as evidence of 'faith' being used among the scientific community in the face of inconclusive evidence. I'm glad you seem to understand that this was not the case, and hope that you now understand the difference between 'faith' and 'hypothesis'.

You are aware that you just labeled all theists on this planet who are also praying as idiots, arf? 

Also: "Besides, even if a theistic deity did hypothetically exist, said deity would not interfere in the affairs of man anyway, making the entire process completely and utterly a waste of time." ,arf. 

You mean deism, arf? Also, that is a claim made by you which you need to provide proof for, arf. 

i already know you can't but i suppose i'm waiting for you to admit that you're wrong
 

it kind of shows too that you don't really understand what a singularity is, but lets see where this goes

yeah you did, that's what you told me, whether its peer reviewed or not, its still an article right? lol

uh... what the fuck? did you not in this very post provide links you claim prove that they have modeled a singularity with the hadron collider?

i can't provide evidence for that because you're wrong

The LHC and other particle colliders are used to observe characteristics of elementary particles like quarks, leptons, etc..  Although these properties are significant after the Big Bang, they aren't supporting or debunking the mathematical singularity.  

"For the second time, you have taken a quote of mine out of context. The full quote is "Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought) with hypotheses and theories, for which scientists strive to obtain proof and verification in their quest for knowledge and understanding."

You do not understand the difference between belief/faith, and the methods scientists use in their work."

i give further analysis on this addressing another quote from you

"What you mean is that ignorance and greed are indispensible attributes of scientists. In fact, what you actually said was: "i think what you are missing is that 'ignorance, greed' are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science". This implies that ignorance and greed are specifically necessary in order to be a practitioner of science.

Now you are trying to wriggle out of it by including scientists as a subset of humanity and applying the traits to humanity as a whole."

humanity are the practitioners of science... what else could i be talking about?

my last answer

"but i mean what am i supposed to say to someone that doesn't acknowledge that greed and ignorance are inherent to human beings?"

who else besides humans have been the practitioners of science? are you claiming ancient aliens or something?

the word practitioner all by itself is a term that always refers to humans

google's definition - "a person actively engaged in an art, discipline, or profession, especially medicine"

"You asked me if I believed electrons existed. I pointed to evidence that showed images and a video of an electron. You replied that it was a bad example, but the point you were making was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence.""

you acknowledged here that i did reconsider my claim about electrons, so why bring it up again?

"I have not said that you think hypothesis and faith are the same, I have said you have confused the two."

using a claim that i already retracted... curiously you didn't acknowledge my replacement claim about singularities i wonder why?

"You are correct that bloodletting practices were accepted as verified treatments.  These were based on the scientific theories and knowledge of the time, backed up by a history of bloodletting going back thousands of years. Within that example, a scientist tested a hypothesis in 1828 to see just how effective bloodletting was on 'flu sufferers. No belief or faith was involved."

well obviously there was since they proceeded to continue using a harmful procedure

when a hypothesis is proven false you discard the experiment... to continue to utilise whatever methods you've been working on shows faith since you've discarded the obvious signs that you've been wrong 

for example: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/27/bloodletting-is-still-happening-despite-centuries-of-harm/

"It took the great bloodletting wars of the 1800s to begin turning the tide against the practice. The prominent doctor Benjamin Rush (a signer of the Declaration of Independence) set off a fury when he began bleeding people dry during the 1793 yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphia. By all accounts, Rush was a bloodletting fanatic and in general a real piece of work: “unshakable in his convictions, as well as self-righteous, caustic, satirical, humorless, and polemical,” writes doctor Robert North in a biography."

the fact that its still practiced today(in a harmful way as it was in the past) is indicative of what i'm talking about

"The people that bled people were not ignorant. Definition of ignorant: lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated."

yeah... and the practitioners of this method lacked the knowledge and awareness to question their belief in it... i don't see how you can deny that

" They may appear ignorant in comparison to the medical professionals of today, but they were knowledgable physicians of their time. Bloodletting is beneficial in certain cases, and it is used in medicine today."

yes they are ignorant when viewed through the lens of our current level of development, which is what i said and you disagreed with

obviously i couldn't have been talking about when these practices were accepted

"ignorant" generally by default has the present day as the context

"When did I deny that Piltdown Man was a lie?"

"" You have also demonstrated your lack of understanding about the continuing progress of scientific study by describing historical knowledge and practices as utilising 'faith', having 'ignorance' and 'pushing lies'.""

you weren't specific so i used piltdown man as an example of a clear lie that was pushed

"For the second time, you have taken a quote of mine out of context. The full quote is "Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought) with hypotheses and theories, for which scientists strive to obtain proof and verification in their quest for knowledge and understanding."

You do not understand the difference between belief/faith, and the methods scientists use in their work."

i give further analysis on this addressing another quote from you

"What you mean is that ignorance and greed are indispensible attributes of scientists. In fact, what you actually said was: "i think what you are missing is that 'ignorance, greed' are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science". This implies that ignorance and greed are specifically necessary in order to be a practitioner of science.

Now you are trying to wriggle out of it by including scientists as a subset of humanity and applying the traits to humanity as a whole."

humanity are the practitioners of science... what else could i be talking about?

my last answer

"but i mean what am i supposed to say to someone that doesn't acknowledge that greed and ignorance are inherent to human beings?"

who else besides humans have been the practitioners of science? are you claiming ancient aliens or something?

the word practitioner all by itself is a term that always refers to humans

google's definition - "a person actively engaged in an art, discipline, or profession, especially medicine"

"You asked me if I believed electrons existed. I pointed to evidence that showed images and a video of an electron. You replied that it was a bad example, but the point you were making was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence.""

you acknowledged here that i did reconsider my claim about electrons, so why bring it up again?

"I have not said that you think hypothesis and faith are the same, I have said you have confused the two."

using a claim that i already retracted... curiously you didn't acknowledge my replacement claim about singularities i wonder why?

"You are correct that bloodletting practices were accepted as verified treatments.  These were based on the scientific theories and knowledge of the time, backed up by a history of bloodletting going back thousands of years. Within that example, a scientist tested a hypothesis in 1828 to see just how effective bloodletting was on 'flu sufferers. No belief or faith was involved."

well obviously there was since they proceeded to continue using a harmful procedure

when a hypothesis is proven false you discard the experiment... to continue to utilise whatever methods you've been working on shows faith since you've discarded the obvious signs that you've been wrong

"The people that bled people were not ignorant. Definition of ignorant: lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated."

yeah... and the practitioners of this method lacked the knowledge and awareness to question their belief in it... i don't see how you can deny that

" They may appear ignorant in comparison to the medical professionals of today, but they were knowledgable physicians of their time. Bloodletting is beneficial in certain cases, and it is used in medicine today."

yes they are ignorant when viewed through the lens of our current level of development, which is what i said and you disagreed with

obviously i couldn't have been talking about when these practices were accepted

"ignorant" generally by default has the present day as the context

"When did I deny that Piltdown Man was a lie?"

"" You have also demonstrated your lack of understanding about the continuing progress of scientific study by describing historical knowledge and practices as utilising 'faith', having 'ignorance' and 'pushing lies'.""

you weren't specific so i used piltdown man as an example of a clear lie that was pushed

You are confusing me with someone who actually cares.

No. I provided evidence, which is better than a Quote.

And no. It is not dodging, dodging would be providing no evidence at all. - Rather, hows about you make a basic effort and read the information I provided, watch the video from Bryan Cox who is a Physicist... And try your very best to comprehend it? It's not hard.

I am not your slave, if you want a quote, get one of your own from the information I provided.
And if I am wrong, you need to provide evidence for it, which you haven't done once, otherwise this discussions is one way in my favor.

I provided evidence that said I didn't.

Pick one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 Did I stutter and say there was no difference? There is a difference, but there is overlap.

I also provided information on what the scientific method entails, go read it instead of making false accusations.

And I never once stated they modeled a singularity but they have a working model of the singularity, which is in the evidence I provided prior. Do keep up.

Then you truly are anti-science and anti-evidence... And debating with you about the scientific method will go absolutely nowehere, you already have a confirmation bias.

Correct. And I never asserted otherwise.
The Big Bang was a process and the LHC is explaining a part of that process and so is the CMB.

They are all part of a working model which is what I am trying to drum into that posters brain.


***********

I will be gone for a about 3-4 days, I will only have my mobile device (And screw using this forum on a mobile device! Haha), so I won't be posting. I'll get back to it as soon as possible.

You are confusing me with someone who actually cares.

You are addressing my first point on confusing belief/faith with scientific methods, by giving further analysis on another point of mine which is totally unrelated -  your claim that one needs to be greedy and ignorant to be a scientist. And you have addressed it by pasting the definition of practitioner from Google, lol!

 I'm not going to argue any more about this with someone who is obviously in denial.

Uh, because you asked me to show you where you said that a hypothesis or theory is the same as faith. That conversation began with you asking me if I believed in electrons which then led on to your claim "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence," leading to my questioning the level of your understanding of the difference between hypothesis /theory and faith / belief. Check the original post out yourself.

Well all you did was mention the word 'singularities'. I don't know how you'd expect a reaction from that.

You obviously have a short memory, or else you didn't read the evidence you posted on bloodletting earlier on in this thread. The scientist who tested the effectiveness of bloodletting on flu sufferers found that it didn't have any benefit. If you read the evidence you provided for me more closely, you'll see that as medical knowledge improved, physicians had to persuade patients that blood lettings were not necessary. So I maintain - no belief or faith was involved, except perhaps on the part of the patients. From the evidence you provided, physicians generally adhered to verified procedures based on the knowledge at the time.

It may be practiced in a harmful way in certain parts of the world, but bloodletting still has its place in modern medicine in developed countries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3858087.stm

You didn't say they were ignorant when viewed through the lens of our current level of development. You implied were ignorant, and challenged me to deny it. Just a little reminder for your short memory:

uh and are you really saying that these people were not ignorant? are you kidding me right now? lol

so people that bled people out to cure them weren't ignorant? ok lol

Then perhaps you should do research first before making unevidenced claims  on message boards.