Benjamin Franklin, To Colleagues at the Constitutional Convention

[Forever_frost]

Religious faith and the colloquial use of faith are defined in two different fundamentally different ways. This is why every definition of the word I've ever found has a separate definitions for the two.

It's akin to saying someone is retarded. If you say that someone with a physical or mental handicap is retarded, you are saying a very different thing than would be if you said racrguy is retarded.

An identical difference is between a scientific theory and the colloquial use of theory.

Ultimately, both of us could use the term faith but we would mean different things by it.



Do I believe in carbon dating? Yes. It exists.

I’ll assume you are asking if someone believes that carbon dating is a reliable form of dating objects, as it is a more relevant question to the topic. I would still say yes.

Can I prove it? Yes. Independent of the research, the process that scientists use to verify their data is documented and can be reliably reproduced. This process must stand on its own. It must also be objectively and reliably reproducible with a high accuracy.

When this process is performed, should the results I get not match up with the predicted data (and I can reliably reproduce the discrepancy), then I have shown that it does not work. The scientific community would, after verifying my data, discard the method and use one of many other methods of radiometric dating until it is shown that they are not viable predictive models any more.



This one is just plain silly. Anyone with a telescope, such as myself, can do this.



This one is silly as well. Everyone tests gravity all the time. So, yes. People can, and do, prove it every time they do not float off while walking.



This is possible. I would not deny that. However, until something can be shown to exist, there is no justification in believing it does, in fact, exist. Unless you are willing to believe something without evidence, thus entering religious faith.

Just to pick nits, absolute zero has not been verified in the way protons and neutrons have been. It is a theoretical point that, all research shows, exists but have never "seen" exist anywhere. Protons and neutrons have been actively observed to exist. In fact, the Hadron super-collider is designed to discover the fundamental particles that make up protons , neutrons, electrons, etc.



Your analogy is flawed. Stating that god doesn't exist due to a lack of evidence is more like saying the earth is not flat because no one has been to the edge yet.

In my analogy, someone is making a claim. The earth is flat. Another person is stating that the claim is false. The earth is not flat due to people being unable to find the edge.

In the analogy above, could the round-earther be wrong? Of course. It is possible that the round-earther is wrong. That possibility doesn't make it reasonable to believe that the earth is flat. It would, in fact, be unreasonable to believe the earth is flat due to lack of evidence.

The same goes for the god claim. Could I, as an atheist, be wrong? Sure. There may be a god/gods. However, until there is evidence to support the god claim, it is unreasonable to believe that it is true.

I really enjoy debating with you. Thank you. <deep breath>

Question was: Have YOU carbon dated anything? Have you seen it? Do you know how it works? If you do, is it because you studied it from nothing and learned how to do it and build the tools to test it yourself? If no, you're taking things on faith that these scientists are correct. Unless you're doing it yourself, it's faith, or trust.


As far as gravity, no you see the results of gravity. Can you test it? Can you quantify it? No, unless you have the tools, you can't. Otherwise you're going to have to trust what someone else says.


My point is, atheists hold science and logic as supreme (well for the most part, I've met some who were emotional bitches). Problem is, they are taking that science on faith. Few can duplicate the results either due to lack of knowledge or technology and those that do are using a start point that starts with the knowledge of someone else.

I absolutely believe that we'll discover a way to prove God exists but that's not the point of faith. Faith is believing something exists without tangible proof. If you can hold it, it's not faith, it's evidence. I point you to Doubting Thomas. Still, we'll get there, or destroy ourselves. Either way.

My faith is just different than yours. No big deal.