444

submitted 9 months ago by poplargrove@lemmy.world to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] exocrinous@startrek.website 1 points 9 months ago

Faith (from the religious understanding) is for that which can't be proven,

Why would I accept a religious definition of faith? I'm a scientist, and I use a scientific definition of faith. I categorically reject your attempts to force religious understanding of faith on me.

[-] SphereofWreckening@ttrpg.network 1 points 9 months ago

Atheists be like "look at all the things my real and not made up methodology can do" and then post science fiction.

Your comment is at odds with your other comments. And you'd think a scientist would know about the scientific measurements of the placebo effect rather than boiling it down to faith: which is asinine.

[-] exocrinous@startrek.website 2 points 9 months ago

You're seeing contradictions because you're not actually trying to understand what I'm saying. You're just using keywords to sort me into a category you already understand. I criticise atheists, so you sort me into the evangelical Christian box and attach all the stereotypes of that image to me. Then I say I'm a scientist and you get confused.

You didn't bother learning, you just deployed prejudice. I'm using prejudice here in the neutral psychological sense of "pre judgement". You made a bunch of premature judgements about my beliefs. You should try a science based approach to understanding other people instead of just making assumptions. You'll stop being confused by my existence if you use science.

Like, for example, earlier you formed a hypothesis that I'm not a scientist, because I criticise atheists. That hypothesis turned out to be false. That means you should be revising your theory and running more tests. You shouldn't just complain about it and refuse to change when your hypotheses are false.