[QUOTE=Ammonius Saccus]
Faith is just is just a bullshit method to believe whatever the hell you want.
[/quote]
Odd, that. Given that they’re synonyms and all.
Why do you hate Chinese food?
So answer me this; how is it that people who proclaim to believe (oops, there’s that word again) in the absolute correctness of science live in a world filled with abstract concepts? How can you think when ‘thought’ is not observable or proven? For that matter, how can you believe since there is no such touchable or measurable thing? Can you love? Surely not because nobody has a beaker to contain it.
I should think that anyone who is an absolutist about scientism would end up quite mad…
[QUOTE=Ammonius Saccus]
Let’s put it on the same level as transubstatiation. Say they said faith could heal the child’s bone, but faith would not heal the accidents of the bones, but the substance. Everyone hear would have to defend that position or be hypocrites.
[/QUOTE]
Nice try, dude. Here’s your problem: ** The healing of a bodily injury or illness IS a physical phenomenon of the material world**, not a metaphysical property of the Platonic essential substance of the person.
I reiterate, as many others, the main problem in THIS thread is your choice of a basis for arguing a specific group of believers into “the most science-hating people on Earth”. How in the world is that doctrine hatefully antiscientific (as opposed to merely unfounded), to a greater extent than Creationism, reliance on faith-healing alone, or junk-science excuses to oppose condom use in Africa? How is it more unscientific or irrational than just plain and simply belief in a personal God?
But Polerius and GIGObuster do make a good point: maybe we’re allowing Ammonius to baffle us into missing the forest for the trees by focusing on debating the fine details of transubstantiation, when it’s simply a question that his OP is “odious and incoherent”, and his “most science-hating people” assertion is itself ridiculous and badly supported.