Indicator sentences: I also don't know what you mean when you say science arose from Christianity, many scientists are and have been christian but scientific practices have existed in non-christian societies.
Trigger words: science
Indicator sentences: This is *not* the definition of science and is in fact the *opposite* of the definition of science.
Negotiation parts: Science only studies things which *can* be seen (albeit not necessarily with the eye but things which can be reliably measured) not things which cannot be. You've named science as the only thing which is specifically outside the purview of science. You're demonstrating an innate bias against science to try to shoehorn this not only false but downright deceitful definition onto it and progress from there. Sorry I should have been specific, belief based on evidence is basically the definition of science. As you said, not everything can be studied with the eye, but you can use science in both cases. Nope, wrong again. Science is not a belief system. Scientists don't believe in things based on evidence, they contend that certain explanations of how things work are most likely based on available evidence. It may seem like semantics but it is a very important distinction. The only thing that scientists could be said to believe in is that the universe is fundamentally explicable. However even this belief (while it is probably held by many scientists since humans are given to this sort of sentiment) is not necessary for science. It is sufficient to simply define science as the study of things which can be explained. That is, while religion fundamentally depends on belief of some sort, science does not. Want to have a third shot at misrepresenting what science is? There is no need to be a prick about it. I am not "misrepresenting" science. What you described is literally what belief means. It's not even semantics, you are simply saying I'm wrong just for the sake of saying it. If you think something to be true, you BELIEVE it to be true. It does depend in belief, because that's the whole basis. In science, we attempt to explain something by offering an explanation based on evidence, then we find more evidence and try to determine if our hypothesis is true or not. We believe, at least at the time, that the hypothesis is true and reasonable, and if it disproven, oh well, time to find another believable explanation. It is not self fulfilling if it is proven to be written before the event happened and the circumstances were not put into place by the author. Yes, one definition of belief can be used to describe any general acceptance of something regardless of what the basis of that acceptance is, but to claim that that sense of belief applies to science and religion in the same way is equivocating. The basis of science is *not* belief. The basis of science is repeatable, observable evidence. Quite frankly he's right and you are misrepresenting what science means, and you continue to do so after being corrected.
Trigger words: dogma (2) dogmatic
Indicator sentences: I'm not sure you understand the definition of "dogmatic".
Negotiation parts: It means to assert opinions in an arrogant manner or to be heavily opinionated and not listen to reason. Threatening someone is not dogmatic. On top of that, Fire and brimstone preaching is not condoned in the Bible itself. The consequences are mentioned, but we are to believe based on evidence, not because of a threat. You cannot change the definition of dogmatic because this issue has (possible) harsher consequences than you want to think about. Because something is (possibly) important does not make it dogmatic. The verse you provided says nothing about believing without evidence and definitely nothing about arrogance being a good thing. Speaking of definitions (hey, you brought it up) I'm not sure *you* understand the definition of "dogmatic". You're doing it right now. I'm supposed to take it on faith that you have evidence and yet you repeatedly refuse to present any. If you're making the claim that religion is not dogmatic then yes, you absolutely 100% have to convince me on religion, or at least convince me that there is some sort of evidence that is compelling and does more than pay lip service to the concept of evidence so that people can pretend religion is not dogmatic. Until then you're just being dogmatic. [STA-CITE]>I'm not sure you understand the definition of "dogmatic". It means to assert opinions in an arrogant manner or to be heavily opinionated and not listen to reason. Threatening someone is not dogmatic. [END-CITE]No, you clearly do not know what you're talking about. You obviously don't want to believe that religion is dogmatic so you have invented a more strict definition and added aspects like arrogance. Here's the real definition of dogmatic: [STA-CITE]>prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle [END-CITE]So as much as you don't want to believe religion is dogmatic, it very literally is.
Trigger words: belief (2) BELIEVE believe
Indicator sentences: Yes, one definition of belief can be used to describe any general acceptance of something regardless of what the basis of that acceptance is, but to claim that that sense of belief applies to science and religion in the same way is equivocating.