The overlap is easy to spot. They are both faith based groups. Faith is believing something in lieu of evidence.
Which is part of the reason why the Q crowd doesn't always mesh well here. Evidence is usually requisite at this .win. "Trust" in a plan is hard to come by.
This is not how Christians define faith. Faith is the certainty of things hoped for, a conviction about things unseen. Things unseen and hoped for can have evidentiary support for their existence and manifestation.
But Q is an oddity that borders on idolatry for some, which is why the dovetail, per your OP, seems odd. The two faith concepts are mutually exclusive.
Curious... If faith based groups don't fit here well, then you must not get along with the scientists and atheists either, right?
The dictionary is usually the authority on defining words:
And even your definition fits his simple definition if you boil it down to what it is. Your certainty of a thing unseen (cannot be proven) is saying the same thing basically as he was. We cannot see god (prove existence) or else no faith would be required if he was here in front of us. Faith spirituality belief none of those can be seen, roven or quantified in any way but doesn't stop them from existing.
I see what you are trying to do here and it doesn't work with scientists at all and you lose credibility with this argument IMO. Here's why:
Atheists: YES! This comparison works for your point. Atheists absolute BELIEF there is no god is a faith of its own and cannot be proven.
Scientists: Nope. Comparison does not work. Science uses the scientific method and it by definition ever changing and evolving as new things are discovered and old thinking disproven.
The Bible is the authority for contextual definitions of certain words for Christians. I gave the verbatim definition of faith from the Bible for your collective reference. If one is going to disparage various groups via a comparison, one would do better to have more accurate perspectives of the respective groups to form a more accurate troll. Those are funnier when they're closer to the truth.
I'll let you in on a little secret. I've been a scientist for decades, and it is very much run on faith. Hypotheses are faith driven until disproven by experimental data to the contrary. I think (or believe or "hypothesize") the world works like xyz based on my observations of abc. I can test it any number of methods, but until the data comes in to disprove my belief, the hypothesis still stands. Or I still believe what I believe about reality based on my observations of such. Spiritual faith is no different. The Bible instructs it's adherents to test circumstances to determine whether they are good or evil, and says faith will be tested daily, and generate observable data to demonstrate whether ones faith "hypothesis" is correct or not.
I still hold that spiritual faith and scientific faith are quite similar.
Not disputing this.
Correct(ish). This is a part of the scientific process I mentioned earlier. A hypothesis is not science but a possible explanation that requires further testing to prove and even once proven is only valid until potentially disproven by new evidence or knowledge unavailable at that time. A hypothesis alone is not proven science and I have never heard an actual scientist make a claim like that.
YES! And are you supposed to adjust your faith when faced with new data previously unavailable? Of course not right? Nor do I believe you should necessarily. I am not saying faith is a bad thing or that anything you say is incorrect and that I have any more knowledge than you about the divine. We are finite beings and cannot understand the infinite as a matter of fact, but of faith only. Which even the bible backs up I believe. (not a scholar myself) .
I am also not claiming that science is the ultimate truth or authority about anything and isn't without flaws itself. Most of science is theory anyhow. Gravity is only a theory. Science cannot explain it, but simple observation can prove its existence despite our incomplete understanding.
My issue is with a bad comparison. Not pro-science or anti-faith.
Yes Atheists BELIEVE there is not a god or deity or supernatural force outside of our understanding despite the fact that no actual proof could ever prove something DOES not exist 100%. Only that there is no proof for its existence that is 100%.
I am an agnostic and the only thing I know is that I DO NOT know anything for sure and either side could potentially be correct, however I personally BELIEVE that the truth is something than man cannot even remotely comprehend if it were laid out for us in power point presentation right before our eyes as it is so far removed from the only reality we know.
Let's say you are right about the hidden messages in the bible or whatever books and somehow you have *objectively *interpreted (not possible btw) words in a book that has gone thru translations after translation and interpretation after interpretation over the thousands of years.
It was written in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew and even between those languages there are words that cannot be "literally" interpreted just as certain things in modern languages do not literally translate into English even today.
From this point until your final sentence I do not know what I am looking at or why. I don't get why you are formatting some statements with a - and some not, and it seems you go from quoting the bible to speaking as yourself with no quotation marks distinguishing between the two making it difficult to understand what you are trying to convey.
Who are you referring to here?? I have made no assumptions nor claimed any wisdom here. And you are correct that I cannot explain the claim you are making about God's days just as I cannot name even 1 of the 7 mountains and was unaware of this requirement. I would Mt. Zion and/or Mt. Sanai could be included but fail to see the relevance to our discussion.
Had I not felt like they were being disingenuous and baiting with that last question, your comment is how I would have replied.
Ughh
Eloquent