I made no contradiction. You have a serious problem switching between general and formal uses of words and with fuzzy logic.
LMAO.. yeah, I have a problem not being able to freely apply my own interpretations to words on the fly as I use them, so as to always make my point regardless of how wrong I am. It has to do with my formal education, and the fact that I have learned the meanings of words and understand context. If I practiced really hard, I could probably be more like you, able to dodge and dart with semantics arguments and artfully avoid the topic at hand, while appearing to make my point without regard for accuracy or logic.
Color is not the same as red. Red is a type of color, as is blue. That does not mean red is the same as blue. Belief is not the same as faith. Faith is a type of belief and that does not mean that all other beliefs are the same as faith.
I don't get why you are still on this? I never said that two entirely different words mean the exact same thing. The mere fact that there are two entirely different words, would indicate to most non-morons, there are two different implications and meanings which apply to the respective words, which is the purpose and reason for having two distinctively different words. Of course, whenever you are a moron, used to conversing with fellow morons, and you can manipulate words and meanings to artfully dodge the topic and play cute semantics games with context, then I guess this becomes a natural assumption, regarding what others are saying to you.
Belief is when one holds a proposition or premise to be true.
Not necessarily. You can also believe a proposition or premise to be false or inconclusive.
Faith is about the basis for that belief meaning belief without proof, in general use, and belief in the propositions of a religion, in more formal use.
Again, you are wrong. Regardless of what your perception of "proof" is or what you believe to be the basis, your "beliefs" are based on your "faith" that those beliefs are accurate and justified. "Faith" is often used to refer to, or describe religious beliefs, but it is not exclusive to religious belief. Science, by definition,
DOES NOT PROVE! Therefore, a belief in what science indicates, requires faith. You have to have "faith" that what you perceive as "proof" is adequate evidence to support your conclusions, as this is the basis for your belief. It still requires faith. What is important for you to try and comprehend is, the people who have religious "faith" in what they believe is adequate evidence and "proof" are just as convinced of what they believe as you are. Their faith is just as strong as yours. The lack of evidence from the realms of physical science, have no bearing on the faith of an existence of something that is not within the realm of physical science. It makes no logical sense that such a lack of physical evidence, makes any difference in the beliefs they have faith in.
Not believing does not require any basis at all. It does not mean that you hold a proposition or premise to be false. It means you do not hold the proposition to be true. That could be because you don't have an opinion or because you believe the proposition false.
Whether you believe a premise to be true, false or inconclusive, and regardless of the basis on which you hold the belief, it still requires FAITH. You must have FAITH in what you BELIEVE. You may have physical evidence, you might have religious enlightenment, but in order to "believe" whatever you "believe" you must have FAITH. You can't define something as "red" without using "color" unless you are a moron who fancies himself as some brilliant wordsmith, who can assign meaning and context to words on the fly, in order to make himself appear to always be correct.
I gave you the link including my search term. If it were common knowledge, as you claim, I would have gotten hits. You can show us your search term quite easily, but you are clearly bluffing.
Again, I stated that approximately 5% of the population are self-described Nihilists. Calculating from 7 billion, that would be roughly 350 million people on the planet who are Nihilists. I think that is a reasonable number, but for the sake of argument here, how many do you think there are? 400 million? 500 million? And what possible relevance does this have with anything we are discussing here? What we see here, is someone who is so desperate to make ANY point, they have abandoned the larger debate to myopically focus on some trivial bit of data, and attempt to "win a point" by contesting and objecting to what was presented. I'm Mohamed Ali, heading to the dressing room after knocking your ass through the ropes, and I really don't care that you want to spit blood and throw your mouthpiece at me crying foul.
You are the one that needs to learn his name, instead of referring to him in a vague and misleading way as the guy that mapped the human genome, since you bring him up in every one of these discussions. His faith still has no relevance to this discussion.
I already know his name, I posted it, moron! There's nothing misleading about the way I referred to him, and you may as well get used to this, because he will forever be known as 'the man who mapped the human genome.' His faith has as much to do with this discussion as anything you've pointed out. You are the one who condemned "Anti-Science Republicans" because they (as well as many Democrats) believe in God and oppose the Global Warming bullshit, (which actually has no basis in legitimate science.) The clearest implication you attempted to make, is that people who have religious faith, are rejecting Science. Collins proves that premise false, there are scientists who have very strong religious faith as well, and he is one of the most prominent and well-known examples.
