RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective

RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:51:47 AM)
Do you mean who created the scientific method? Those whose theories resulted in the largest number of people actually safely flying, instead of winding up dead at the bottom of a building.

Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:53:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam I'll take the theories of gravity and fluid dynamics as applied to flight, over the theory of 'a deity will save me if I have faith and jump off this building', any day. probably a wise choice as your faith is in these laws and not in the deity you mentioned. Faith is what the predictions are based on. If that were true, then I wouldn't be checking the safety record of the airline before I flew now would I? In any case, you are disingenuously conflating terms, there is a huge difference between having faith that airplanes will not suddenly cease to operate for no explainable reason, and blind religious faith that God will let you fly magically.

DomKen -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:54:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Sorry, I gracefully sidestep that kind of idiocy. Actually, you pretty much step right in the middle of that "idiocy". The factual support for atheism is the same as the factual support for Christianity--there is none. There is zero proof that God does not exist. There is zero proof that God does exist. Both assertions qualify as faith, even by the poetic definition of Hebrews 11:1. Faith is the only way either assertion may be stated with a sense of certainty. Your insistence on accepting a "fact" which is not there except as belief is not the position of the agnostic (who accepts the absense of evidence and allows for uncertainty). The agnostic's "I don't know" invariably morphs into "God may or may not exist." I always love how this statement is made, "there is no proof that God exists." It's much more correct to state that "there is no evidence for any gods." As someone claiming celtic ethicity your ancestors, just during recorded history, have had at least 3 or 4 faiths, based on where exactly your family is from. So what makes it more likely that Brighid or Jupiter or YHWH or any other collections of myth are the right one? What if Wotan sits on his throne growing angrier by the minute? The rational POV is to say we've got no evidence and no consistent claims as to the nature of the supernatural from those who have claimed to experience it therefore the most likely truth is that it is all made up.

atursvcMaam -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:55:08 AM)
Not quite, but thank you. events and their predicability existed before anyone noted them or commented. Who/what made them exist to be observed, commented on, or predicted?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:55:30 AM)
quote: Faith is what the predictions are based on. Not at all. Scientific prediction is an extrapolation from observed behaviors. It is necessarily grounded in observed phenomon It also survives being wrong quite nicely. .

NotAnExit2 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:56:27 AM)
I believe that God is the universe, and complex interactions of matter and energy such as ourselves are nodes of God's consciousness, the thoughts and dreams of God. Religion is used by those in power to control people by splitting them along religious lines, along with racial, ethnic, political, and other arbitrary social differences between us. The fact is, there have been thousands of gods and saviors throughout human existence, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are just the most recent incarnations of mostly Sumerian and Egyption religious practices. Trying to politicize the divine nature of the universe only serves to divide us as people and seperate us from the natural world. Those are just my beliefs, I'm not trying to cause hurt feelings or put down others for their religious practices.

meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:56:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam all right then, i will who created science? not simply the people who noted the predictability and wrote the books to it, but the natural events which are found to be predictable? Every time I go to the toilet I create a god. That assertion is every bit as valid as someone saying god exists and created the universe. Science is objective analysis of the universe we inhabit. Our knowledge resulting from this analysis is provisional but some things one refutes at ones peril, like assuming if you jump off a very tall building god will allow you to fly. Hmm But then again perhaps he won't because you will be testing him and god doesn't like mere mortals to test him so he will let you fall and die, like he will let an atheist fall and die for not believing in him.

Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:57:30 AM)
quote: I always love how this statement is made, "there is no proof that God exists." It's much more correct to state that "there is no evidence for any gods." If there is zero evidence, then the amount of proof would also be zero...correct? Or do you have a method of proving something without any evidence?[;)]

atursvcMaam -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:58:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam I'll take the theories of gravity and fluid dynamics as applied to flight, over the theory of 'a deity will save me if I have faith and jump off this building', any day. probably a wise choice as your faith is in these laws and not in the deity you mentioned. Faith is what the predictions are based on. If that were true, then I wouldn't be checking the safety record of the airline before I flew now would I? In any case, you are disingenuously conflating terms, there is a huge difference between having faith that airplanes will not suddenly cease to operate for no explainable reason, and blind religious faith that God will let you fly magically. Do you check records if it is your intention to jump from a building? just curious. sorry.

Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:02:20 AM)
quote: Do you check records if it is your intention to jump from a building? just curious. sorry. Has anyone ever done so before getting killed in the name of blind faith? That is why it is called 'blind', and removing that term to pretend that all faith is equal simple doesn't fly...[:D]

atursvcMaam -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:03:54 AM)
The question is deeper in that who or what is responsible for the "observed behaviors" did they "Just happen" were they "random chance" or were they the intention of someone/something's plan. and if there is no design, why would they be predictable, and not subject to the "random chance" where they "just happened" to be inconsistent.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:05:38 AM)
quote: I always love how this statement is made, "there is no proof that God exists." It's much more correct to state that "there is no evidence for any gods." I personally proceed from a position that has the two statements semantically equal--i.e., I am not using "God" to be exclusively the Judeo-Christian deity.

NotAnExit2 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:06:27 AM)
It is impossible to prove the existence of God, just as it is impossible to prove you aren't just a brain in a jar and your life is an artificial simulation. It is also impossible to disprove the existence of God.

LadyEllen -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:06:30 AM)
A more interesting question I find, is whether we only have science and can use it because we are a part of the cosmos in the first place - and more than that, whether we can only ever have a limited understanding of the cosmos based on our science because of the sort of part of the cosmos that we are. Is it just set up in such a way that we naturally become scientific, but because of the way its set up (at least as we are able to interact with it) our science and so our understanding can never be complete. Which is no argument for a "God of the gaps" by the way. Just a poorly expressed pondering. E

NotAnExit2 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:07:58 AM)
Now you are in the realm of fate vs. free will. Though this question is directly linked to the question of God as an entity seperate from our universe that gives us free choice but knows what we are going to do.

DomKen -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:09:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam Faith is what the predictions are based on. No. Experience is what predictions are based on. Let's take a pretty basic use of the scientific method most of us engage in all the time. We approach a door we have never gone through before. As we approach we see the telltale signs that what is before us is a door and not an odd decoration. This is based on experience with doors from a very tender age. We know, again based on experience, that some method of opening the door should exist so we visually scan the door for that method. When we see it, knob, lever, handle etc., that imparts some more information as to what physical action is required to open the door. We then apply said action to the door. Most of the time we're right and we continue on about our lives. Sometimes however, for me at least, I push when I need to pull or vice versa and there is a moment of confusion while we adjust our theory of how to open this door to accomodate the failure of the nitial experiemnt. We then apply the new theory, pull not push for instance, and when that works we continue on. I don't need faith to open doors or perform science.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:11:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam The question is deeper in that who or what is responsible for the "observed behaviors" did they "Just happen" were they "random chance" or were they the intention of someone/something's plan. and if there is no design, why would they be predictable, and not subject to the "random chance" where they "just happened" to be inconsistent. Your subsequent questions are merely restatements of the first. It is not a trivial question. It is, however, a question that cannot be answered with scientific measurement, observation, and data. Any answer to that question must be taken as a profession of faith.

NorthernGent -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:13:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PrizedPosession and kind of agree with existenisalism for the most part. A good philosophy to use as a comparison. Existentialism removes all excuses and alibis; there's no inner self or meaning to life, and it follows, thus, life is what you make of it, as opposed to pre-ordained. And, this is entirely the issue with religion: it provides an alibi. You're in a joint venture where you share the risk of failure with a partner called god.

Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:14:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NotAnExit2 It is impossible to prove the existence of God, just as it is impossible to prove you aren't just a brain in a jar and your life is an artificial simulation. It is also impossible to disprove the existence of God. We've kind of dealt with that... it is a logical fallacy to insist that any negative be proven, so not doing so with God is meaningless. And the philosophical 'what ifs' about our self perception are deliberately expanded to cover more possibilities than needed, thus rendering them fun to contemplate, but useless for booking your next airline flight...hence the term 'sophistry'.. I do like the way you stated your beliefs in post # 106 though... no need to defend that.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:18:34 AM)
quote: It is also impossible to disprove the existence of God. It is more logically sound to restate this as "it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God."

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875