Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why doubt faith?

Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand. Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope. The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 9:39:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand. Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope. The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?

It's a false equivalency. Faith that activates a placebo effect to replenish you biologically is not remotely comparable to faith from an epistemological standpoint.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 10:27:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 9:39:33 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand. Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope. The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?

It's a false equivalency. Faith that activates a placebo effect to replenish you biologically is not remotely comparable to faith from an epistemological standpoint.

But why pick and choose? Why are there so many different religions which all claim to be dedicated to to the teachings of Christ, and yet every one of them ignore his two greatest commandments, which is to love God (the same God for most) and everyone else? Faith has shown time and again that it has a power over US, both emotionally and physically. Any medicine with the success-rate of faith would be out on the market for sale. And faith doesn't have to be religious.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 12:30:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 10:27:52 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:39:33 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand. Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope. The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?

It's a false equivalency. Faith that activates a placebo effect to replenish you biologically is not remotely comparable to faith from an epistemological standpoint.

But why pick and choose? Why are there so many different religions which all claim to be dedicated to to the teachings of Christ, and yet every one of them ignore his two greatest commandments, which is to love God (the same God for most) and everyone else? Faith has shown time and again that it has a power over US, both emotionally and physically. Any medicine with the success-rate of faith would be out on the market for sale.

That bolded sentence up there is not true at all. Any medicine with the success rate of faith would be yanked from the market.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 1:16:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 12:30:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/16/2014 10:27:52 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:39:33 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand. Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope. The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?

It's a false equivalency. Faith that activates a placebo effect to replenish you biologically is not remotely comparable to faith from an epistemological standpoint.

But why pick and choose? Why are there so many different religions which all claim to be dedicated to to the teachings of Christ, and yet every one of them ignore his two greatest commandments, which is to love God (the same God for most) and everyone else? Faith has shown time and again that it has a power over US, both emotionally and physically. Any medicine with the success-rate of faith would be out on the market for sale.

That bolded sentence up there is not true at all. Any medicine with the success rate of faith would be yanked from the market.

Now that is true.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 2:57:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.
That's odd. When I was working as an EMT I was still a theist and I never noticed any such thing. And when my fiance (former), was working as an EMT, she was an atheists and never noted any such thing either. In fact; it would be hard to imagine anyone more positive, strong and certain that she would be fine than when she was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. But... I don't have her anymore because all of that positive attitude, strength and courage did nothing to save her. And Lance Armstrong speaks about the same thing in his book. He mentions the rumors about how a positive attitude and a mental attitude of a positive outcome didn't seem to have any effect on who recovered, and who didn't.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand.
When you say "we don't understand", to whom are you referring? We understand many different aspects of the placebo effect. In fact, it has been demonstrated that if you are in serious pain and you genuinely believe that a person entering your room in a white smock, is a doctor, and you believe the sterile water he injects into you is a strong pain reliever, your body will secrete opioids into your blood stream. And opioids are very effective pain blocking chemicals. I'm not sure why people understand that you can use the power of your mind to signal the muscles in your leg to kick a tire, but are stunned, in awe and immediately suggest something "spiritual" about the fact that your brain can also signal your body to release pain-relieving chemicals.

Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope.
Not true; as explained above.

The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.
And very often, it doesn't. This is no mystery and it only demonstrates the failures of subjective perspective (the very source of religious beliefs). In fact, in one prominent study, half of the test subjects were testing a new oral medication to combat chronic arm pain. The other half were told they were testing a new form of acupuncture.

Using the same type of subjective assessments common to theist claims, the study found that the acupuncture was far more effective than the pills, and produced less severe side-effects. In fact, the side effects from the oral medication was so severe for some of the test subjects that they had to have the dosage reduced. And when that failed to relieve their side-effects, they elected to drop out of the study.

Of course the reality is that the pills were simple inert cornstarch pressed into pill form. and the acupuncture needles were fake retracting needles which never penetrated the skin. So what this demonstrates is that people will often experience exactly what they expect, even when there is no causal agent. And this is consistent with the "spiritual experiences" of many theists.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?

Well, if you want to claim there is any kind of power to faith, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that. In fact, it might be appropriate to suggest that you spend a bit more time researching the realities, the studies and the outcomes before attempting to make your assertion.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 3:00:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 12:30:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/16/2014 10:27:52 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:39:33 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand. Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope. The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?

It's a false equivalency. Faith that activates a placebo effect to replenish you biologically is not remotely comparable to faith from an epistemological standpoint.

But why pick and choose? Why are there so many different religions which all claim to be dedicated to to the teachings of Christ, and yet every one of them ignore his two greatest commandments, which is to love God (the same God for most) and everyone else? Faith has shown time and again that it has a power over US, both emotionally and physically. Any medicine with the success-rate of faith would be out on the market for sale.

That bolded sentence up there is not true at all. Any medicine with the success rate of faith would be yanked from the market.
Because the actual success rate of faith - as measured in objective studies rather than anecdotal assertions - is zero.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 4:11:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 3:00:17 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:30:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/16/2014 10:27:52 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:39:33 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand. Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope. The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?

It's a false equivalency. Faith that activates a placebo effect to replenish you biologically is not remotely comparable to faith from an epistemological standpoint.

But why pick and choose? Why are there so many different religions which all claim to be dedicated to to the teachings of Christ, and yet every one of them ignore his two greatest commandments, which is to love God (the same God for most) and everyone else? Faith has shown time and again that it has a power over US, both emotionally and physically. Any medicine with the success-rate of faith would be out on the market for sale.

That bolded sentence up there is not true at all. Any medicine with the success rate of faith would be yanked from the market.
Because the actual success rate of faith - as measured in objective studies rather than anecdotal assertions - is zero.

As well it should be. I'm not asking anyone to just assume that faith is efficacious as a cop-out just as I'm not asking anyone to just assume that matter/energy has always existed. Those assumptions cannot be granted.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 7:45:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand. Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope. The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?

Because faith has nothing to do with the will to live and placebo effect you describe.
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 8:05:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Whether a faith should be doubted depends on the faith. There is a difference in having faith that a medical treatment will work and having faith that worshipping a particular god will improve one's afterlife.

Humans are subject to an array of cognitive biases, meaning having a tendency to make irrational judgement calls. The fact that we still carry them with us indicates they are not detrimental enough to be weeded out by evolution by natural selection. In fact, some of them may be overall beneficial. One of these is optimism. People are on average more optimistic about the future than is statistically warranted. The advantage is that being optimistic about something on average tends to improve the outcome. However, optimism has one big limitation : it only improves outcomes one can influence. Being optimistic about your chances of winning the lottery won't help.

One's health is something one can influence and science has demonstrated that confidence in the effectiveness of a treatment on average improves its effectiveness. We therefore have a mechanism as to how faith can make a bogus medical treatment work. However, I am not aware of any mechanism that could make worshipping a bogus god improve one's afterlife. That however does not prevent faith in a god of being beneficial for this life.

When sceptics doubt faith, they are usually disputing the truth of the faith claim and not whether the faith is beneficial. Like your placebo example demonstrates, that one gets better after having faith in the medicine one takes, does not show that the medicine itself is effective. However, that is the sort of argument theists often use. They tell how their faith has improved their lives and expect sceptics to take that as evidence that their faith is true.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 11:45:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is no doubt that someone has placed their faith, the faith isn"t false. The expectation of what the faith is placed on (hope) is what might be under question. Doubted by someone that doesn"t agree the result expected by the one who has placed their faith therein, is truly there. In other words, has no expectation therein, and doesn"t believe there is good reason in his own judgement to place his own faith therein.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 2:59:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 4:11:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 3:00:17 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:30:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/16/2014 10:27:52 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:39:33 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand. Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope. The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?

It's a false equivalency. Faith that activates a placebo effect to replenish you biologically is not remotely comparable to faith from an epistemological standpoint.

But why pick and choose? Why are there so many different religions which all claim to be dedicated to to the teachings of Christ, and yet every one of them ignore his two greatest commandments, which is to love God (the same God for most) and everyone else? Faith has shown time and again that it has a power over US, both emotionally and physically. Any medicine with the success-rate of faith would be out on the market for sale.

That bolded sentence up there is not true at all. Any medicine with the success rate of faith would be yanked from the market.
Because the actual success rate of faith - as measured in objective studies rather than anecdotal assertions - is zero.

As well it should be. I'm not asking anyone to just assume that faith is efficacious as a cop-out just as I'm not asking anyone to just assume that matter/energy has always existed. Those assumptions cannot be granted.

You might want to take a moment to learn the difference between "assumption" and a "law of physics". To claim that it is simply "assumed" that matter/energy has always existed", is to ignore both the obvious, and the evidence. Since matter/energy cannot be created (nor destroyed), and it does exist, there is no other rational conclusion, though when dealing with theism rationality is rarely ever observed. The Laws of Thermodynamics are "laws of physics", not "assumptions", while the claim that faith is of any value at all, is an assumption not upheld by objective analysis.

In fact, you've aptly demonstrated faith in attempting to equate a law of physics, with something you only WANT to believe is true, for which there is no supporting evidence. It doesn't matter to you that one of these is observed ALWAYS to be true, and meets with the evidence (the very fact that the universe exists), while the other fails every methodologically sound test ever applied.

Faith is simply regarding your beliefs as superior to testable objective evidence. It is essentially, looking at a mountain and insisting the mountain does not exist, because it feeds an emotional desire to believe it doesn't. It's lying to yourself. As Samuel Clemons put it; "Faith is believing what you know ain't true". That would seem to be completely accurate. To yammer on about something which fails every test, simply because you wish it to be true, is to be disrespectful to yourself, intellectually dishonest, willfully delusional, and dishonest with others for the sake of your own emotional pacification.

If you want to make a case for the credibility of faith, then observe the following passage from Matthew 17:20, and demonstrate it to be true.

- "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Mount Rainer is a volcano which could erupt at any time, and if/when this occurs, it will likely result in a pyroclastic flow, and mud slides which will utterly destroy both Tacoma and Seattle. This will result in the loss of millions of lives. So if you want to demonstrate the credibility and value of your faith, move the mountain. And when you show that you can't, accept that reality.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 6:08:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 2:59:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 4:11:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 3:00:17 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:30:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/16/2014 10:27:52 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:39:33 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand. Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope. The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?

It's a false equivalency. Faith that activates a placebo effect to replenish you biologically is not remotely comparable to faith from an epistemological standpoint.

But why pick and choose? Why are there so many different religions which all claim to be dedicated to to the teachings of Christ, and yet every one of them ignore his two greatest commandments, which is to love God (the same God for most) and everyone else? Faith has shown time and again that it has a power over US, both emotionally and physically. Any medicine with the success-rate of faith would be out on the market for sale.

That bolded sentence up there is not true at all. Any medicine with the success rate of faith would be yanked from the market.
Because the actual success rate of faith - as measured in objective studies rather than anecdotal assertions - is zero.

As well it should be. I'm not asking anyone to just assume that faith is efficacious as a cop-out just as I'm not asking anyone to just assume that matter/energy has always existed. Those assumptions cannot be granted.

You might want to take a moment to learn the difference between "assumption" and a "law of physics". To claim that it is simply "assumed" that matter/energy has always existed", is to ignore both the obvious, and the evidence. Since matter/energy cannot be created (nor destroyed),

I think that's your basic problem: you try to apply the known laws of physics back into all eternity. If I ask, "Did these laws of thermodynamics even apply to 20, 30, 40 billions years ago?", heck, you don't know. Physicists even propose that the "laws of physics" are different elsewhere in the universe. If I ask, "Where does a hydrogen atom come from?", you do not know. You might have a theory. It's "matter came from energy", then "energy came from matter", then "energy just always existed." Pfffffft. Surely energy with no origin, no cause, violates the Laws of Physics.

Look at the atheist's explanation of the question, "Who or what made the matter/energy, the embryonic form, that expanded in the so-called Big Bang?"

The atheist's answer: Nobody. Nothing. It made itself. Or it just always was.

And how they know? They assume it. That's the bottom line, although they camouflage it with ... let's see what you said .... "obvious." But theist's say that it's "obvious" that the universe was intelligently designed.

Both eventually run into a wall which forces gross assumptions. And, despite your little protests, YOU are among the assumers.

and it does exist, there is no other rational conclusion, though when dealing with theism rationality is rarely ever observed. The Laws of Thermodynamics are "laws of physics", not "assumptions", while the claim that faith is of any value at all, is an assumption not upheld by objective analysis.

In fact, you've aptly demonstrated faith in attempting to equate a law of physics, with something you only WANT to believe is true, for which there is no supporting evidence. It doesn't matter to you that one of these is observed ALWAYS to be true, and meets with the evidence (the very fact that the universe exists), while the other fails every methodologically sound test ever applied.

Faith is simply regarding your beliefs as superior to testable objective evidence.

No, it's not. That's not even a part of the definition of it.

It is essentially, looking at a mountain and insisting the mountain does not exist, because it feeds an emotional desire to believe it doesn't. It's lying to yourself.

Nope, that's not in it either.

As Samuel Clemons put it; "Faith is believing what you know ain't true". That would seem to be completely accurate.

"Clemons" meant it as a witticism, yet you of course literalize it. His cousin, Samuel Clemens, said the same thing.


If you want to make a case for the credibility of faith, then observe the following passage from Matthew 17:20, and demonstrate it to be true.

- "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Mount Rainer is a volcano which could erupt at any time, and if/when this occurs, it will likely result in a pyroclastic flow, and mud slides which will utterly destroy both Tacoma and Seattle. This will result in the loss of millions of lives. So if you want to demonstrate the credibility and value of your faith, move the mountain. And when you show that you can't, accept that reality.

And there's yet another example of the autistic hyperliteralism that seems to characterize atheists. You've determined that Jesus taught his followers that, alas, if only their faith was great enough, they would make excellent landscapers. The statement is akin to a parent telling his or her child, "If you study and apply yourself, you can be whatever you want to be." Of course, that's literally not true - and your dissertation about volcanoes is ... meaningless.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 6:17:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand. Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope. The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?

It's the word "belief" that you are referring to, not "faith". Faith is something that only God's prophets and saints understand. Faith is a connection to our invisible Creator who takes us through the process of getting us totally obedient to Him so that He can use our bodies as written, spoken and bodily testimonies of our true existence in Him.

Christians use the word "faith" without even understanding what it means.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 6:59:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 6:08:51 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 2:59:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
I think that's your basic problem
You're assuming a problem where none is evidenced. My basic problems lie a long way from the topic of this forum.

... you try to apply the known laws of physics back into all eternity. If I ask, "Did these laws of thermodynamics even apply to 20, 30, 40 billions years ago?", heck, you don't know. Physicists even propose that the "laws of physics" are different elsewhere in the universe.
STOP! WAIT! HOLD IT! It's obvious you have less than half a clue in regard to that you're trying to convey. To suggest that the laws of physics regarding the laws of thermodynamics are different elsewhere in the universe is highly problematic in that the Law of Conservation of Energy (1LoT), relates not just to the entire universe, but to the stability of the universe. You simply can't have a stable universe where the balance of matter/energy is changing. So the First Law of Thermodynamics isn't just observed and evidenced, but also a necessity of the universe.

Secondly, to suggest (as you're insinuating), that matter/energy might have been created prior to - or during - big bang, is to assert that perhaps without space-time, matter/energy could exist. But matter requires space and therefore could not have emerged prior to the initial expansion. You're attempting to speak WAY over your head on these matters.

If I ask, "Where does a hydrogen atom come from?", you do not know. You might have a theory.
One person cannot have a "theory". One person can have a "hypothesis". A theory requires peer-review.

It's "matter came from energy", then "energy came from matter", then "energy just always existed." Pfffffft. Surely energy with no origin, no cause, violates the Laws of Physics.
Nope, not a single one. What makes you think non-existence is a more rational default position to explain existence, than pre-existence?

The energy would have converted into a quark/gluon plasma (a state known for zero viscosity). Since protons are made of quarks (2-up quarks and 1-down quark), and neutrons are composed of 2-down quarks and 1-up quark), this gives us the proton necessary to create a single atom of hydrogen because a hydrogen atom is composed only of one proton, and one electron.

Einstein has already demonstrated that energy can be converted to matter and scientist do this as a matter of common practice. Even the plants in your yard demonstrate that energy (solar energy from the sun), can be converted into matter (sugars in this case, through the process of photosynthesis).

Look at the atheist's explanation of the question, "Who or what made the matter/energy, the embryonic form, that expanded in the so-called Big Bang?"

The atheist's answer: Nobody. Nothing. It made itself. Or it just always was.
The latter ("always was"), not the former. And it's doubly interesting to note how much problem theists have with this - despite the fact that it is fully consistent with matter existing; when you ask them from where their creator came, and they tell you "he just always existed".
So it's ridiculous to note that what exists, always has? ... but it's not ridiculous to claim that the creator (for which there is no evidence, and no need), has always existed?

And how they know? They assume it.
No, we follow the evidence. Just as one might follow the evidence that morning is caused by the alignment of one's location on Earth with the horizon and the position of the sun. Your "creator" - to the contrary - is only ASSUMED.

That's the bottom line, although they camouflage it with ... let's see what you said .... "obvious." But theist's say that it's "obvious" that the universe was intelligently designed.
Which is DEMONSTRABLY false! And that's something theists just can't seem to get through their skulls. There are distinct differences between the result of design, and what results from mindless physical processes of interaction. Mindless physical interactions exhibit serious flaws and a lack of a goal. That is what we find everywhere we look. Theists observe billions of years of this process, and jump to the most readily available conclusion. They know how they might achieve such results, and instantly begin to anthropomorphize the natural processes. And yet, when we look, we find nothing but natural processes, and the products of such interactions. This is why we find many different levels of development among the organs of various species. For example; there are five distinct levels in the evolutionary process leading to something like the human eye. And while we are at the upper level, many species possess working eyes at all of the distinct levels between no eyes, and the type of visual organs we posses. We find animals with simple patches of photosensitive skin, photosensitive pockets, pin-hole eyes, covered pin-hole eyes, and eyes with working muscles including an invisible muscle to serve as a lens. When one designs, it is done by a process of forethought, planning, and construction, leading to more advanced stages from the very first prototype.
Take a look at the marvel of the human eye. Is this a design of perfection? Is it even an "intelligent" design? Compare it to the average D-SLR camera. Would you purchase a D-SLR with lens material which clouds and yellows within a few decades? Would you buy a lens with wires dangling internally, within the path of light through the aperture? Would you buy one with a patch of non-functional photosites in the center of the sensor? Would you purchase a camera which allows for focus to be obtained only in the central 5% of the sensor? Would you buy a camera with a lens made of a soft jelly material which could easily be scratched or destroyed and needed to be kept moist at all times?

These are the characteristics of the human eye and any such camera would result in zero sales and the termination of the designer who proposed it. and yet, theists look at this horribly flawed structure which screams of a lack of foresight, and instantly jump to the conclusion that it must have been "intelligently designed", simply because it is highly complex (far more complex than it should be), and it works (though only because the brain has adapted for some of it's dramatic short-comings), resulting in a huge waste of energy as the visual cortex attempts to circumvent the problems resulting from the incredibly poor "design" Glance around your room. How much of it did you see? How much of it did you recall from the stored images in the neo-cortex of your brain. You don't know. And this is why you can glance at familiar surroundings, and miss glaring changes unless you look with focused intent.

If the eye is designed, then it's an example of RD, (Retarded Design), not Intelligent Design. And one can move through the body's systems and find the same kind of evidence pointing to the only conclusion that each and every one, is the result of natural mechanisms, and none are the result of any form of "intelligence". Theists tend to discount how readily just a few physical interactions can produce rules, which when working together, rapidly result in highly complex outcomes.

Almost anyone can calculate the gravitational force between two bodies at a given distance. Add a third and the difficulty of the calculations increases exponentially. Add a fourth and you have an incredible undertaking. And yet, nothing about the basic properties of gravity have changed.

Math is a human invention intended to model reality. Do a few calculations and draw a dot based on the outcome. Do a few more - based on the outcome of the first - and draw a line. Repeat this process numerous times. What is the result?

This code took only a few minutes to write and never draws more than two dots and two straight lines with each repetition.
https://www.youtube.com...
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 7:07:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 10:27:52 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:39:33 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand. Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope. The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?

It's a false equivalency. Faith that activates a placebo effect to replenish you biologically is not remotely comparable to faith from an epistemological standpoint.

But why pick and choose? Why are there so many different religions which all claim to be dedicated to to the teachings of Christ, and yet every one of them ignore his two greatest commandments, which is to love God (the same God for most) and everyone else? Faith has shown time and again that it has a power over US, both emotionally and physically. Any medicine with the success-rate of faith would be out on the market for sale. And faith doesn't have to be religious.

You're missing my point. Faith that activates a placebo effect has a practical purpose, i.e. the placebo. But God exists or doesn't exist regardless of what we put our faith in. Our faith has power over ourselves biologically, but it doesn't have power over a God or lack of god. So just because faith is valuable as a placebo doesn't mean it makes faith in a God valid.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 7:15:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 6:08:51 PM, annanicole wrote:

Both eventually run into a wall which forces gross assumptions. And, despite your little protests, YOU are among the assumers.

Sooo... I subscribe to science - a methodology which insists on logic/objective evidence to support all conclusions, and you subscribe to faith - which requires nothing but petrified belief devoid of reason, evidence and cognition, and yet I'm the one who is only assuming?

When one bases their conclusions on the evidence, it is no longer an "assumption", Anna. I've had this talk with you before. When you subscribe to belief in God despite the lack of evidence and logic for God, that is an assumption. When I observe the objective evidence and the logical immovable standards by which reality works, and use that information to draw a conclusion then I'm using evidence and applied cognition to arrive at the most likely conclusion.

I do wish you could be honest enough with yourself to separate the two and understand which side of the fence you're on, and which side I'm occupying. You have it exactly reversed in that mixed up little head of yours.

Your comment here was so ridiculously backward and skewed that it really did deserve its own response.

List the "walls" I've run into. Be specific. Then list the "assumptions" I'm making (things contrary to, or inconsistent with the evidence). Then we'll have a look at your GROSS assumptions, things for which you lack evidence, and which violate logic.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 7:15:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 6:59:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 6:08:51 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 2:59:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
I think that's your basic problem
You're assuming a problem where none is evidenced. My basic problems lie a long way from the topic of this forum.

... you try to apply the known laws of physics back into all eternity. If I ask, "Did these laws of thermodynamics even apply to 20, 30, 40 billions years ago?", heck, you don't know. Physicists even propose that the "laws of physics" are different elsewhere in the universe.
STOP! WAIT! HOLD IT! It's obvious you have less than half a clue in regard to that you're trying to convey. To suggest that the laws of physics regarding the laws of thermodynamics are different elsewhere in the universe is highly problematic in that the Law of Conservation of Energy (1LoT), relates not just to the entire universe, but to the stability of the universe. You simply can't have a stable universe where the balance of matter/energy is changing. So the First Law of Thermodynamics isn't just observed and evidenced, but also a necessity of the universe.

The statement was merely, "Physicists even propose that the 'laws of physics' are different elsewhere in the universe." Do you want to deny that such a hypothesis has been advanced?


Secondly, to suggest (as you're insinuating), that matter/energy might have been created prior to - or during - big bang, is to assert that perhaps without space-time, matter/energy could exist. But matter requires space and therefore could not have emerged prior to the initial expansion. You're attempting to speak WAY over your head on these matters.

Whether I'm speaking over your head or not, the basic statement still holds, "Physicists even propose that the 'laws of physics" are different elsewhere in the universe." I didn't state whether I agreed with them or not. Would you like to deny the statement?

If I ask, "Where does a hydrogen atom come from?", you do not know. You might have a theory.
One person cannot have a "theory". One person can have a "hypothesis". A theory requires peer-review.

You'll need to provide a source for that from a commonly-accepted dictionary.

It's "matter came from energy", then "energy came from matter", then "energy just always existed." Pfffffft. Surely energy with no origin, no cause, violates the Laws of Physics.
Nope, not a single one. What makes you think non-existence is a more rational default position to explain existence, than pre-existence?

Alright. Give an example of energy merely existing with no origin, no cause.

The energy would have converted into a quark/gluon plasma (a state known for zero viscosity).

And that's merely a theoretical state, right? Kind of a "missing link" that is merely hypothesized?

Einstein has already demonstrated that energy can be converted to matter and scientist do this as a matter of common practice. Even the plants in your yard demonstrate that energy (solar energy from the sun), can be converted into matter (sugars in this case, through the process of photosynthesis).

Irrelevant.

Look at the atheist's explanation of the question, "Who or what made the matter/energy, the embryonic form, that expanded in the so-called Big Bang?"

The atheist's answer: Nobody. Nothing. It made itself. Or it just always was.

The latter ("always was"), not the former. And it's doubly interesting to note how much problem theists have with this - despite the fact that it is fully consistent with matter existing; when you ask them from where their creator came, and they tell you "he just always existed".

Theists have a problem when they note the double standard. If I say, "He always existed", it won't work. If you say, "It always existed", it's "compatible with the evidence."

So it's ridiculous to note that what exists, always has? ... but it's not ridiculous to claim that the creator (for which there is no evidence, and no need), has always existed?

I never said that the one was not any more or less ridiculous than the other.

And how they know? They assume it.

No, we follow the evidence. Just as one might follow the evidence that morning is caused by the alignment of one's location on Earth with the horizon and the position of the sun. Your "creator" - to the contrary - is only ASSUMED.

Irrelevant.

That's the bottom line, although they camouflage it with ... let's see what you said .... "obvious." But theist's say that it's "obvious" that the universe was intelligently designed.

Which is DEMONSTRABLY false! And that's something theists just can't seem to get through their skulls. There are distinct differences between the result of design, and what results from mindless physical processes of interaction. Mindless physical interactions exhibit serious flaws and a lack of a goal. That is what we find everywhere we look. Theists observe billions of years of this process, and jump to the most readily available conclusion. They know how they might achieve such results, and instantly begin to anthropomorphize the natural processes. And yet, when we look, we find nothing but natural processes, and the products of such interactions. This is why we find many different levels of development among the organs of various species. For example; there are five distinct levels in the evolutionary process leading to something like the human eye. And while we are at the upper level, many species possess working eyes at all of the distinct levels between no eyes, and the type of visual organs we posses. We find animals with simple patches of photosensitive skin, photosensitive pockets, pin-hole eyes, covered pin-hole eyes, and eyes with working muscles including an invisible muscle to serve as a lens. When one designs, it is done by a process of forethought, planning, and construction, leading to more advanced stages from the very first prototype.
Take a look at the marvel of the human eye. Is this a design of perfection? Is it even an "intelligent" design? Compare it to the average D-SLR camera. Would you purchase a D-SLR with lens material which clouds and yellows within a few decades? Would you buy a lens with wires dangling internally, within the path of light through the aperture? Would you buy one with a patch of non-functional photosites in the center of the sensor? Would you purchase a camera which allows for focus to be obtained only in the central 5% of the sensor? Would you buy a camera with a lens made of a soft jelly material which could easily be scratched or destroyed and needed to be kept moist at all times?

I would think that such a camera was intelligently designed.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 7:47:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:15:07 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 6:08:51 PM, annanicole wrote:

Both eventually run into a wall which forces gross assumptions. And, despite your little protests, YOU are among the assumers.

Sooo... I subscribe to science - a methodology which insists on logic/objective evidence to support all conclusions, and you subscribe to faith - which requires nothing but petrified belief devoid of reason, evidence and cognition, and yet I'm the one who is only assuming?

When one bases their conclusions on the evidence, it is no longer an "assumption", Anna. I've had this talk with you before. When you subscribe to belief in God despite the lack of evidence and logic for God, that is an assumption. When I observe the objective evidence and the logical immovable standards by which reality works, and use that information to draw a conclusion then I'm using evidence and applied cognition to arrive at the most likely conclusion.

In other words, you look at what evidence you have, then you leap to an assumption. You can't prove whether matter/energy has always existed or not, can you?

I do wish you could be honest enough with yourself to separate the two and understand which side of the fence you're on, and which side I'm occupying. You have it exactly reversed in that mixed up little head of yours.

Sir, I noticed your reasoning abilities when you dealt with the relatively simple passage, "Know for certain that on the day you go out and go to any place whatever, you shall die." You looked at that and told me that the servant would merely "gain knowledge" that he would die at some point. When I asked you to simply remove the emphatic and reduce it to "on the day you go out and go to any place whatever, you shall die", you picked up your toys and went home.

You obviously have yet to comprehend that you are a radical who has yet to realize that both positions, atheist and theist, are based upon gross assumptions. Do you have any objective evidence that matter/energy has always existed? Nope.


List the "walls" I've run into. Be specific. Then list the "assumptions" I'm making (things contrary to, or inconsistent with the evidence). Then we'll have a look at your GROSS assumptions, things for which you lack evidence, and which violate logic.

Why, you have no explanation at all for the existence of matter and energy. You basically tell people that you can't find any evidence at all, but the idea that it "always existed" fits in with your other theories, so you pick Curtain B. When asked if the Laws of Thermodynamics apply before the creation of the universe, you do not know. When asked where a hydrogen atom comes from, you run to a hypothesized different state of matter - then you hypothesize that this hypothesized state of matter is the missing link in the chain. In fact, I can't figure out why all of the energy (usable energy) in the universe wouldn't have already been used up, if the universe has just always existed. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Yet you seem astounded that theists would contradict known laws of physics, and indeed known laws of nature, even though everyone freely admits that the miracle of creation violates these laws. We intend for it do so.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 11:07:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:47:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:15:07 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 6:08:51 PM, annanicole wrote:

Sooo... I subscribe to science - a methodology which insists on logic/objective evidence to support all conclusions, and you subscribe to faith - which requires nothing but petrified belief devoid of reason, evidence and cognition, and yet I'm the one who is only assuming?

When one bases their conclusions on the evidence, it is no longer an "assumption", Anna. I've had this talk with you before. When you subscribe to belief in God despite the lack of evidence and logic for God, that is an assumption. When I observe the objective evidence and the logical immovable standards by which reality works, and use that information to draw a conclusion then I'm using evidence and applied cognition to arrive at the most likely conclusion.

In other words, you look at what evidence you have, then you leap to an assumption. You can't prove whether matter/energy has always existed or not, can you?
You're so far out of your realm... Anna, I look at what evidence is currently available. And when one follows the objective evidence, then weighs it carefully with logic and traces it to the conclusion which best fits, that's the opposite of "leaping to an assumption". When it's what all of the evidence supports, it's NOT an "assumption". This is the process taken by science, Anna. It's the method utilized to figure out how to get that computer monitor you're staring at, to work. It's the method used to learn to build the computer attached to it. Gravity is the best conclusion we have to fit all of the objective evidence. Germ theory is the best conclusion we have to fit all of the objective evidence. It's the same methodology behind plate tectonics, relativity, quantum theory and heliocentrism. Name any scientific theory, and that's the methodology employed. And they're not all true. If quantum gravity is true, then string theory isn't.

But here's the thing so many people don't understand; none of them have been "proven". Not a single scientific theory is ever "proved". Science doesn't even subscribe to the concept of proof (aside from maths and alcohol), because it's a fallacious concept. The only thing you can ever do is demonstrate that the evidence available complies completely with your "theory". A theory is the pinnacle of science veracity. There is no higher point of credibility in science. But no theory is ever "proved".

That said, theories can be disproved. If it is shown that they violate even a tiny shred of objective evidence, then the theory is doomed. And that's because objective evidence speaks volumes. Sometimes it takes many pieces of evidence to converge at only a single proposed theory. But it only takes one tiny shred of objective evidence to destroy a theory, or require that it be modified. And since you can never know whether or not you have discovered all of the pertinent evidence, you can never proclaim that a theory is completely beyond refute. Science operates on this methodology - using these terms - because it strives for honesty and accuracy. And unlike religion, when it is found that a theory is not in compliance with evidence, it is either modified if it can be modified to fit the new evidence, or it is overturned.

If Christianity were subjected to the honesty and accuracy which is so important to science, it would fail. It would fail four times before you made it through the first 20 verses of Genesis 1. But theists aren't interested in accuracy, facts, truth or honesty. They're interested in irrational porimitive loyalty to ideas, no matter how badly they fail.

- Earth couldn't have existed before stars, because Earth is composed of elements fused in dying stars.

- Earth couldn't have been formed covered in water without an atmosphere. Planets need an atmosphere to capture and retain liquid water.

- The water couldn't have flowed into a sea to expose the dry land, when there was no sun to keep the water liquid.

- Plants couldn't have grown on Earth without the sun for heat and light.

You not only LEAP to assumptions, but you let others do it for you, and then you swallow whatever they offer you and defend it viciously. It's not an honest practice. It's not a method consistent with accuracy. It's an inherently dishonest practice, intended to console one's emotions, not to provide them with truth.

I do wish you could be honest enough with yourself to separate the two and understand which side of the fence you're on, and which side I'm occupying. You have it exactly reversed in that mixed up little head of yours.

Sir, I noticed your reasoning abilities when you dealt with the relatively simple passage, "Know for certain that on the day you go out and go to any place whatever, you shall die." You looked at that and told me that the servant would merely "gain knowledge" that he would die at some point.
Read the first three words, Anna; "Know for certain". Now... tell me what the sentence is about.
It's about knowledge. It's the same as saying, "On the day you go out, you will know for certain, that you will die". One can rearranged the primary three phrases in nearly any order and it still says the same thing. It's about when one will come to possess the certain knowledge that they will die. It does NOT say when the death will occur. And you can argue until your fingers fall off and you'll still be wrong.

When I asked you to simply remove the emphatic and reduce it to "on the day you go out and go to any place whatever, you shall die", you picked up your toys and went home.
Because it's not honest to delete the primary phrase (regarding the knowledge "you will know", and then pretend that you haven't altered the meaning. And yet I know you well enough to know that honesty has absolutely no value to you. You would argue that white is black and black is white and you would NEVER admit that you're wrong. So I made my point, I argued a few more exchanges with you, and then when you started plucking entire phrases from the verse, I took my leave of your drooling gibberish. And I'll do it again, and again and again. You'll either find other people to flog with your dishonest inability to admit when you're wrong, or you'll learn to use more honest tactics with me.

Consider that, reasonable notice.

You obviously have yet to comprehend that you are a radical who has yet to realize that both positions, atheist and theist, are based upon gross assumptions. Do you have any objective evidence that matter/energy has always existed? Nope.
Yes, it exists now, and can't be created - DONE!

Oooooo... a "radical" Aaaaaarrrggghhhhh! Say it isn't sooo! Oh my gosh! Do you mean, I don't just follow the tail in front of me? Only dead fish swim with the stream, Anna. And you're a typical example of a dead fish.. no brain, just moving with the flow and thinking poorly of those who employ standards of integrity and intellectual honesty, whether dealing with an unpopular idea, or one of immense popularity.

What do you want to try next, "extremist", "eccentric", "liberal", "leftist", "realist", "materialist"... all just labels used by people who are too lazy to deal with realities. Guess what, Anna; in Nazi Germany, anyone who thought it was wrong to kill the Jews was a "radical", and "extremist". At the beginning of Christianity, anyone who didn't believe in pagan gods was a "radical" and an "extremist". And in the days of volcano worship, if you didn't think children should die in active volcanic craters, you were a "radical" and an "extremist.

So continue to compliment me if you wish. That's what you've done.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
heisnotrisen
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 11:13:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 12:30:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/16/2014 10:27:52 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:39:33 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
We see or read about it on a regular basis. People who survive some terrible accident or even an illness based almost solely on their faith. EMTs whose job it is to tend to victims at the scene and on the way to a healthcare facility say again and again that the strongest factor of survival is the desire to do so - the willingness to fight.

And then there is the power of the placebo, something we still don't understand. Placebo effects have been demonstrated in many different areas in science, and sometimes have been shown to mimic or even exceed effects produced by active treatments. The only thing a placebo can supply is hope. The mere faith that there is a chance that the substance will have a real physical effect. And so often it does.

There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?

It's a false equivalency. Faith that activates a placebo effect to replenish you biologically is not remotely comparable to faith from an epistemological standpoint.

But why pick and choose? Why are there so many different religions which all claim to be dedicated to to the teachings of Christ, and yet every one of them ignore his two greatest commandments, which is to love God (the same God for most) and everyone else? Faith has shown time and again that it has a power over US, both emotionally and physically. Any medicine with the success-rate of faith would be out on the market for sale.

That bolded sentence up there is not true at all. Any medicine with the success rate of faith would be yanked from the market.

A comment whereby I can unanimously concur.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 11:44:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:47:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:15:07 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 6:08:51 PM, annanicole wrote:

List the "walls" I've run into. Be specific. Then list the "assumptions" I'm making (things contrary to, or inconsistent with the evidence). Then we'll have a look at your GROSS assumptions, things for which you lack evidence, and which violate logic.

Why, you have no explanation at all for the existence of matter and energy.
Because YOU made the claim, and I've provided an explanation for the existence of matter and energy, REPEATEDLY. And you can't even begin to refute it, which is what makes you soooo angry!

You basically tell people that you can't find any evidence at all, but the idea that it "always existed" fits in with your other theories, so you pick Curtain B.
Are you through with your flood of bovine diarrhea? That's complete B.S. Anna and you know it! I've given you the evidence and I'll give it to you again, and again, and again. You'll eventually swallow, or choke on it.
1. Matter/energy exists
2. Matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed (1LoT).

Now... here is your task. Using those two piece of evidence, show me what other conclusions can be true. (And you don't get to use an unevidenced disembodied intelligence to zap everything up with his unevidenced magic wand.)

When asked if the Laws of Thermodynamics apply before the creation of the universe, you do not know.
We can't even be certain that in regard to our perspective of a temporal reality, that there was a "before the universe". But the universe was NOT created, silly. That's the part we do know. And you can't create matter/energy outside of the universe or within the universe. Outside the universe you have no space in which the matter can exist, and inside the universe, you bump into that nasty little First Law of Thermodynamics that makes you want to burst from anger and blow estrogen from your ears. And you can say anything you want about what laws of physics do and don't apply during big-bang or just before. The point is, we don't know. So you have zero evidence to support whatever conjecture you wish to spew.

One is always being more honest to stick with what is known and evidenced, than to suggest it doesn't apply and then make up anything convenient to their emotional desires.

When asked where a hydrogen atom comes from, you run to a hypothesized different state of matter - then you hypothesize that this hypothesized state of matter is the missing link in the chain.
And you got that idea from....? Where?
It's not a "hypothesis", Anna. It's a theory. And your description of it as "a state of matter" demonstrates that you couldn't even follow it. It's THE accepted theory because... (remember?)... it complies with all known pertinent evidence and logic in regard to the subject. And until you can show that it doesn't, just relax those throat muscles and swallow your medicine.

In fact, I can't figure out why all of the energy (usable energy) in the universe wouldn't have already been used up, if the universe has just always existed. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
And that's a big, BIG part of your problem. If you - with your "follow the Christian tail in front of you" mentality - can't figure it out, then you assume that no one else can either. And that's one of many areas where you simply couldn't be more wrong. You're talking about "heat death" but obviously, where ever you encountered that concept, didn't explain it down to your level. Heat-death only applies in a matter/energy universe. Imagine if you will, a state without any space, and without any matter... just energy. Now explain to me how that energy is going to be "used up". Used up on what? ... doing what? The concept of energy outside of space-time completely escapes the problem with heat-death.

Yet you seem astounded that theists would contradict known laws of physics, and indeed known laws of nature, even though everyone freely admits that the miracle of creation violates these laws. We intend for it do so.
There IS NO "miracle of creation". That's a fairytale, Anna. And for you to sit here and claim that "everyone freely admits" anything about the "miracle of creation" is (yet another) bold-faced, out-right LIE! You know damned well, that the vast majority of the most eminent scientists of our time hold to no "miracles" or to the concept of "creation" in the context of the universe.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 2:31:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 11:07:50 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:47:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:15:07 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 6:08:51 PM, annanicole wrote:



I do wish you could be honest enough with yourself to separate the two and understand which side of the fence you're on, and which side I'm occupying. You have it exactly reversed in that mixed up little head of yours.

Sir, I noticed your reasoning abilities when you dealt with the relatively simple passage, "Know for certain that on the day you go out and go to any place whatever, you shall die." You looked at that and told me that the servant would merely "gain knowledge" that he would die at some point.
Read the first three words, Anna; "Know for certain". Now... tell me what the sentence is about.

Those three words have nothing to do with "what the sentence is about". Nothing at all.

It's about knowledge. It's the same as saying, "On the day you go out, you will know for certain, that you will die".

Then what does the sentence, "Know for certain, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" mean?

One can rearranged the primary three phrases in nearly any order and it still says the same thing. It's about when one will come to possess the certain knowledge that they will die.

That is true: it is a universal statement.

It does NOT say when the death will occur. And you can argue until your fingers fall off and you'll still be wrong.

No, the phrase "know for certain" says not one word about when the death will occur. It is merely an emphatic.

When I asked you to simply remove the emphatic and reduce it to "on the day you go out and go to any place whatever, you shall die", you picked up your toys and went home.

Because it's not honest to delete the primary phrase (regarding the knowledge "you will know",

There IS no "you will know". How do you get a future tense out of "know for a certainty"?

and then pretend that you haven't altered the meaning. And yet I know you well enough to know that honesty has absolutely no value to you. You would argue that white is black and black is white and you would NEVER admit that you're wrong. So I made my point, I argued a few more exchanges with you, and then when you started plucking entire phrases from the verse, I took my leave of your drooling gibberish. And I'll do it again, and again and again. You'll either find other people to flog with your dishonest inability to admit when you're wrong, or you'll learn to use more honest tactics with me.

Consider that, reasonable notice.

Lord, the fool is still arguing that adding or deleting an emphatic changes the entire meaning of a sentence. Go figure.

You obviously have yet to comprehend that you are a radical who has yet to realize that both positions, atheist and theist, are based upon gross assumptions. Do you have any objective evidence that matter/energy has always existed? Nope.
Yes, it exists now, and can't be created - DONE!

LMAO. That's what it boils down to: "it exists; therefore, creation is impossible". That's it?

Oooooo... a "radical" Aaaaaarrrggghhhhh! Say it isn't sooo! Oh my gosh! Do you mean, I don't just follow the tail in front of me? Only dead fish swim with the stream, Anna. And you're a typical example of a dead fish.. no brain, just moving with the flow and thinking poorly of those who employ standards of integrity and intellectual honesty, whether dealing with an unpopular idea, or one of immense popularity.

And you're an atheistic version of bornofgod.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 3:11:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 11:44:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:47:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:15:07 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 6:08:51 PM, annanicole wrote:

List the "walls" I've run into. Be specific. Then list the "assumptions" I'm making (things contrary to, or inconsistent with the evidence). Then we'll have a look at your GROSS assumptions, things for which you lack evidence, and which violate logic.

Why, you have no explanation at all for the existence of matter and energy.
Because YOU made the claim, and I've provided an explanation for the existence of matter and energy, REPEATEDLY. And you can't even begin to refute it, which is what makes you soooo angry!

You made an explanation? All you did was simply state that it's always been here. You assume it.

You basically tell people that you can't find any evidence at all, but the idea that it "always existed" fits in with your other theories, so you pick Curtain B.
Are you through with your flood of bovine diarrhea? That's complete B.S. Anna and you know it! I've given you the evidence and I'll give it to you again, and again, and again. You'll eventually swallow, or choke on it.
1. Matter/energy exists
2. Matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed (1LoT).

Now... here is your task. Using those two piece of evidence, show me what other conclusions can be true. (And you don't get to use an unevidenced disembodied intelligence to zap everything up with his unevidenced magic wand.)

My claim is simple: you do not know whether the first Law of Thermodynamics is or was applicable before the universe existed or not. Christians do not advance the claim that the God who created the universe is somehow now subject to the current Laws of the universe.

When asked if the Laws of Thermodynamics apply before the creation of the universe, you do not know.
We can't even be certain that in regard to our perspective of a temporal reality, that there was a "before the universe". But the universe was NOT created, silly. That's the part we do know. And you can't create matter/energy outside of the universe or within the universe. Outside the universe you have no space in which the matter can exist, and inside the universe, you bump into that nasty little First Law of Thermodynamics that makes you want to burst from anger and blow estrogen from your ears. And you can say anything you want about what laws of physics do and don't apply during big-bang or just before. The point is, we don't know. So you have zero evidence to support whatever conjecture you wish to spew.

"We don't know" - so I have zero evidence. You know what? You're right about that! And it is equally correct that you do not know, and you have zero evidence.

One is always being more honest to stick with what is known and evidenced, than to suggest it doesn't apply and then make up anything convenient to their emotional desires.

That's just a fancy way of disregarding the question.

When asked where a hydrogen atom comes from, you run to a hypothesized different state of matter - then you hypothesize that this hypothesized state of matter is the missing link in the chain.
And you got that idea from....? Where?
It's not a "hypothesis", Anna. It's a theory. And your description of it as "a state of matter" demonstrates that you couldn't even follow it. It's THE accepted theory because... (remember?)... it complies with all known pertinent evidence and logic in regard to the subject. And until you can show that it doesn't, just relax those throat muscles and swallow your medicine.

So does that mean, once again, that you do not know?

In fact, I can't figure out why all of the energy (usable energy) in the universe wouldn't have already been used up, if the universe has just always existed. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
And that's a big, BIG part of your problem. If you - with your "follow the Christian tail in front of you" mentality - can't figure it out, then you assume that no one else can either. And that's one of many areas where you simply couldn't be more wrong. You're talking about "heat death" but obviously, where ever you encountered that concept, didn't explain it down to your level. Heat-death only applies in a matter/energy universe. Imagine if you will, a state without any space, and without any matter... just energy. Now explain to me how that energy is going to be "used up". Used up on what? ... doing what? The concept of energy outside of space-time completely escapes the problem with heat-death.

Yet you seem astounded that theists would contradict known laws of physics, and indeed known laws of nature, even though everyone freely admits that the miracle of creation violates these laws. We intend for it do so.
There IS NO "miracle of creation". That's a fairytale, Anna. And for you to sit here and claim that "everyone freely admits" anything about the "miracle of creation" is (yet another) bold-faced, out-right LIE! You know damned well, that the vast majority of the most eminent scientists of our time hold to no "miracles" or to the concept of "creation" in the context of the universe.

"Everyone" refers to the theists just previously mentioned, just as the "we" refers to theists. Atheists were not under consideration. Do you not get it? The First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the creation. Rather, the creative process, when finished, set in motion the First Law of Thermodynamics. We are not out to prove that in the creative process, God complied with what-is-now the First Law of Thermodynamics. You are engraving the First Law of Thermodynamics as it applies and has applied to the known universe, then - and only then - saying, "NOW what are you going to do?" I'm not going to do anything!

In fact, you yourself have set aside (or attempted to call into question), all laws prior to the "big expansion". You excused yourself by stating that time as we comprehend it did not exist. While that may be true, you have bitten off a pretty big chunk by asserting that matter/energy always existed, then claiming that we have a pretty poor conception of the word "always".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 3:32:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 11:44:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:47:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:15:07 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 6:08:51 PM, annanicole wrote:

List the "walls" I've run into. Be specific. Then list the "assumptions" I'm making (things contrary to, or inconsistent with the evidence). Then we'll have a look at your GROSS assumptions, things for which you lack evidence, and which violate logic.

Why, you have no explanation at all for the existence of matter and energy.
Because YOU made the claim, and I've provided an explanation for the existence of matter and energy, REPEATEDLY. And you can't even begin to refute it, which is what makes you soooo angry!

You basically tell people that you can't find any evidence at all, but the idea that it "always existed" fits in with your other theories, so you pick Curtain B.
Are you through with your flood of bovine diarrhea? That's complete B.S. Anna and you know it! I've given you the evidence and I'll give it to you again, and again, and again. You'll eventually swallow, or choke on it.
1. Matter/energy exists
2. Matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed (1LoT).

Now... here is your task. Using those two piece of evidence, show me what other conclusions can be true. (And you don't get to use an unevidenced disembodied intelligence to zap everything up with his unevidenced magic wand.)

What "pieces of evidence"? Surely you do not intend for me to take the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and try to apply it to creation, do you? Simply put, "Matter and energy cannot be created, so prove that matter and energy were created". LMAO!

Put another way, since the Christian concept of God includes the idea that He exists outside the scope of matter, space, and time, let's make the creative process amenable to laws that govern matter, space, and time. It's as if you take a Being who created the universe and the laws governing it, who preexisted those laws, to be a slave to those laws.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 3:35:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 9:37:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
There is a real power to faith, and anyone who denies that hasn't researched the subject properly. So why do so many people assume that it's stupid to have faith in something they cannot prove?
Wow, you put that quite well. I don't think this can be contended against doubting specific faith, but I guess the act of believing in a higher power in itself isn't ignorant.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 3:35:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 3:11:45 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 11:44:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:47:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:15:07 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 6:08:51 PM, annanicole wrote:

List the "walls" I've run into. Be specific. Then list the "assumptions" I'm making (things contrary to, or inconsistent with the evidence). Then we'll have a look at your GROSS assumptions, things for which you lack evidence, and which violate logic.

Why, you have no explanation at all for the existence of matter and energy.
Because YOU made the claim, and I've provided an explanation for the existence of matter and energy, REPEATEDLY. And you can't even begin to refute it, which is what makes you soooo angry!

You made an explanation?
No, I "offered" an explanation. You sound like a 2-year old... "Mommy, I made poopoo!"

All you did was simply state that it's always been here. You assume it.
And this kind of blatant dishonesty is the reason I reach a point where I simply stop responding to your disingenuous, lying, unethical, hateful friggin' Christian face! ONCE AGAIN!

1. Matter/Energy exists (that's evidence, B...)
2. Matter/Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. (That's a law of physics which you can't show doesn't apply, and which reasonably must apply).

Now either find a way to behave like a responsible, rational, ethical adult and stop lying, or you can go argue with a cinder-block wall.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 3:46:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 3:35:25 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/18/2014 3:11:45 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 11:44:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:47:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:15:07 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 6:08:51 PM, annanicole wrote:

List the "walls" I've run into. Be specific. Then list the "assumptions" I'm making (things contrary to, or inconsistent with the evidence). Then we'll have a look at your GROSS assumptions, things for which you lack evidence, and which violate logic.

Why, you have no explanation at all for the existence of matter and energy.
Because YOU made the claim, and I've provided an explanation for the existence of matter and energy, REPEATEDLY. And you can't even begin to refute it, which is what makes you soooo angry!

You made an explanation?
No, I "offered" an explanation. You sound like a 2-year old... "Mommy, I made poopoo!"

All you did was simply state that it's always been here. You assume it.
And this kind of blatant dishonesty is the reason I reach a point where I simply stop responding to your disingenuous, lying, unethical, hateful friggin' Christian face! ONCE AGAIN!

1. Matter/Energy exists (that's evidence, B...)
2. Matter/Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. (That's a law of physics which you can't show doesn't apply, and which reasonably must apply).

Now either find a way to behave like a responsible, rational, ethical adult and stop lying, or you can go argue with a cinder-block wall.

Alright. I apologize. I previously said, "All you did was simply state that it's always been here." You deny that you've said that. I'll change it for you: you stated that is hasn't always been here. How's that? Surely you said one or the other.

You have a tendency to give your "answers", then when they are summarized and stated back to you, you don't like it. Which is it? Just put a check by the correct one:

___ Matter/energy have always existed.
___ Matter/energy have not always existed.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 4:07:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 3:35:25 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/18/2014 3:11:45 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 11:44:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:47:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:15:07 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 6:08:51 PM, annanicole wrote:

List the "walls" I've run into. Be specific. Then list the "assumptions" I'm making (things contrary to, or inconsistent with the evidence). Then we'll have a look at your GROSS assumptions, things for which you lack evidence, and which violate logic.

Why, you have no explanation at all for the existence of matter and energy.
Because YOU made the claim, and I've provided an explanation for the existence of matter and energy, REPEATEDLY. And you can't even begin to refute it, which is what makes you soooo angry!

You made an explanation?
No, I "offered" an explanation. You sound like a 2-year old... "Mommy, I made poopoo!"

All you did was simply state that it's always been here. You assume it.
And this kind of blatant dishonesty is the reason I reach a point where I simply stop responding to your disingenuous, lying, unethical, hateful friggin' Christian face! ONCE AGAIN!

Look at the poor little athiest bombardment: "disingenuous, lying, unethical, hateful, and friggin". A fella states plainly that "matter/energy have always existed", then goes into a niggardly rant when his very concept is repeated right back at him. Then the poor dude says, "OK, assume that matter and energy cannot be created. Now prove the creation of matter and energy!" Can anyone top that?

When people tell you that you teach that something came from nothing, you rant and fume and claim they are disingenuous. When you tell people, that matter and energy have always been here, you don't like that, either. Which is it?

Christians, as you well know, plainly teach that the God is not amenable to the Laws of the Universe, particularly in the creative process. Your experiments, however, ARE amenable to them. So it's no surprise to me that you can't re-create a creation scenario experimentally. Heck, you can't even create a model that conforms in every respect to your own ideas.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."