Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Faith Based Atheism

Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
So I was thinking the other day, I'm religious and I choose to believe what I believe.

Ok

A lot of religious people don't believe in Evolution or something that's scientifically proven because it contradicts their faith that they've chosen

Ok

Using Evolution for example, a lot of Atheists claim that based on scientific evidence, that evolution is true, and occurred over the last Billion years or so on earth.

Ok

What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 10:14:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

Take a box of teddy grahams. Half of the teddy grahams are happy (have their arms up), the other half are sad (have their arms down). Now lets imagine that they have a predator, me. I think that only the happy bears taste good, so I am more likely to eat the happy bears. Take a random 8 bears out of the box, and count how many a happy and how many are sad. Eat 4 of the happy ones (representing predator), now imagine that the remaining 4 bears reproduce, passing their genes of happy and sad to their offspring. Replace the missing four bears with more from the box. In time, you will notice that the bears are all unhappy. This shows that evolution is demonstratably true, the species (bears) adapt to their environment (the predators), in order to better surivive.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 10:27:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 10:14:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

Take a box of teddy grahams. Half of the teddy grahams are happy (have their arms up), the other half are sad (have their arms down). Now lets imagine that they have a predator, me. I think that only the happy bears taste good, so I am more likely to eat the happy bears. Take a random 8 bears out of the box, and count how many a happy and how many are sad. Eat 4 of the happy ones (representing predator), now imagine that the remaining 4 bears reproduce, passing their genes of happy and sad to their offspring. Replace the missing four bears with more from the box. In time, you will notice that the bears are all unhappy. This shows that evolution is demonstratably true, the species (bears) adapt to their environment (the predators), in order to better surivive.

Haha, I always explain it by saying that the big potato chips are consumed and the ones that crack adapt and hide in the bottom of the bag in safety. At the end of the day our old potato chips have gone extinct since they couldn't reproduce faster then their predator ate them, but meanwhile the adapting population got smaller and smaller as it gained the ability to tunnel, eventually turning into a new species, the crumb, which is vastly more successful then its small potato chip cousins, and the extinct mammoth chips.

While that makes sense to me, it still doesn't change the fact that I'm making a leap of faith from chips to living potatoes. Do you consider your model good enough to represent species based on DNA structure, which is also something most people don't observe directly?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 10:31:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 10:27:41 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:14:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

Take a box of teddy grahams. Half of the teddy grahams are happy (have their arms up), the other half are sad (have their arms down). Now lets imagine that they have a predator, me. I think that only the happy bears taste good, so I am more likely to eat the happy bears. Take a random 8 bears out of the box, and count how many a happy and how many are sad. Eat 4 of the happy ones (representing predator), now imagine that the remaining 4 bears reproduce, passing their genes of happy and sad to their offspring. Replace the missing four bears with more from the box. In time, you will notice that the bears are all unhappy. This shows that evolution is demonstratably true, the species (bears) adapt to their environment (the predators), in order to better surivive.

Haha, I always explain it by saying that the big potato chips are consumed and the ones that crack adapt and hide in the bottom of the bag in safety. At the end of the day our old potato chips have gone extinct since they couldn't reproduce faster then their predator ate them, but meanwhile the adapting population got smaller and smaller as it gained the ability to tunnel, eventually turning into a new species, the crumb, which is vastly more successful then its small potato chip cousins, and the extinct mammoth chips.

The chips arent reproducing in your example.

While that makes sense to me, it still doesn't change the fact that I'm making a leap of faith from chips to living potatoes. Do you consider your model good enough to represent species based on DNA structure, which is also something most people don't observe directly?

Yes, its proven true. To think evolution is false is idiotic, and means you know nothing of biology or genetics.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 10:37:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 10:27:41 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:14:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

Take a box of teddy grahams. Half of the teddy grahams are happy (have their arms up), the other half are sad (have their arms down). Now lets imagine that they have a predator, me. I think that only the happy bears taste good, so I am more likely to eat the happy bears. Take a random 8 bears out of the box, and count how many a happy and how many are sad. Eat 4 of the happy ones (representing predator), now imagine that the remaining 4 bears reproduce, passing their genes of happy and sad to their offspring. Replace the missing four bears with more from the box. In time, you will notice that the bears are all unhappy. This shows that evolution is demonstratably true, the species (bears) adapt to their environment (the predators), in order to better surivive.

Haha, I always explain it by saying that the big potato chips are consumed and the ones that crack adapt and hide in the bottom of the bag in safety. At the end of the day our old potato chips have gone extinct since they couldn't reproduce faster then their predator ate them, but meanwhile the adapting population got smaller and smaller as it gained the ability to tunnel, eventually turning into a new species, the crumb, which is vastly more successful then its small potato chip cousins, and the extinct mammoth chips.

While that makes sense to me, it still doesn't change the fact that I'm making a leap of faith from chips to living potatoes. Do you consider your model good enough to represent species based on DNA structure, which is also something most people don't observe directly?

You can actually create quite complex forms and behaviors using a set of very simple starting rules. Look up biomorphs, for instance. Or watch

https://www.youtube.com...
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 10:45:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 10:31:10 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:27:41 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:14:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

Take a box of teddy grahams. Half of the teddy grahams are happy (have their arms up), the other half are sad (have their arms down). Now lets imagine that they have a predator, me. I think that only the happy bears taste good, so I am more likely to eat the happy bears. Take a random 8 bears out of the box, and count how many a happy and how many are sad. Eat 4 of the happy ones (representing predator), now imagine that the remaining 4 bears reproduce, passing their genes of happy and sad to their offspring. Replace the missing four bears with more from the box. In time, you will notice that the bears are all unhappy. This shows that evolution is demonstratably true, the species (bears) adapt to their environment (the predators), in order to better surivive.

Haha, I always explain it by saying that the big potato chips are consumed and the ones that crack adapt and hide in the bottom of the bag in safety. At the end of the day our old potato chips have gone extinct since they couldn't reproduce faster then their predator ate them, but meanwhile the adapting population got smaller and smaller as it gained the ability to tunnel, eventually turning into a new species, the crumb, which is vastly more successful then its small potato chip cousins, and the extinct mammoth chips.

The chips arent reproducing in your example.

The chips reproduce Asexually. Only the small ones are fast enough.

While that makes sense to me, it still doesn't change the fact that I'm making a leap of faith from chips to living potatoes. Do you consider your model good enough to represent species based on DNA structure, which is also something most people don't observe directly?

Yes, its proven true. To think evolution is false is idiotic, and means you know nothing of biology or genetics.

I don't really want to say anything is true or false yet, since it hasn't been proven.

How did you obtain your knowledge of biology and genetics?

What is your actual evidence for biological evolution?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 10:47:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
idiotic, and means you know nothing of biology or genetics.

I don't really want to say anything is true or false yet, since it hasn't been proven.

*Shown, hasn't been shown.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 10:47:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 10:45:29 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:31:10 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:27:41 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:14:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

Take a box of teddy grahams. Half of the teddy grahams are happy (have their arms up), the other half are sad (have their arms down). Now lets imagine that they have a predator, me. I think that only the happy bears taste good, so I am more likely to eat the happy bears. Take a random 8 bears out of the box, and count how many a happy and how many are sad. Eat 4 of the happy ones (representing predator), now imagine that the remaining 4 bears reproduce, passing their genes of happy and sad to their offspring. Replace the missing four bears with more from the box. In time, you will notice that the bears are all unhappy. This shows that evolution is demonstratably true, the species (bears) adapt to their environment (the predators), in order to better surivive.

Haha, I always explain it by saying that the big potato chips are consumed and the ones that crack adapt and hide in the bottom of the bag in safety. At the end of the day our old potato chips have gone extinct since they couldn't reproduce faster then their predator ate them, but meanwhile the adapting population got smaller and smaller as it gained the ability to tunnel, eventually turning into a new species, the crumb, which is vastly more successful then its small potato chip cousins, and the extinct mammoth chips.

The chips arent reproducing in your example.

The chips reproduce Asexually. Only the small ones are fast enough.

Youre not doing a very good job of mocking my example, you drop the logic of it and just mock it with silly examples

While that makes sense to me, it still doesn't change the fact that I'm making a leap of faith from chips to living potatoes. Do you consider your model good enough to represent species based on DNA structure, which is also something most people don't observe directly?

Yes, its proven true. To think evolution is false is idiotic, and means you know nothing of biology or genetics.

I don't really want to say anything is true or false yet, since it hasn't been proven.

How did you obtain your knowledge of biology and genetics?

What is your actual evidence for biological evolution?

Read any high school biology book. Simpler organisms becoming more complex over time, fossils, etc.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 11:40:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 10:47:24 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:45:29 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:31:10 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:27:41 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:14:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? I'm sure we take from that?

Take a box of teddy grahams. Half of the teddy grahams are happy (have their arms up), the other half are sad (have their arms down). Now lets imagine that they have a predator, me. I think that only the happy bears taste good, so I am more likely to eat the happy bears. Take a random 8 bears out of the box, and count how many a happy and how many are sad. Eat 4 of the happy ones (representing predator), now imagine that the remaining 4 bears reproduce, passing their genes of happy and sad to their offspring. Replace the missing four bears with more from the box. In time, you will notice that the bears are all unhappy. This shows that evolution is demonstratably true, the species (bears) adapt to their environment (the predators), in order to better surivive.

Haha, I always explain it by saying that the big potato chips are consumed and the ones that crack adapt and hide in the bottom of the bag in safety. At the end of the day our old potato chips have gone extinct since they couldn't reproduce faster then their predator ate them, but meanwhile the adapting population got smaller and smaller as it gained the ability to tunnel, eventually turning into a new species, the crumb, which is vastly more successful then its small potato chip cousins, and the extinct mammoth chips.

The chips arent reproducing in your example.

The chips reproduce Asexually. Only the small ones are fast enough.

Youre not doing a very good job of mocking my example, you drop the logic of it and just mock it with silly examples

While that makes sense to me, it still doesn't change the fact that I'm making a leap of faith from chips to living potatoes. Do you consider your model good enough to represent species based on DNA structure, which is also something most people don't observe directly?

Yes, its proven true. To think evolution is false is idiotic, and means you know nothing of biology or genetics.

I don't really want to say anything is true or false yet, since it hasn't been proven.

How did you obtain your knowledge of biology and genetics?

What is your actual evidence for biological evolution?

Read any high school biology book. Simpler organisms becoming more complex over time, fossils, etc.

And why should you find the high school biology book to be credible? What guarantee do you have that its true? I'm sure you realize that accredited and highly esteemed books have been disproven in the past. What's makes this one so confidence inspiring that I can say you put your faith in it?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 11:41:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 11:40:17 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:47:24 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:45:29 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:31:10 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:27:41 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:14:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? I'm sure we take from that?

Take a box of teddy grahams. Half of the teddy grahams are happy (have their arms up), the other half are sad (have their arms down). Now lets imagine that they have a predator, me. I think that only the happy bears taste good, so I am more likely to eat the happy bears. Take a random 8 bears out of the box, and count how many a happy and how many are sad. Eat 4 of the happy ones (representing predator), now imagine that the remaining 4 bears reproduce, passing their genes of happy and sad to their offspring. Replace the missing four bears with more from the box. In time, you will notice that the bears are all unhappy. This shows that evolution is demonstratably true, the species (bears) adapt to their environment (the predators), in order to better surivive.

Haha, I always explain it by saying that the big potato chips are consumed and the ones that crack adapt and hide in the bottom of the bag in safety. At the end of the day our old potato chips have gone extinct since they couldn't reproduce faster then their predator ate them, but meanwhile the adapting population got smaller and smaller as it gained the ability to tunnel, eventually turning into a new species, the crumb, which is vastly more successful then its small potato chip cousins, and the extinct mammoth chips.

The chips arent reproducing in your example.

The chips reproduce Asexually. Only the small ones are fast enough.

Youre not doing a very good job of mocking my example, you drop the logic of it and just mock it with silly examples

While that makes sense to me, it still doesn't change the fact that I'm making a leap of faith from chips to living potatoes. Do you consider your model good enough to represent species based on DNA structure, which is also something most people don't observe directly?

Yes, its proven true. To think evolution is false is idiotic, and means you know nothing of biology or genetics.

I don't really want to say anything is true or false yet, since it hasn't been proven.

How did you obtain your knowledge of biology and genetics?

What is your actual evidence for biological evolution?

Read any high school biology book. Simpler organisms becoming more complex over time, fossils, etc.

And why should you find the high school biology book to be credible? What guarantee do you have that its true? I'm sure you realize that accredited and highly esteemed books have been disproven in the past. What's makes this one so confidence inspiring that I can say you put your faith in it?

And you do have faith in it right? I mean what other explanation do you have for just trusting a book filled with information you haven't verified yourself?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2016 12:05:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
So I was thinking the other day, I'm religious and I choose to believe what I believe.

Ok

A lot of religious people don't believe in Evolution or something that's scientifically proven because it contradicts their faith that they've chosen

Ok

Using Evolution for example, a lot of Atheists claim that based on scientific evidence, that evolution is true, and occurred over the last Billion years or so on earth.

Ok

What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

*sigh*
The same old equivocation fallacy on the word 'faith'.
Once more with feeling.

faith
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More
2.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"
synonyms:religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"
missmedic
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2016 12:09:18 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 11:41:58 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 11:40:17 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:47:24 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:45:29 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:31:10 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:27:41 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:14:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? I'm sure we take from that?

Take a box of teddy grahams. Half of the teddy grahams are happy (have their arms up), the other half are sad (have their arms down). Now lets imagine that they have a predator, me. I think that only the happy bears taste good, so I am more likely to eat the happy bears. Take a random 8 bears out of the box, and count how many a happy and how many are sad. Eat 4 of the happy ones (representing predator), now imagine that the remaining 4 bears reproduce, passing their genes of happy and sad to their offspring. Replace the missing four bears with more from the box. In time, you will notice that the bears are all unhappy. This shows that evolution is demonstratably true, the species (bears) adapt to their environment (the predators), in order to better surivive.

Haha, I always explain it by saying that the big potato chips are consumed and the ones that crack adapt and hide in the bottom of the bag in safety. At the end of the day our old potato chips have gone extinct since they couldn't reproduce faster then their predator ate them, but meanwhile the adapting population got smaller and smaller as it gained the ability to tunnel, eventually turning into a new species, the crumb, which is vastly more successful then its small potato chip cousins, and the extinct mammoth chips.

The chips arent reproducing in your example.

The chips reproduce Asexually. Only the small ones are fast enough.

Youre not doing a very good job of mocking my example, you drop the logic of it and just mock it with silly examples

While that makes sense to me, it still doesn't change the fact that I'm making a leap of faith from chips to living potatoes. Do you consider your model good enough to represent species based on DNA structure, which is also something most people don't observe directly?

Yes, its proven true. To think evolution is false is idiotic, and means you know nothing of biology or genetics.

I don't really want to say anything is true or false yet, since it hasn't been proven.

How did you obtain your knowledge of biology and genetics?

What is your actual evidence for biological evolution?

Read any high school biology book. Simpler organisms becoming more complex over time, fossils, etc.

And why should you find the high school biology book to be credible? What guarantee do you have that its true? I'm sure you realize that accredited and highly esteemed books have been disproven in the past. What's makes this one so confidence inspiring that I can say you put your faith in it?

And you do have faith in it right? I mean what other explanation do you have for just trusting a book filled with information you haven't verified yourself?

Do you understand what peer reviewed means?
Books either meet the criteria for a credible source or they do not, the bible does not. Talk about trusting a book filled with information you haven't verified yourself. Also most Atheists do not choose to be Atheist, it happens because of what we know and how we reason. What is your version of FAITH mean?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2016 12:24:38 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
Using Evolution for example, a lot of Atheists claim that based on scientific evidence, that evolution is true, and occurred over the last Billion years or so on earth.

Actually, the people who claim that have another name: biologists.

Atheism predates evolution (and indeed, modern science) by thousands of years. You don't have to be an evolutionary biologist to be an atheist, nor is every biologist irreligious.

What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture?
I think you're confusing two kinds of faith, Quad:
1) Faith in diligent use of best-practice, falsifiable, specific, significant and predictive processes (like surgery, or biology); and
2) Faith in presuppositional dogma (like the authority of revelation.)

That confusion isn't your fault. The conflation of meanings has been established by millennia of theologians seeking to make religious faith seem virtuous, reasonable and rational.

But the two are very different. The first kind demands skepticism, falsifiability, best practice methods and diligent investigation.

The second merely demands assent to suspend scrutiny.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2016 12:59:16 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/23/2016 12:24:38 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
Using Evolution for example, a lot of Atheists claim that based on scientific evidence, that evolution is true, and occurred over the last Billion years or so on earth.

Actually, the people who claim that have another name: biologists.

Atheism predates evolution (and indeed, modern science) by thousands of years. You don't have to be an evolutionary biologist to be an atheist, nor is every biologist irreligious.

What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture?
I think you're confusing two kinds of faith, Quad:
1) Faith in diligent use of best-practice, falsifiable, specific, significant and predictive processes (like surgery, or biology); and
2) Faith in presuppositional dogma (like the authority of revelation.)


I believe there is only one kind of faith because faith doesn't require proof. Its kind of like love and hope, in that you can fuel it, but you can't make faith. If you say you believe something it doesn't magically make you believe it. I don't think its virtuous, or rational. I think its human.

That confusion isn't your fault. The conflation of meanings has been established by millennia of theologians seeking to make religious faith seem virtuous, reasonable and rational.

But the two are very different. The first kind demands skepticism, falsifiability, best practice methods and diligent investigation.

The second merely demands assent to suspend scrutiny.

That's what I was hoping to move towards next actually. Obviously there are scientists who have done the work, and they know with certainty what they know, because its their own thought process.

Now us common folk, we generally pick up on their research after it has been scrutinized by a whole host of scientists. By the time the theory ends up in the textbook, its had the intellectual snot beat out of it for years.

That is what you have faith in, but the only reason you have faith in that is because you had it drilled into you repeatedly growing up. You only hold a theory like evolution to be credible because of the faith you have in your education system because of the constant reassurance you received growing up, not so different from kids holding the religion of their particular church.

It may even be rationalized in your head as Hayd showed, without any actual proof beyond your education. We both made evolution work (tried to rationalize) in our brains without due scientific process, and trusted the book.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2016 1:10:56 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

It's called an equivocation fallacy.

Believing something because it is consistent with your life experiences is completely different than believing something because a book says so.

What our life experiences tell us is that when 97% of the experts in an industry agree on something, that something is probably right. It is the reason why we have satellites in space and how we have managed to cure and/or prevent countless fatal diseases, many of which BTW were cured as a result of our knowledge of evolution.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2016 3:36:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/23/2016 12:59:16 AM, Quadrunner wrote:

I believe there is only one kind of faith because faith doesn't require proof. Its kind of like love and hope, in that you can fuel it, but you can't make faith. If you say you believe something it doesn't magically make you believe it. I don't think its virtuous, or rational. I think its human.

What you believe is irrelevant. We don't get to decide personally what words in common usage mean.

You're now arguing with a dictionary.
What does that say about you and your beliefs?
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2016 4:40:33 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
So I was thinking the other day, I'm religious and I choose to believe what I believe.

Ok

A lot of religious people don't believe in Evolution or something that's scientifically proven because it contradicts their faith that they've chosen

Ok

Using Evolution for example, a lot of Atheists claim that based on scientific evidence, that evolution is true, and occurred over the last Billion years or so on earth.

Ok

What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

I thought this question was something else that kinda got me excited to answer or see even said, bc atheists can have spiritual belief. I am such an atheist. However, there is an honesty i never portray: It is conjecture and i don't have a way to prove it... i just have faith that it is true.

My question is, what makes my belief any less credible? I actually made my belief from the best logic and reasoning i can do, and it fits what we observe for the most part. I just don't understand why faith can't transcend past faiths. Why is my aspiration of writing an "Atheist's guide to spirituality" any less reasonable than any religion i have heard. I have had revelations, i have had "supernatural experiences," really, i have had many "spiritual" experiences to prove (to myself) that what i have faith in is true. How is that not even stronger than your faith? Mean no offense by that bc i don't think it is better - it just happens to have proven itself to me.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2016 9:31:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/23/2016 12:59:16 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
I believe there is only one kind of faith because faith doesn't require proof.
You have no research supporting your assertion that all faith is blind. The amount of diligence used to validate and verify knowledge depends on the uses to which it is put, the risks associated with ignorance and error, the motives of the recipients, and their skills in validation and verification in the first place. So the amount of faith used in knowledge, and where it is used, varies.

If your skills in validation and verification are poor, you may imagine that everyone else's are too. However that's not so. We can qualify knowledge in multiple ways, including correlating expert independent testimonies of people who know the material best, and can explain how it arose.

So it's not true that there's only skepticism and blind faith. There are varying levels of diligence ranging from blind, emotional decision-making, through to the meticulous best-practice diligence often used in STEM disciplines.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2016 3:30:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/23/2016 1:10:56 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

It's called an equivocation fallacy.

Believing something because it is consistent with your life experiences is completely different than believing something because a book says so.

What our life experiences tell us is that when 97% of the experts in an industry agree on something, that something is probably right. It is the reason why we have satellites in space and how we have managed to cure and/or prevent countless fatal diseases, many of which BTW were cured as a result of our knowledge of evolution.

What makes you so confident that the experts are experts? Does the field not matter as long as it addresses the issue? If so, you have a little explaining to do, because that's again very similar to how a lot of Christian's build their faith growing up. You accepting your biology text book over the bible because of the influence in your life isn't all that different then another person accepting the Bible over the Biology text book because of the influence in their life. Is it wrong to say your faith is just balanced differently? I don't really see a person believing either book because the book says so. Most people believe it because multiple people you trust say you can and explain why, and then it happens not to fail you as you inevitably give it your mental tests, which is why I said that its drilled into you earlier, and then you rationalize it.

While I like the theory, I don't think an equivocation fallacy is the right term here. Call me close minded, but I'm gonna stick with 1 definition of faith for a little longer. I really think they are both one in the same. Either way its a gut feeling. Faith isn't believing the most probable answer. Its above plausibility. It can be believing the answer should be determined by plausibility, and therefore believing the most plausible answer. Faith isn't a percentage though. It just is, kind of like love. Sometimes it works how you would expect it, and other times the irrationality of it shows itself. That doesn't mean there are two faiths. To me it mean's faith doesn't give a damn. You serve your faith, and live by it, but you don't create it through rational thought process. Faith creates/is your confidence in the rational thought process you use.

Maybe the reason I'm not swayed is the way you put it. Believing evolution isn't consistent with most peoples' life experience, which is why I picked it as an example originally. A fair amount of evolution teachings go into detail addressing that issue.

The reason we have the things we have today is because people went beyond their current scope of knowledge, and occasionally gained new knowledge that wasn't present, and used the new knowledge to do new things, which often didn't work at first. Most inventions and new practices required a great deal of faith in something. They don't just happen cuz science. They happen because people went out on a limb, and made them happen. I don't know, maybe that's the engineer in me speaking, but while I'm just discussing possibilities for the rest of this forum, I'm adamant about that.

To be clear to others, I'm not arguing against the dictionary. I'm aware that you can classify anything, any way, but I'm proposing that you guys might be labeling the observable symptoms of faith, while I'm addressing faith itself as a core human trait. That's why its all the same in my eyes, sorry for not picking up on that sooner. Obviously being different people we might have different ways of looking at things and we can discuss that, in fact, I'd prefer that we discuss that.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
missmedic
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2016 3:41:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/23/2016 3:30:44 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/23/2016 1:10:56 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

It's called an equivocation fallacy.

Believing something because it is consistent with your life experiences is completely different than believing something because a book says so.

What our life experiences tell us is that when 97% of the experts in an industry agree on something, that something is probably right. It is the reason why we have satellites in space and how we have managed to cure and/or prevent countless fatal diseases, many of which BTW were cured as a result of our knowledge of evolution.

What makes you so confident that the experts are experts? Does the field not matter as long as it addresses the issue? If so, you have a little explaining to do, because that's again very similar to how a lot of Christian's build their faith growing up. You accepting your biology text book over the bible because of the influence in your life isn't all that different then another person accepting the Bible over the Biology text book because of the influence in their life. Is it wrong to say your faith is just balanced differently? I don't really see a person believing either book because the book says so. Most people believe it because multiple people you trust say you can and explain why, and then it happens not to fail you as you inevitably give it your mental tests, which is why I said that its drilled into you earlier, and then you rationalize it.

While I like the theory, I don't think an equivocation fallacy is the right term here. Call me close minded, but I'm gonna stick with 1 definition of faith for a little longer. I really think they are both one in the same. Either way its a gut feeling. Faith isn't believing the most probable answer. Its above plausibility. It can be believing the answer should be determined by plausibility, and therefore believing the most plausible answer. Faith isn't a percentage though. It just is, kind of like love. Sometimes it works how you would expect it, and other times the irrationality of it shows itself. That doesn't mean there are two faiths. To me it mean's faith doesn't give a damn. You serve your faith, and live by it, but you don't create it through rational thought process. Faith creates/is your confidence in the rational thought process you use.

Maybe the reason I'm not swayed is the way you put it. Believing evolution isn't consistent with most peoples' life experience, which is why I picked it as an example originally. A fair amount of evolution teachings go into detail addressing that issue.

The reason we have the things we have today is because people went beyond their current scope of knowledge, and occasionally gained new knowledge that wasn't present, and used the new knowledge to do new things, which often didn't work at first. Most inventions and new practices required a great deal of faith in something. They don't just happen cuz science. They happen because people went out on a limb, and made them happen. I don't know, maybe that's the engineer in me speaking, but while I'm just discussing possibilities for the rest of this forum, I'm adamant about that.

To be clear to others, I'm not arguing against the dictionary. I'm aware that you can classify anything, any way, but I'm proposing that you guys might be labeling the observable symptoms of faith, while I'm addressing faith itself as a core human trait. That's why its all the same in my eyes, sorry for not picking up on that sooner. Obviously being different people we might have different ways of looking at things and we can discuss that, in fact, I'd prefer that we discuss that.

Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts. It does not matter how many people believe or for how many centuries they have believed it. It does not matter how reverent or important people think of them, if it does not agree with evidence, then it simply cannot have any validity to the outside world. All things we know about the world, we can express without referring to a belief. Even at its most benign level, beliefs can act as barriers to further understanding.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2016 4:00:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/23/2016 4:40:33 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
So I was thinking the other day, I'm religious and I choose to believe what I believe.

Ok

A lot of religious people don't believe in Evolution or something that's scientifically proven because it contradicts their faith that they've chosen

Ok

Using Evolution for example, a lot of Atheists claim that based on scientific evidence, that evolution is true, and occurred over the last Billion years or so on earth.

Ok

What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

I thought this question was something else that kinda got me excited to answer or see even said, bc atheists can have spiritual belief. I am such an atheist. However, there is an honesty i never portray: It is conjecture and i don't have a way to prove it... i just have faith that it is true.

My question is, what makes my belief any less credible? I actually made my belief from the best logic and reasoning i can do, and it fits what we observe for the most part. I just don't understand why faith can't transcend past faiths. Why is my aspiration of writing an "Atheist's guide to spirituality" any less reasonable than any religion i have heard. I have had revelations, i have had "supernatural experiences," really, i have had many "spiritual" experiences to prove (to myself) that what i have faith in is true. How is that not even stronger than your faith? Mean no offense by that bc i don't think it is better - it just happens to have proven itself to me.

I thought the question was saying something else as well. I feel as though people are accusing me of something. Hayd thought I was mocking him, and everyone is acting defensive for some reason. I'm just trying to discuss the idea that a lot of Atheist beliefs might be faith based, not so different from any other religion. So far I've been trying to lay the baselines down so we can expand upon them. Feel free to do so.

I think that Atheism might not be connected to rationality as many contest. Its simply a rejection of theistic religion, but not necessarily unreligious in nature because it is faith based, as we are faith based creatures. The way you live, and your role in the universe is not necessarily linked to logical thought in any way if you trace it back far enough. It might be your faith in your own code whatever it may be that determines your religious preferences. Not the 97% of experts that agree with you, but you agreeing that 97% of experts are agreeable. I think its very possible to be extremely spiritual as an Atheist, and to say that its just based on science, logic, and rationality, might be entirely wrong in at least the majority of Atheistic beliefs.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2016 8:11:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/23/2016 4:00:55 PM, Quadrunner wrote:

I thought the question was saying something else as well. I feel as though people are accusing me of something. Hayd thought I was mocking him, and everyone is acting defensive for some reason. I'm just trying to discuss the idea that a lot of Atheist beliefs might be faith based, not so different from any other religion. So far I've been trying to lay the baselines down so we can expand upon them. Feel free to do so.

This is why i chose to answer you too; i noticed the more defensive answers and i simply disagree with the forceful type actions on either side. However, think of your words intelligently as well, don't be too fast to say 'Atheist' is faith based or has no good reasoning; to avoid any kind of offensive attitude it can contribute. I don't get that from you, but you have to remember some people are atheists for a reason, and some reasons are just a hate for something religion has contributed negatively in their life. I will do my best to lay down why i chose to be called or labeled Atheist Agnostic - Spiritual. If you can use logic and reasoning beyond just material thoughts, this can be a very interesting discussion - that is what my belief is based off of.

I think that Atheism might not be connected to rationality as many contest. Its simply a rejection of theistic religion, but not necessarily unreligious in nature because it is faith based, as we are faith based creatures. The way you live, and your role in the universe is not necessarily linked to logical thought in any way if you trace it back far enough. It might be your faith in your own code whatever it may be that determines your religious preferences. Not the 97% of experts that agree with you, but you agreeing that 97% of experts are agreeable. I think its very possible to be extremely spiritual as an Atheist, and to say that its just based on science, logic, and rationality, might be entirely wrong in at least the majority of Atheistic beliefs.

First off, the 97% of experts an atheist or other agree with is for good reason. The scientific method has proved, so far, to be reliable. So... when that many experts agree, it follows that it is logical to "trust" them. Now... i put trust in quotations bc that is a problem in religion as well. You may be aware that not many religious people even read their spiritual test... they just trust an "expert" to portray the platform. I disagree with this position either way. I think one should investigate by them self and form an opinion that way. Everyone has some sort of bias, and that will always bleed through in their work or writings. So, in a sense i can see why you think it is faith based, however, it isn't when compared to something like religion that is faith based. Although, i think facts can change on a dime, it is good to respect them and the work done by many professionals to get these answers ... it is our growth with has spiritual implications as well.

I say i am atheist for the fact i respect science and evidence. There is no evidence for a god, and i respect that even if i don't have to believe it per se. I am on the edge bc the conjecture i have made in regards to spirituality works without a god, and... i give good reason to way even "god" would have it my way. I am also agnostic. I think this is fair since i can't prove anything either way, and i admit that. I understand that i am just treading the waters through my own intellect and experience which makes things anecdotal. I do, however, have good reason to believe in spirituality through my own experiences, so i am spiritual. This all works together to make me one: Intellectually honest and two: Intellectually open to metaphysical belief.

As a Agnospirist (i put them all together to make this word lol), I believe there is something more, however, i believe we should be moving more forward. This is the same problem atheist may have against religion that i also hold - it is holding us in the past. Everyone is arguing "words" and "events" instead of trying to understand what spirituality is... or what "god" is. Have you ever thought of gods role? Think about this, right now... something happens and you realize you are god. Everyone...i mean everyone in this world turns and looks at you. You are god, so you know everyone's question... and you know a lot of it is "wtf" based. How sad of a thought. What would god say? Why would god want this position... at the same time, it goes even further... not only is everyone expecting this (which god "could" just make better), but god is noticing everyone... god is noticing all of this is a creation of his/her imagination... it's all in god's head. So technically, god is alone. An eternal spiritual lost in nothingness forever... idk if you can feel this just through my writing (i have had a OBE experience with this theme) but it is hell. I remember screaming for someone that wasn't just made up by me... i was screaming for someone that is their own. If you follow this logic, if there is a creating being of intelligence, the first thing they would create is something that is not in its control and separate from god.

So... i will stop there and wait for reply, maybe i went off the OP and you want to keep me on... but, here is the thing... i have this belief, and trust me i make it work, but then there are theists calling me satanic... insane.... etc. Not only that, i can clearly see religion in its toxic form as well (although i agree the toxic ppl are a minority). Organized religion is being poisoned while the good followers help the poisoness people by blindly defending a "label." Don't you think if Jesus did come down right now, he would be disappointed in the followers? Do you think Jesus would rather you call your self a believer, spiritual, something more neutral in words; rather than calling yourself Christian, so proudly that you minimize the people that word hurts. I think if he came down right now... he would like the people like me (not boasting). Open minded to all possibilities with the aspiration to one day work side by side with science to figure out this reality. A person understanding that i am accountable and i should just let "god" live. I 100% believe if there is such a character called "god" he/she is living in the creation, not separate from it. I think we are all immortal and accountable for our own actions. I think our free will also extends to our source state (immortal) state. No god, no other angels or demons... just you. Immortality is your rest, and mortality is your fight. You chose how long you want to rest and where you want to fight, again no god needed... i really believe we evolved first "massless" and mortality is a byproduct of this evolution of thought and spirits to live experiences suitable to your character. To me, god is the most primitive source and the oldest source... it just started the chain of intelligence. Not omnipotent or anything; willingly. All of my conjecture follows reason and logic to what i observe now... what i observe is intelligence and sentience and the logical path it would take if it evolved eternally.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 1:55:29 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/23/2016 3:30:44 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
What makes you so confident that the experts are experts?

Do you have a personal physician, dentist, or accountant? If so, why?

You accepting your biology text book over the bible because of the influence in your life isn't all that different then another person accepting the Bible over the Biology text book because of the influence in their life.

It's entirely different.

We don't accept evolution because of the book it is documented in. We accept evolution because that is what the vast, vast, vast majority of individuals who have studied the actual, real, physical evidence have discovered to be true. A book is only as valuable as its source. Evolution is supported by millions of scientists who actually went out and performed the necessary experiments and gathered the actual data. The bible is supported by millions of pastors and preachers who read the book and really really believe what it says.

You serve your faith, and live by it, but you don't create it through rational thought process. Faith creates/is your confidence in the rational thought process you use.

To be rational is to be in accordance with logic. However, logic only draws conclusions from the premises.

The question is whether you choose your own reality, or whether you accept the reality presented to you. If you choose your own, which is what faith essentially is, then I'm done attempting a rational conversation because we're starting off in two different places. I prefer to start where my senses tell me, not where your emotions lead you.

Maybe the reason I'm not swayed is the way you put it. Believing evolution isn't consistent with most peoples' life experience, which is why I picked it as an example originally.

Evolution is a process that occurs over millions of years. What you just said is like watching a snail for 4 seconds then rejecting the notion that the snail could ever move 3 feet because that is inconsistent with your life experiences.

The reason we have the things we have today is because people went beyond their current scope of knowledge, and occasionally gained new knowledge that wasn't present, and used the new knowledge to do new things, which often didn't work at first. Most inventions and new practices required a great deal of faith in something. They don't just happen cuz science. They happen because people went out on a limb, and made them happen.

Yea, that's called testing, which is the hallmark of science and exactly where science and religion diverge.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 3:58:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
So I was thinking the other day, I'm religious and I choose to believe what I believe.

Ok

A lot of religious people don't believe in Evolution or something that's scientifically proven because it contradicts their faith that they've chosen

Ok

Using Evolution for example, a lot of Atheists claim that based on scientific evidence, that evolution is true, and occurred over the last Billion years or so on earth.

Ok

What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

If I say that the Scientology evil overlord Xenu doesn't exist because I do not think the evidence is sufficient, does that mean I have faith? According to your theory, that is what it means.

Faith equals BELIEVING things without evidence. (Believing is the opposite of not believing).

When you don't profess belief in things because they lack evidence, that is just plain common sense.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 6:31:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 3:58:17 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
So I was thinking the other day, I'm religious and I choose to believe what I believe.

Ok

A lot of religious people don't believe in Evolution or something that's scientifically proven because it contradicts their faith that they've chosen

Ok

Using Evolution for example, a lot of Atheists claim that based on scientific evidence, that evolution is true, and occurred over the last Billion years or so on earth.

Ok

What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

If I say that the Scientology evil overlord Xenu doesn't exist because I do not think the evidence is sufficient, does that mean I have faith? According to your theory, that is what it means.

Faith equals BELIEVING things without evidence. (Believing is the opposite of not believing).

When you don't profess belief in things because they lack evidence, that is just plain common sense.

No that's not what I'm saying. Using logic to debunk theism and establishing that you are therefore atheistic is not faith. That's logic. I'm talking about the atheistic system you create after you reject theistic faith, arising from the things you actually do have faith in.

I agree that faith can be in things without evidence, but you can also have your faith strengthened or doused by evidence (influence). Knowing something is by definition, and my perceived feeling, the highest degree of faith. People who know God is real, therefore have ultimate faith in him. People who just claim to know God, are liars. You can know of God without ever meeting God, if you have the highest degree of faith in God. It doesn't matter if he is real to anyone else. If you know God is real, then by your faith in God, he is real in your "heart", and you will walk in his influence, whether he is real or not.

At the same time, if you know a pizza is better then a salad, it doesn't matter that you have evidence to prove it. Bottom line, you have faith in pizza, and that faith can grow or reinforce, whatever, as you eat more pizza, and try to eat more salad after you get fat from all the pizza. If you have complete faith in pizza then you know pizza is the bomb deity, at which point you probably have little faith in salad's ability to bring fulfillment to your life since salad is a failure. You are not a believer in salad. The vegans are wrong.

If you have strong faith in science, you probably have excellent reasons. I know I do and I'm sure you do to as that's the nature of having faith, but ultimately the faith just is what it is.

When you don't profess belief in things because they lack evidence. That is just a significant lack of faith. You can't choose that which you believe or don't believe. If you openly admit belief, you do so after the point of belief and the same goes for disbelief. It just happens as has been shown by the evolution example, and different people react to challenges to their faith in different ways. Hayd and I both believe in evolution in the complete absence of scientific testing due to unique influences in our lives and our reaction to them. Sure you choose what's right and wrong, but how do you know you used the right system to make that choice...

Faith - That which makes you an idiot not to believe evolution.

Okay that was a joke, but does that make sense? Hayd showed a sign of true faith when he used such a strong word as "idiot", not in anything divine, but in his own system.

@Outplayz. Still working on your reply. Haven't forgot about you, its just a lot to mull over, and I don't have time to write a good response yet.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 6:49:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 6:31:52 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/24/2016 3:58:17 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
So I was thinking the other day, I'm religious and I choose to believe what I believe.

Ok

A lot of religious people don't believe in Evolution or something that's scientifically proven because it contradicts their faith that they've chosen

Ok

Using Evolution for example, a lot of Atheists claim that based on scientific evidence, that evolution is true, and occurred over the last Billion years or so on earth.

Ok

What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

If I say that the Scientology evil overlord Xenu doesn't exist because I do not think the evidence is sufficient, does that mean I have faith? According to your theory, that is what it means.

Faith equals BELIEVING things without evidence. (Believing is the opposite of not believing).

When you don't profess belief in things because they lack evidence, that is just plain common sense.

No that's not what I'm saying. Using logic to debunk theism and establishing that you are therefore atheistic is not faith. That's logic. I'm talking about the atheistic system you create after you reject theistic faith, arising from the things you actually do have faith in.

I agree that faith can be in things without evidence, but you can also have your faith strengthened or doused by evidence (influence). Knowing something is by definition, and my perceived feeling, the highest degree of faith. People who know God is real, therefore have ultimate faith in him. People who just claim to know God, are liars. You can know of God without ever meeting God, if you have the highest degree of faith in God. It doesn't matter if he is real to anyone else. If you know God is real, then by your faith in God, he is real in your "heart", and you will walk in his influence, whether he is real or not.

At the same time, if you know a pizza is better then a salad, it doesn't matter that you have evidence to prove it. Bottom line, you have faith in pizza, and that faith can grow or reinforce, whatever, as you eat more pizza, and try to eat more salad after you get fat from all the pizza. If you have complete faith in pizza then you know pizza is the bomb deity, at which point you probably have little faith in salad's ability to bring fulfillment to your life since salad is a failure. You are not a believer in salad. The vegans are wrong.

If you have strong faith in science, you probably have excellent reasons. I know I do and I'm sure you do to as that's the nature of having faith, but ultimately the faith just is what it is.

When you don't profess belief in things because they lack evidence. That is just a significant lack of faith. You can't choose that which you believe or don't believe. If you openly admit belief, you do so after the point of belief and the same goes for disbelief. It just happens as has been shown by the evolution example, and different people react to challenges to their faith in different ways. Hayd and I both believe in evolution in the complete absence of scientific testing due to unique influences in our lives and our reaction to them. Sure you choose what's right and wrong, but how do you know you used the right system to make that choice...

Faith - That which makes you an idiot not to believe evolution.

Okay that was a joke, but does that make sense? Hayd showed a sign of true faith when he used such a strong word as "idiot", not in anything divine, but in his own system.

@Outplayz. Still working on your reply. Haven't forgot about you, its just a lot to mull over, and I don't have time to write a good response yet.

If I say that the Scientology evil overlord Xenu doesn't exist because I do not think the evidence is sufficient, would that make me an atheist? Why or why not?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 11:06:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 10:09:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
So I was thinking the other day, I'm religious and I choose to believe what I believe.

Ok

A lot of religious people don't believe in Evolution or something that's scientifically proven because it contradicts their faith that they've chosen

Ok

Using Evolution for example, a lot of Atheists claim that based on scientific evidence, that evolution is true, and occurred over the last Billion years or so on earth.

Ok

What evidence do you have for that? I mean, what actual evidence do you have, that wasn't taken from faith out of a book, article, or scripture? I mean, most people on this website studied the theories, but almost no one actually tested them, so does that make your researched assertions faith based? What should we take from that?

Via fulfilled prophecies, the Firmi Paradox, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, yes, Atheism takes an unsermountable amount of faith.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...