|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 19:36:45 GMT
Soooooo.... Look up.. That's the point going right over your head. -> <- Point  <- You
Complete derailment and avoidance of the point noted. THIS ISN'T SPECIFICALLY ABOUT GOD. Yes.. We get it.. You believe that belief in a god of any kind is stupid... You only whine about it every fcking day on this board. Can we have one discussion that doesn't always turn into you focusing on you and your all consuming belief in lack of your god? You fundamentalists are all the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 19:44:27 GMT
Soooooo.... Look up.. That's the point going right over your head. -> <- Point <- You
Complete derailment and avoidance of the point noted. THIS ISN'T SPECIFICALLY ABOUT GOD. Yes.. We get it.. You believe that belief in a god of any kind is stupid... You only whine about it every fcking day on this board. Can we have one discussion that doesn't always turn into you focusing on you and your all consuming belief in lack of your god? You fundamentalists are all the same. Nothing went over my head. I quite clearly said there is lots of evidence that only points to possible conclusions, for instance quantum fluctuations forming a universe. What is going over your head is that possible conclusions are exactly what we investigate further to determine if they are true or not. What we don't do, is conclude that they are true in advance.
I honestly don't know how you would argue against that.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 26, 2017 19:45:56 GMT
false equivalencies
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Feb 26, 2017 19:48:44 GMT
I have an understanding for the basic history of the entire universe. Actually evidence is the end all be all. I will certainly change what I believe based on new evidence, you aren't telling me anything there, it's called learning. You might want to check into that. And yes, some evidence only leads to possible explanations, correct. So what? Do you have evidence god is even possible? No, you don't even have that. That's how weak the god idea is. The big bang theory rests upon the assumption that the laws of physics are invariant throughout the universe and have always been. If you believe this assumption, what evidence justifies your belief? |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 19:49:16 GMT
Nothing went over my head. I quite clearly said there is lots of evidence that only points to possible conclusions, for instance quantum fluctuations forming a universe. What is going over your head is that possible conclusions are exactly what we investigate further to determine if they are true or not. What we don't do, is conclude that they are true in advance.
I honestly don't know how you would argue against that.
...... I'm not arguing against that.  Boy... When you derail... You DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.  |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 26, 2017 19:55:07 GMT
I have an understanding for the basic history of the entire universe. Actually evidence is the end all be all. I will certainly change what I believe based on new evidence, you aren't telling me anything there, it's called learning. You might want to check into that. And yes, some evidence only leads to possible explanations, correct. So what? Do you have evidence god is even possible? No, you don't even have that. That's how weak the god idea is. The big bang theory rests upon the assumption that the laws of physics are invariant throughout the universe and have always been. If you believe this assumption, what evidence justifies your belief? There's a lot of evidence for that. I'll mention just one: we can observe the spectra of distant astronomical objects (which also happen to be distant in time) and notice that the familiar traces of chemical elements that are observed on earth are also there in the light from the distant objects. The emission line patterns in the spectra are very dependent on the chemistry and physics of atoms, so we can conclude that the distant atoms behave the same as the local ones. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 19:56:46 GMT
What you are describing is not faith.
It's a common enough argument. Almost nothing can be known with 100% certainty (I'd argue that the only thing I know with absolute certainty is that my mind exists.) Therefore some people like to claim that ANY claim to knowledge is faith-based.
But that's really quite an absurd position. Take your first example. You assume that he will perform some death-defying act because you have evidence of this. You've seen such artists before, either live in circuses or on television or in movies. Or you've read about them. Or you know that song about the daring young man on the flying trapeze. Or something. It's almost impossible to live in this world and NOT know something about trapeze acts.
Hell, even if you know nothing about that type of act, you know that a circus is a place where people perform amazing acts. Or you've heard people talking about them, or whatever.
Nobody simply goes into a circus without any idea of what a trapeze artist is, looks at one climb up the pole, and takes it on faith that he's about to do something amazing.
So your belief in this example is evidence based. It's not "faith" so much as it is a reasonable belief based on the available evidence. It might still be wrong, but it's justifiable based on the evidence you have.
But do you really think this is the same as a person who says "I keep losing socks. I am going to assume that there's an invisible gnome called Kevin who lives that the bottom of my garden, who keeps sneaking into the house and eating my socks! Why? Because where else could my socks be going?"
To compare the two and pretend that they're basically the same thing is absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 19:57:39 GMT
The big bang theory rests upon the assumption that the laws of physics are invariant throughout the universe and have always been. If you believe this assumption, what evidence justifies your belief? It's not an assumption. Provide evidence that they are variant elsewhere and overturn the idea. Nobody has a problem with you doing that. I'll gladly believe it when you do. |
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Feb 26, 2017 20:03:18 GMT
There's a lot of evidence for that. I'll mention just one: we can observe the spectra of distant astronomical objects (which also happen to be distant in time) and notice that the familiar traces of chemical elements that are observed on earth are also there in the light from the distant objects. The emission line patterns in the spectra are very dependent on the chemistry and physics of atoms, so we can conclude that the distant atoms behave the same as the local ones. Thanks for that, I learnt something new. Does this method or any say anything about whether this has always been the case? |
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Feb 26, 2017 20:05:11 GMT
The big bang theory rests upon the assumption that the laws of physics are invariant throughout the universe and have always been. If you believe this assumption, what evidence justifies your belief? It's not an assumption. Provide evidence that they are variant elsewhere and overturn the idea. Nobody has a problem with you doing that. I'll gladly believe it when you do. Why is your belief dependant on what I believe? |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 20:09:30 GMT
The problem is that believing that the part in red and the parts in green aren't compatible. Of course not... I'm stating the exact opposite. IT'S NOT THE SAME. THAT is MY point. EXACTLY!!!!! To presume that any faith of any kind that a person has is basically the thing as that is absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 20:22:21 GMT
Why is your belief dependant on what I believe? It isn't. All of mine are dependent on evidence. Religious beliefs aren't.
It's just tragic to realize in the 21st century we still have so many people who live their lives based on ancient myths.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 26, 2017 20:26:37 GMT
Why is your belief dependant on what I believe? It isn't. All of mine are dependent on evidence. Religious beliefs aren't.
It's just tragic to realize in the 21st century we still have so many people who live their lives based on ancient myths.
You can;t even prove you loved your mother. What beliefs do you have that are proven. The list, by definition, has to be small. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 20:31:58 GMT
It isn't. All of mine are dependent on evidence. Religious beliefs aren't.
It's just tragic to realize in the 21st century we still have so many people who live their lives based on ancient myths.
You can;t even prove you loved your mother. What beliefs do you have that are proven. The list, by definition, has to be small. Who said prove? I said based on evidence.
So for instance I called my mother yesterday to check on her after an appendectomy as I was concerned. I didn't call your mother because I don't love your mother.
And love is something that applies to multiple definitions depending on how you are using it. Are you referring to the chemical reactions that generate sensations associated with the term? Are you referring to brain activity? These are things we can prove. Are you referring to actions associated with the term?
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Feb 26, 2017 20:37:19 GMT
It isn't. All of mine are dependent on evidence. Religious beliefs aren't.
It's just tragic to realize in the 21st century we still have so many people who live their lives based on ancient myths.
You turned the question around on me and said 'I'll gladly believe it when you do.'? See cham's reply to me for comparison for a reply with more import. Btw, I'm an atheist. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 20:41:35 GMT
You turned the question around on me and said 'I'll gladly believe it when you do.'? See cham's reply to me for comparison for a reply with more import. Btw, I'm an atheist. Yes, because we have an understanding of the laws of physics, and just saying they don't work the same elsewhere is something you have to demonstrate.
For instance we have demonstrated they don't work the same at the speed of light, or in the center of a black hole.
But just randomly saying we can't know what is on the other side of the universe because physics might work differently, doesn't mean anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 20:50:18 GMT
Thanks for proving my point: We are now supposed to see your "evidence" and take it in faith that you really love your mother... It might be wrong... but that faith is based on evidence that you just provided. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 20:53:42 GMT
That's not really evidence of your love for your mother. I call people all the time... That doesn't mean that I love them. How could we know that you are really just pretending that you love your mother and show fake concern for her by calling her? Now... I could see your "evidence" and take it in faith that you really love your mother... I might be wrong... but that faith is based on evidence that you just provided. There isn't any faith to it. I express responsibility and concern. Those don't require faith, so perhaps you need to define what you mean when you're using the word faith. It clearly isn't the same definition I use.
Faith is believing something without evidence. And you just said I used evidence, so there's no faith. Where are you confused?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 20:57:32 GMT
Now... I could see your "evidence" and take it in faith that you really love your mother... I might be wrong... but that faith is based on evidence that you just provided. What is this disagreement you have with the understood, general meaning of words? Why does the actual meaning of the word 'faith' trouble you so? You'd be taking just as silly a position if you created a thread titled "LYING... WITH HONESTY"
What single word would you use to describe belief in something with no evidence and no means of verification?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 21:04:39 GMT
That's not really evidence of your love for your mother. I call people all the time... That doesn't mean that I love them. How could we know that you are really just pretending that you love your mother and show fake concern for her by calling her? Now... I could see your "evidence" and take it in faith that you really love your mother... I might be wrong... but that faith is based on evidence that you just provided. There isn't any faith to it. I express responsibility and concern. Those don't require faith, so perhaps you need to define what you mean when you're using the word faith. It clearly isn't the same definition I use.
Faith is believing something without evidence. And you just said I used evidence, so there's no faith. Where are you confused?
Sht. I was hoping that I could edit my post before you could respond... either case.. there's the original and the point is really the same. Of course there's faith involved. I have faith that you love your mom. Yeah.. and that evidence is questionable... I have to have faith that it's not. You use a definition that is crazily circular and mind-numbingly self-serving. Simply put: Faith is having a belief that you strongly believe.. most of the time: enough to act on it. |
|
