Darwin vs DNA

[JakeStarkey]

That is a purely personal viewpoint, and if it makes you happy, go for it.

You start lying, get caught short on it, and you start throwing tantrums?

You can believe anyway you want, but you don't get to change the definition of words and terms anymore than wackos like bripat.

Tis what tis. Atheism is a belief in no gods, thus it is a faith.

Which makes agnosticism (god has yet been proven, but if it is one day, I'll change my mind) the only intelligent viewpoint.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Honey, I don't copy and paste scripture: you are mixed up again.

Really, truly. Go look, please.

Notice, if you will, when copy and pasting random scripture and belittling other people's ideas doesn't work we get treated to the 'helpful Father' who cautions us to 'Grow up'.

Jake you are so predictable I could phone this in.

 

[CandySlice]

Evidence, but not proof, requires, at its end, some leap of logic to assert a conclusion. The -only- conclusion that doesn't require some amount of faith is the following: I don't know.




Now THERE'S something believable. And the basis for all my questions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ima, if I belittled you, I apologize.

I believe "God is". I can't prove it, you can't disprove it.

I will leave the random scripture posting and pasting to Candy Slice,.

You are so predictable in your rage.

What random scripture pasting?

I am not belittling your ideas by telling you that philsophy and empirical data can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

Facts are facts.

Notice, if you will, when copy and pasting random scripture and belittling other people's ideas doesn't work we get treated to the 'helpful Father' who cautions us to 'Grow up'.

Jake you are so predictable I could phone this in.

ringo, weren't you the one who said "god is", and when I asked why you belittled me for not agreeing that god just is, and that's proof enough?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Just to clarify. . .

faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


See definition number 2. Evidence is not proof. Belief based on evidence, at least according to one definition of faith, is faith.

In none of these basic definitions (or, for that matter, any definition I've ever heard) do I see anything that would even imply that rational beliefs and faith are mutually exclusive.

Thanks for playing.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Aren't you splitting hairs? Faith vs belief? Look up the definition for both and you'll find each in the other's definition. Some think that faith is belief without evidence. And some that belief is faith in evidence. Not so.
Evidence changes, so our beliefs change. Our belief, our faith, in science was based on the fact that there are 3 dimensions, until we found # 4. Our faith in science has caused a different belief.

Religious faith is steadfast. It can be verified by a belief in science, but doesn't hinge on the latest epiphany in the scientific field.
Christians have faith that there are rolled up dimensions. That science believes that now, strengths our faith. It doesn't reset it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Aren't you splitting hairs? Faith vs belief? Look up the definition for both and you'll find each in the other's definition. Some lthink that faith is belief without evidence. And some that belief is faith in evidence. Not so.
Evidence changes, so our beliefs change. Our belief, our faith, in science was based on the fact that there are 3 dimensions, until we found # 4. Our faith in science has caused a different belief.

Faith is steadfast. It can be verified by a belief in science, but doesn't hinge on the latest epiphany in the scientific field.
Christians have faith that there are rolled up dimensions. That science believes that now, strengths our faith. It doesn't reset it.

If I seem to be splitting hairs between faith and belief, it's not my intent. If you follow the thread of the argument I'm having with Loki on this point, it's actually not me who's trying to separate the two concepts. If I've gone along with that separation, it's by virtue of tailoring my argument to my audience.

No no no, I consider faith and belief to be virtually synonymous.

And yes, belief in science, in my opinion, is the same as faith in anything. It requires, first and foremost, the faith/belief that what I'm observing here in the physical is, in fact, reality, and not simply some construct of my consciousness which, for all I know, is the sole inhabitant of endless nothingness.

 

[LOki]

No one is going to accept a link to yourself as proof of anything other than meglomania.

Grow up. Accept that belief in no god is a faith that no god exists.

Upon what rational basis do you assert that believing there's no god is faith, when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god. Upon what basis do you assert that it is irrational to believe there's no god when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god.

Upon what rational basis do you assert there are ANY rational beliefs if there is no rational basis for ANY beliefs.

Go on faith-boy, explain it to me, or just forfeit the point as you so gamely have before.

Evidence, but not proof, requires, at its end, some leap of logic to assert a conclusion. The -only- conclusion that doesn't require some amount of faith is the following: I don't know.

No it doesn't. An unconditional assertion of certainty does, but it's reasonable to make qualified assertions of certainty without invoking faith.

ONLY faith makes unconditional assertions of certqainty.

But then what do I know, apparently I'm a megalomaniac.

Any assertion without undeniable proof requires some amount of faith, like it or not.

How about this statement: I DON'T KNOW. How about: I AM NOT CERTAIN.

Can you prove it? Is it deniable? So it's faith?

Rational beliefs are, in my opinion, much more solid than blind, religious faith.

I agree. I just don't see any useful point in using the qualifiers "blind" and "religious."

Many atheists have well thought-out reasons for believing what they believe.

And that puts them head and shoulders above the thoughtless.

Then again, I've argued with people from several different religions who, believe it or not, lay out pretty convincing arguments regarding why they believe what they do.

Me too, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God".

I am not completely faithless. For instance, if I see a guy walking down the street with his hat on tilt, sagging in some Rocawear jeans and wearing a tall-T with dollar signs all over it, I have faith that he's going to be an ignorant SOB who listens to a lot of bad hip hop.

I'd say you have evidence for your belief. Weak evidence for sure, nothing at all conclusive, but evidence none-the-less; hence, not faith.

This is a rational belief, as it's based on past observations.

See? We agree. Rational. Not faith.

It is still faith, however, as I don't know until interacting with the fellow how he's going to turn out.

If it was faith, it wouldn't matter.

Simply because faith isn't blind doesn't mean it isn't faith.

There is no meaningful distinction between the terms. All faith is "blind faith." Just test one of the faithies.

 

[CandySlice]

ima, if I belittled you, I apologize.

I believe "God is". I can't prove it, you can't disprove it.

I will leave the random scripture posting and pasting to Candy Slice,.

You are so predictable in your rage.

What random scripture pasting?

I am not belittling your ideas by telling you that philsophy and empirical data can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

Facts are facts.

ringo, weren't you the one who said "god is", and when I asked why you belittled me for not agreeing that god just is, and that's proof enough?

Aw, don't go away mad, Jakie.

 

[The Irish Ram]

You start lying, get caught short on it, and you start throwing tantrums?

You can believe anyway you want, but you don't get to change the definition of words and terms anymore than wackos like bripat.

Tis what tis. Atheism is a belief in no gods, thus it is a faith.

Which makes agnosticism (god has yet been proven, but if it is one day, I'll change my mind) the only intelligent viewpoint.

Actually agnostic means a lack of knowledge. In Greek, imbecile.
Jesus said, "....oh that you were hot or cold, but you are lukewarm, and I will puke you out."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silly Slice, I am not mad.

But I have discovered you will lie, which is OK. Forewarned is ready for ya.

ima, if I belittled you, I apologize.

I believe "God is". I can't prove it, you can't disprove it.

I will leave the random scripture posting and pasting to Candy Slice,.

ringo, weren't you the one who said "god is", and when I asked why you belittled me for not agreeing that god just is, and that's proof enough?

Aw, don't go away mad, Jakie.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Rational beliefs are, in my opinion, much more solid than blind, religious faith.

Doesn't that depend on the criteria that molds the belief? It was rational to believe the earth was flat at one time.
The Bible gave us multi demensions, long long before Hubble proved to Einstein that time was a dimension.
Which is a rational belief? The Theory of Relativity? Or Isaiah? One is constructed incorrectly, and the other is an insight from God. Which is more sound?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Evidence, but not proof, requires, at its end, some leap of logic to assert a conclusion.

Einstein's theory required the scientific community to leap to the conclusion, because he made it clear that it simply didn't work unless you falsely calculate, ie take liberties, with the equation. He was on the right track, but 2 dimensions short of a working theory. It didn't stop people from believing his conclusion.
They took a leap of faith.

 

[LOki]

Aren't you splitting hairs? Faith vs belief? Look up the definition for both and you'll find each in the other's definition. Some think that faith is belief without evidence. And some that belief is faith in evidence. Not so.
Evidence changes, so our beliefs change. Our belief, our faith, in science was based on the fact that there are 3 dimensions, until we found # 4. Our faith in science has caused a different belief.

Religious faith is steadfast. It can be verified by a belief in science, but doesn't hinge on the latest epiphany in the scientific field.
Christians have faith that there are rolled up dimensions. That science believes that now, strengths our faith. It doesn't reset it.

In a discussion, if the terms being used are not meaningful and precise, the discussion is meaningless.

Now I make the effort to be precise and meaningful with the terms I use because hiding behind vague terms is for the intellectually dishonest.

I provided my terms, so my meaning could be made clear--if you don't say what you mean, you cannot mean what you say. I suppose that makes me a megalomaniac. You'll have to ask JakeStarkey.

If you don't like the terms as i use them, I suggest to everyone submit precise and meaningful terms we can use. But I will submit now, that if you examine the terms I use, they are rather consistent with standard dictionary definitions, and hardly contentious.

In any case, you'll know what I mean when I use the terms.

 

[newpolitics]

Yes, because if you state you do not believe in God, since you have no evidence, then you have belief.

Way it is, sunshine.

I know it bugs non-believers, but there it is, what can you do?

So if you do not believe in God, and you can't prove it, then you have faith, ...

No. It MAY be faith--IF the belief is unfounded in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. IF the strength of denial of valid logic and verifiable evidence is the validating criteria of the belief, THEN it is faith.

Otherwise, not so much.

You're simply not using logic, Jake. I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong here. There are rules to logic and argumentation, and you sidestepping everyone of them, and in doing so, have convinced yourself that you're right. But, you're not. I have tried to elucidate why this is the case, but you simply will not hear it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Loki does not get to make up terms and expect others to automatically accept them.

newpolitics, logic, philosophy and or empirical data cannot prove or disprove God. Thus, the act of believing or not believing because an act of faith.

 

[LOki]

Loki does not get to make up terms and expect others to automatically accept them.

newpolitics, logic, philosophy and or empirical data cannot prove or disprove God. Thus, the act of believing or not believing because an act of faith.

Utterly meaningless.

 

[LOki]

Yup, Loki is retarded if he does not realize his belief in atheism is in fact faith.

Demonstrate. Or are you going to run away (again) like your superstitious tribe member, Youwerecreated?

I can prove it to you loki: atheism is bullshit because you can't prove that a god doesn't exist.

By that precise same logical paradigm, "Christianity" is bullshit because you can't prove that a "GOD" does exist.

Thanks for playing the game of dumb.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Utterly right on and the straight stuff.

Loki does not get to make up terms and expect others to automatically accept them.

newpolitics, logic, philosophy and or empirical data cannot prove or disprove God. Thus, the act of believing or not believing because an act of faith.

Utterly meaningless.

 

[LOki]

You start lying, get caught short on it, and you start throwing tantrums?

You can believe anyway you want, but you don't get to change the definition of words and terms anymore than wackos like bripat.

Tis what tis. Atheism is a belief in no gods, thus it is a faith.

Lie? What the fuck is this?

Change the definitions of words? Seriously. Get a clue. Better yet, get a dictionary.

Atheism require no faith what-so-ever.