Darwin vs DNA

[JakeStarkey]

The act of not believing is actively faith based because you can't prove it. No amount of philosophy will save your argument.

I have seen other atheists try this cop out but it is what it is.

On the other side, believers can't prove that God exists.

 

[LOki]

atheism is faith because you cannot empirically prove that a god does not exist.

belief in God is faith because you can't prove empirically that He exists.

Neither atheists, nor Darwinists, nor IDers, nor Creationists are exempt from the rules of language and logica, little ones.

I get a real kick watching you several pollywogs go flip flopping all around.

You goof balls.

This is a transparent attempt to invalidate rationally held beliefs by defining ALL beliefs a faith.

You have earned your credentials: you're an intellectually dishonest superstitious retard. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

 

[LOki]

You have been soundly corrected and don't like it.

You are not an authority.

Empirical data and philosophy can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God.

You extremists are all hooked.

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.

Corrected? How? Demonstrate.

Not that you will by any sound reasoning. Keep on running, retard.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Yo'ure obviously very proud of yourself, but making an assertion isn't enough to make that assertion true. Saying that it takes faith to believe in a negative proposition is nonsensical. It doesn't take faith to disbelieve the existence of the toothfairy, bigfoot, or the lochness monster. Oh, but for god... THAT'S different, because if this wasn't the case, you would be all alone in your faith bubble (which you are, whether you want to admit it or not). You can not demonstrate the existence of god, yet it is christians who tell other they are going to hell if they don't believe. To not believe, is the DEFAULT POSITION. Just as innocence is the default position in a trial until one is proven guilty. Same thing. You can't escape the use of logic in argumentation, and you are making an argument, and you're logic is invalid. I will not back off of this, because you seem so blithely convinced of your own righteousness while being so utterly wrong.

 

[newpolitics]

The act of not believing is actively faith based because you can't prove it. No amount of philosophy will save your argument.

I have seen other atheists try this cop out but it is what it is.

On the other side, believers can't prove that God exists.

Atheists don't have to prove anything. For the millionth time, those making the claim bear the burden of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

Theists are the one asserting a positive claim, namely, that something else exists (god). They therefore hold the burden of proof. Those that disbelieve this positive claim do not have any burden to bear. This is logic and argumentation 101. You might want to read up on valid and sound logic and argumentation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Come on. You are using as a source something any of us can write to and edit any way we want.

I mean I am not above pulling the wool over extremists' eyes (I do that to koshergrl and Uncensored and bigreb all the time), but that does not mean you can do it to me.

The act of not believing is actively faith based because you can't prove it. No amount of philosophy will save your argument.

I have seen other atheists try this cop out but it is what it is.

On the other side, believers can't prove that God exists.

Atheists don't have to prove anything. For the millionth time, those making the claim bear the burden of proof.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

Theists are the one asserting a positive claim, namely, that something else exists (god). They therefore hold the burden of proof. Those that disbelieve this positive claim do not have any burden to bear. This is logic and argumentation 101. You might want to read up on valid and sound logic and argumentation.

 

[newpolitics]

Come on. You are using as a source something any of us can write to and edit any way we want.

I mean I am not above pulling the wool over extremists' eyes (I do that to koshergrl and Uncensored and bigreb all the time), but that does not mean you can do it to me.

The act of not believing is actively faith based because you can't prove it. No amount of philosophy will save your argument.

I have seen other atheists try this cop out but it is what it is.

On the other side, believers can't prove that God exists.

Atheists don't have to prove anything. For the millionth time, those making the claim bear the burden of proof.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

Theists are the one asserting a positive claim, namely, that something else exists (god). They therefore hold the burden of proof. Those that disbelieve this positive claim do not have any burden to bear. This is logic and argumentation 101. You might want to read up on valid and sound logic and argumentation.

Really, so you're saying that those that make claims don't carry a burden of proof? So, if I say, there is an invisible dwarf circling the earth but at night time, it rests inside you're brain, you just don't know he is there because he is intangible, you have to believe me because I don't have a burden of proof?! That's fantastic. I can say, think, and believe anything I want then, and it is ALL TRUE!!

You're an idiot man. Get with reality. Who cares that this is by wikipedia. The concept of the burden of proof is what guides our entire judicial process. Without it, we would all be screwed. In otherwise, it has practical application in an official process. You conveniently deny it because it would hurt your position otherwise.

Here is a page from a philosophy of religion course at CUNY. I could provide thousands of sources that back this up, aside from wikipedia.

The Burden of Proof


"If a person claims that X exists and is real then the burden is on that person to supply some support for that claim, some evidence or proof that others can and should examine before accepting it.

"It is incorrect to think that X exists and is real until someone can prove that there is no X."


No atheists should ever claim that no god exists, because that is impossible to establish. I don't claim to know that no god exists, nor do I espouse that view.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You claim that God does not exist: you can't prove it.

I claim that God exists: I can't prove it.

Thus, you and I, bupka, are in the same boat: believers without an oar.

 

[newpolitics]

You claim that God does not exist: you can't prove it.

I claim that God exists: I can't prove it.

Thus, you and I, bupka, are in the same boat: believers without an oar.

With respect to ourselves, and only ourselves, I would agree with you. Actually, not even then. Logic exists no matter how many are involved: zero or a trillion. but certainly once you start involving other people in a discussion, rules have to be established, and they have, ever since Aristotle. Burden of proof falling on those making positive claims, is one of those rules, because the converse makes debate nearly impossible.

 

[CandySlice]

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,.

Aw, don't go away mad, Jakie.

Okay, I'll bite. Where did I lie??

 

[CandySlice]

atheism is faith because you cannot empirically prove that a god does not exist.

belief in God is faith because you can't prove empirically that He exists.

Neither atheists, nor Darwinists, nor IDers, nor Creationists are exempt from the rules of language and logica, little ones.

I get a real kick watching you several pollywogs go flip flopping all around.

You goof balls.

This is a transparent attempt to invalidate rationally held beliefs by defining ALL beliefs a faith.

You have earned your credentials: you're an intellectually dishonest superstitious retard. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

Nothing like watching a self professed 'christian' lose it and start name calling and lying to prove his point. Are they all this mean and petty?? I've never found any that didn't share this common trait.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Here is the def. for faith - Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Here's belief - a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.

Remove all the propositional phrases, and faith and belief boil down to confidence.

The dictionary definition of empirical evidence is evidence relating to or based on experience or observation.

Which ever you place your confidence in, the ever changing empirical evidence, or the unwavering word of God, the fact is:
Without the sciences you would have no empirical evidence. No data to perceive or have confidence in. The earth would still be flat. There would be no telescope to prove that time was a dimension. No Einstein to put it all together...

On the other hand:
Without the sciences, readers of the Bible would still know the earth was round, and that there are 4 dimensions that we are subject to here on the orb.

 

[LOki]

Here is the def. for faith - Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Here's belief - a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.

Remove all the propositional phrases, and faith and belief boil down to confidence.

The dictionary definition of empirical evidence is evidence relating to or based on experience or observation.

Which ever you place your confidence in, the ever changing empirical evidence, or the unwavering word of God, the fact is:
Without the sciences you would have no empirical evidence. No data to perceive or have confidence in. The earth would still be flat. There would be no telescope to prove that time was a dimension. No Einstein to put it all together...

On the other hand:
Without the sciences, readers of the Bible would still know the earth was round, and that there are 4 dimensions that we are subject to here on the orb.

Oh, so contentious! Compare your definitions with those I use.

Also, how about your definition of rational belief?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Loki melts down and CandySlice reverts to name calling. OK, guys, whatever But you since you believe a god does not exist, then you have a faith. Tsk Tsk Tsk

atheism is faith because you cannot empirically prove that a god does not exist.

belief in God is faith because you can't prove empirically that He exists.

Neither atheists, nor Darwinists, nor IDers, nor Creationists are exempt from the rules of language and logica, little ones.

I get a real kick watching you several pollywogs go flip flopping all around.

You goof balls.

This is a transparent attempt to invalidate rationally held beliefs by defining ALL beliefs a faith.

You have earned your credentials: you're an intellectually dishonest superstitious retard. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

Nothing like watching a self professed 'christian' lose it and start name calling and lying to prove his point. Are they all this mean and petty?? I've never found any that didn't share this common trait.

 

[Hollie]

Here is the def. for faith - Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Here's belief - a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.

Remove all the propositional phrases, and faith and belief boil down to confidence.

The dictionary definition of empirical evidence is evidence relating to or based on experience or observation.

Which ever you place your confidence in, the ever changing empirical evidence, or the unwavering word of God, the fact is:
Without the sciences you would have no empirical evidence. No data to perceive or have confidence in. The earth would still be flat. There would be no telescope to prove that time was a dimension. No Einstein to put it all together...

On the other hand:
Without the sciences, readers of the Bible would still know the earth was round, and that there are 4 dimensions that we are subject to here on the orb.

What unwavering word of god(s) would that be?

If you're suggesting that the bible is the unwaving word of god(s), you will first need to resolve the waving defined by contradictions and misrepresentations.

Yeah, those wavers.

 

[LOki]

Loki melts down and ...

and just like the dishonest retard he is, JakeStarkey just makes shit up.

You know, like his "God."

 

[newpolitics]

Loki melts down and CandySlice reverts to name calling. OK, guys, whatever But you since you believe a god does not exist, then you have a faith. Tsk Tsk Tsk

This is a transparent attempt to invalidate rationally held beliefs by defining ALL beliefs a faith.

You have earned your credentials: you're an intellectually dishonest superstitious retard. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

Nothing like watching a self professed 'christian' lose it and start name calling and lying to prove his point. Are they all this mean and petty?? I've never found any that didn't share this common trait.

You're acting like a little child, Jake. You keep on repeating your baseless and illogical assertions when you continue to say that disbelief requires faith, when I have demonstrated that this is logically impossible. You are using another logical fallacy called "proof of assertion," whereby repeating an assertion over and over makes that assertion true. This is obviously not the case. I can't take the color red and call it blue x amount of times to make it true.

 

[LOki]

Loki melts down and CandySlice reverts to name calling. OK, guys, whatever But you since you believe a god does not exist, then you have a faith. Tsk Tsk Tsk

Nothing like watching a self professed 'christian' lose it and start name calling and lying to prove his point. Are they all this mean and petty?? I've never found any that didn't share this common trait.

You're acting like a little child, Jake. You keep on repeating your baseless and illogical assertions, using another logical fallacy called "proof of assertion," whereby repeating an assertion over and over makes that assertion true. This is obviously not the case. I can't take the color red and call it blue x amount of times to make it true.

Hence his actual gripe with my definition of faith ...

Faith is the conviction of unqualified certainty of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Furthermore, faith is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and valid logic; the resolute strength of that denial is the "validating" quality of faith.​

Again, this shouldn't be terribly controversial; among the faithful, there is no uncertainty in the existence of their "God" thing, or any of the various powers He has or the deeds He has performed. Convictions such as these are held with unconditional certainty, and are achieved by an act of will that requires no reference to, no support in, no establishment upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it requires only unwavering commitment.​

...it's meaningful, precise, and accurate.

 

[Hollie]

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.

That is simply not true. Einstein presented his theory knowing full well that his work would be subjected to ruthless peer review by his contemporaries.

As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has every right to demand theism hold to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and it's goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

 

[LOki]

But you since you believe a god does not exist, then you have a faith.

By your own logical and semantic paradigm, if you cannot prove that your God did not make me incapable of faith, then you must accept--on faith--that I am not exercising faith; that my belief that God does not exist, cannot be faith.