Darwin vs DNA

[Not2BSubjugated]

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

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.

PErsonally, my gripe with your definition of faith is that it's your own. I believe I already posted some dictionary definitions, none of which specify nearly so many qualifications as this definition that you've come up with.

What we're discussing here isn't what faith means to you personally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You guys are engaged in proof of asserting. You keep asserting that God does not exist without any proof. Thus if you have no proof, then you have faith that it is so.

 

[ima]

You guys are engaged in proof of asserting. You keep asserting that God does not exist without any proof. Thus if you have no proof, then you have faith that it is so.

Ringo, you're the one who claimed "god is", with zero proof, and that I was basically foolish for not agreeing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ima, I am fully aware of what I am doing, and I am honest enough to do it by faith.

You are not honest enough to admit that you are asserting by faith as well.

At least evolution has some scientific proof, whereas the IDers and Creationists are in the same boat as the atheists.

 

[ima]

ima, I am fully aware of what I am doing, and I am honest enough to do it by faith.

You are not honest enough to admit that you are asserting by faith as well.

At least evolution has some scientific proof, whereas the IDers and Creationists are in the same boat as the atheists.

I'm not an atheist, I don't believe god has been proven to exist, nor do I believe that a god has proven not to exist either. So how am I asserting faith? Faith in no answer either way? Cuz that don't make no sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree that you are not making sense. But . . . you could say simply "I see no evidence either way, so I will wait." Is that what you are saying?

 

[ima]

I agree that you are not making sense. But . . . you could say simply "I see no evidence either way, so I will wait." Is that what you are saying?

Sure, I'll wait until there's proof either way, but still, until there's some proof, something can't be said to exist. It can only be speculated upon.

 

[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.

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

Also, how about your definition of rational belief?

Oh NO! Not rational belief!
Now what you have is rational describing the belief you support. So we are back to belief, only worse. Now we have a combination of knowledge + your opinion of knowledge.
Rational belief fails to define rational. What may be rational to you may be completely irrational to another. And is subject to constant change.
It is worse than knowledge for the sake of knowledge, it's knowledge plus your own understanding.
The Bible tells us not to do that. It will lead us astray.
Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.



God's dimensions existed for Jesus to use and for us to find, "empirically" 2,000 years later.
Heb. 13:8 ....yesterday today and tomorrow
Malachi 3:6
"For I am the LORD, I do not change..............

With a belief in God you have the answers and they are constant. Opinions, beliefs, thoughts don't change them.
The four dimensions referred to in the Bible were still 4, even when Einstein could only find 3. Then 4. Then 10. Then an infinite amount, the rolled up ones........

No need for science or man's rationale. Just faith. < a belief.

 

[LOki]

Considering your response below, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

I guess you are gonna ignore this.

'No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have had parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution' ( Harvard geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin. In an interview in Harpers entitled, 'Agnostic Evolutionists'. Feb. 1985 p. 61)

Think about this above argument long and hard. This evolutionist has admitted that no one has ever found an organism that did not originate from parent-stock! Is this evidence a death-blow to creation? Or is it a death-blow to evolution? Which 'theory' affirms that all life has come from pre-existing life? In Creation, ultimately everything came from God. (Genesis 1:1). In evolution, where did everything ultimately come from? Life or non-life?

It was posted earlier.

Nifty! Does this mean that you're finally ready to put your big girl panties on?

Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

That challenge was posted before too ... about a hundred times. Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

The evidence says you most certainly will.

I have been given no reason to believe the creator is not eternal.

You have no reason validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to believe this creator you go on about is eternal.

The laws of nature that we are bound by he is not.

Boring prelude to a special-pleading argument.

Is this your way of dodging how your theory contradicts nature?

Asking you to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet, is not me dodging anything.

This little rhetorical fairy-dance you're doing is you dodging the point, again.

that living organisms reproduce living organisms.

Despite your repeated assertions and implications that that I contest this notion; despite my repeated reminders to you that I don't contest it, you still seem to think that I do.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

God is that life that produced it is a more viable explanation that your side can produce.

What "God"?

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

Those clearly don't count, right? So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

And while you're at it, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it remains patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

 

[LOki]

Lol. Call it retarded if you want, it's absolutely true. Believing anything other than your own existence as some sort of consciousness requires some amount of faith.

Never thought I'd find someone obviously intelligent to whom the basic premise of The Matrix would be profound. Always figured it was basic, run-of-the-mill philosophy in a retardedly shiny shell.

Rational beliefs do not require "proof." Faith is a specific kind of belief. All beliefs are not faith.

You can spin it all you want but every unprovable belief is taken on faith.

This is yet another example of those who embrace and promote anti-reason/anti-rationality attempting to equate their anti-rational superstitions with reason by equating superstition with beliefs founded upon and validated by verifiable evidence and valid logic.

It's fair to say that all of you superstitious retards are consistently dishonest. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

 

[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.

Get this for once, any belief that can't be proven is taken on faith.

Without any fear that you will, or are intellectually competent to try, demonstrate with precise and meaningful terms, using verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that this fatuous assertion of your is true.

The evidence says you're wrong, and it also says you won't.

 

[LOki]

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.

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?

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

And that puts them head and shoulders above the thoughtless.


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

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.

See? We agree. Rational. Not faith.

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.

Who is more qualified then the designer that was there ?

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

Those clearly don't count, right? So help me out here, and explain this "Creator" thing you keep referencing.

And while you're at it, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it remains patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

 

[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!!!!

You are in denial of sound reasoning.

Again, without any fear that you actually will, demonstrate this fatuous assertion of yours.

 

[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.

Corrected? How? Demonstrate.

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

Loki what are you about 13 ?

I'll just take this as your tacit admission that even a 13-year old can recognize that both you and JakeStarkey are retards.

 

[LOki]

Loki melts down and ...

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

You know, like his "God."

Retard

And not to be out-done by his fellow retard, Youwerecreated makes some shit up too!

 

[LOki]

Yep, atheists and IDers and Creationists are all frustrated in their faiths not being accepted as empirical data.

I don't need faith to disbelieve a claim I am not making.

Listen, every unprovable belief is taken on faith.

Wrong. Again.

 

[LOki]

You have stated that your belief in no God is not faith, Loki and Candy Slice, and you keep asserting it, ...

Without claiming to speak for Candy Slice, the assertion is made because not believing there's a God, when there is no verifiable, logically valid evidence that a God exists, is a position of belief that does not require faith.

"proof of assertion", without demonstrable evidence of your assertion.

This is an obvious lie.

Not surprising at all.

Atheists are believers as much as those who have faith in deity.

I agree with you fully. Where we disagree is in the precise and meaningful difference between the superstitions of faith, and the verifiable and logically valid beliefs of the rational.

It is not condescending to point this out, and its not condescending to ask you two to try to practice what you "preach". Oh, I crack myself up.

Simple fact, peeps.

I agree entirely. And I say that we (at least I) do. And I'll just predict now that you will make this claim too. So in the interest practicing what one preaches, explain to us why it is that you require "proof" of the validity of my beliefs regarding God, when you didn't even require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--let alone "proof"--to consider your own belief in God valid?

 

[LOki]

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.

Those making the claim bear the burden of proof, yes. Atheists make the claim, "There is no God". That, also, is a positive assertion. They bear just as much burden of proof as believers in God.

SOME atheists make that claim. Others (the vast majority, actually) claim that there is just no reason in verifiable, logically valid evidence to believe God exists. The burden of proof remains with the superstitious.

 

[LOki]

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.

PErsonally, my gripe with your definition of faith is that it's your own. I believe I already posted some dictionary definitions, none of which specify nearly so many qualifications as this definition that you've come up with.

What we're discussing here isn't what faith means to you personally.

My usage is rather objective I think. The accounting I provided for it has never been disputed--not even by the faithful. My use of the term, while making it clearly distinct from simple belief, is fully consistent with the dictionary definition, and it is fully consistent with the nature of the conviction of unqualified certainty of the reality of things that the faithful apply it to.

You don't even contest it, you're contesting me.

 

[LOki]

You guys are engaged in proof of asserting. You keep asserting that God does not exist without any proof. Thus if you have no proof, then you have faith that it is so.

Nope. Asserting that God does not exist requires no faith. Asserting that God does not exist can be an expression of a rational belief--a belief founded upon and validated by evidence and valid logic. Faith is not rational, and Asserting that God exists can ONLY be an expression of faith.

Your attempts to conflate reason and faith are illegitimate, and intellectually dishonest.