PDA

View Full Version : The faith cake



Harbinger
11-17-2009, 11:29 PM
Please watch the whole video before you comment.

SlaCq3dKvvI

Skunk
11-17-2009, 11:33 PM
Please watch the whole video before you comment.

I'm afraid I can't do that Dave.

Mtguy8787
11-17-2009, 11:40 PM
Science does not require any faith, but the metaphysical views held by many people who believe that their views are based on science/evidence/lack of evidence, and thus faithless, require faith.

LordDarwin
11-17-2009, 11:45 PM
Brilliant video/s, I feel quite a few Theists could do well to watch a few videos from the guys youtube channel.

Harbinger
11-17-2009, 11:57 PM
Brilliant video/s, I feel quite a few Theists could do well to watch a few videos from the guys youtube channel.

I definitely agree, they won't though so I post them here from time to time.

Heavy_Beats
11-18-2009, 12:10 AM
I definitely agree, they won't though so I post them here from time to time.

Perhaps there could be a DIY deprogramming sticky for the faithful.

Spuddy
11-19-2009, 08:21 AM
Perhaps there could be a DIY deprogramming sticky for the faithful.

According to Darwin's theory, the faithful are better survivors than Atheists, regardless of whether they're right or wrong. Just sayin..

LordDarwin
11-19-2009, 08:29 AM
According to Darwin's theory, the faithful are better survivors than Atheists, regardless of whether they're right or wrong. Just sayin..
Huh?

Fist-Of-Freedom
11-19-2009, 08:32 AM
According to Darwin's theory, the faithful are better survivors than Atheists, regardless of whether they're right or wrong. Just sayin..

Hope/faith, whether it's completely insane or illogical, always provides a safe guard for the psyche.

stateless
11-19-2009, 08:44 AM
This guy makes great videos.

CerealKiller
11-19-2009, 10:19 AM
Can't find anything I disagree with.

I can also hold my breath for 59 mins and 1 second...a new world record.

trailwarrior
11-19-2009, 06:54 PM
It takes faith to perform any experiment not knowing with absolute certainty what the outcome will be and trusting that it won't blow up in your face and kill you.

Like Science, one's relationship with God grows through systematic acquisition and application of knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the physical universe gained via emperical evidence through observation, measurement and experimentation. Applying the Word of God is the greatest of all experiments and the emperical evidence gained in observing and measuring the results is what causes us to grow in our relation with Him.

In this video it is said that many ideas science once thought to be true were later modified when the evidence showed otherwise. Like science, God's children do not have all the answers and that is why we must continue searching His Word for guidance and modify our relationship with Him as this evidence is revealed through observation, measurement and experimentation. It is by faith that we are saved and this is a humble admition that we do not have all the answers, but that we shall persevere so that our relationship may grow through systematic acquisition and application of the knowledge that we gain.

Blessed are those who without already having all the evidence beforehand, have had faith enough to carry out the greatest of experiments which shall lead them to the Truth.

ThundaHawk
11-19-2009, 07:12 PM
Pretty good video OP. Shame, cause it seems like it hasn't/won't get many views (things like these frighten religious people silly)




In this video it is said that many ideas science once thought to be true were later modified when the evidence showed otherwise. Like science, God's children do not have all the answers and that is why we must continue searching His Word for guidance and modify our relationship with Him as this evidence is revealed through observation, measurement and experimentation. It is by faith that we are saved and this is a humble admition that we do not have all the answers, but that we shall persevere so that our relationship may grow through systematic acquisition and application of the knowledge that we gain.

Blessed are those who without already having all the evidence beforehand, have had faith enough to carry out the greatest of experiments which shall lead them to the Truth.

Sorry, man. Going to have a to take a sec to debunk what you've said here.

"Blessed are those who without already having all the evidence beforehand, have had faith enough to carry out the greatest of experiments which shall lead them to the Truth."

One prime problem with religion is that those indoctrinated DO think they have the exact answers beforehand and without any real evidence:
-they "believe" they know with 100% certainty what happens after death;
-they "believe" that God's laws and will are unflinching (i.e. if you stop believing in a god or never heard of god you're gonna burn: that's non-negotiable)
-they "believe" God has a plan for everything, that everything good is a result of God's work
-they "believe" that, without any doubt whatsoever, the planet/life/universe were all created by their god as described in whatever creation tale they believe in

Christian "scientists" never search for ways to prove that their God did, in fact, create the world in six days some 6000-ish years ago. There has never been a serious attempt to find evidence of Noah's ark, nor has there been a "ladder to heaven" project a la South Park where people actually literally search for God in the nether.

Your words are just begging for reflection. There is nothing blessed about assuming you know it all when, in fact, you know nothing. What you've described is ignorance.

trailwarrior
11-19-2009, 08:06 PM
Sorry, man. Going to have a to take a sec to debunk what you've said here.

"Blessed are those who without already having all the evidence beforehand, have had faith enough to carry out the greatest of experiments which shall lead them to the Truth."

There is nothing blessed about assuming you know it all when, in fact, you know nothing. LOL!!!

How do you debunk something by debunking the opposite?

Faith is the acknowledgement of not knowing.

.

ThundaHawk
11-19-2009, 08:08 PM
LOL!!!

How do you debunk something by debunking the opposite?

Faith is the acknowledgement of not knowing.


Faith is thinking with absolute certainty that heaven exists in the manner described by the bible while having absolutely no evidence. Sorry, man. You got debunked.

neuralshock
11-19-2009, 09:05 PM
This cake is very good. Eat it and you will feel warm on the inside. God is within all of us.

trailwarrior
11-19-2009, 09:07 PM
Faith is thinking with absolute certainty that heaven exists in the manner described by the bible while having absolutely no evidence.And you know this with absolute certainty?

The fact is that I cannot fathom what heaven is like from what I have read in the Bible though on occasion I may see but a poor reflection as in a mirror. Not until I see it face to face will I know with absolute certainty what it is like.


1 Corinthians 13
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.


p.s. mirrors really did give a "poor" reflection 2000 years ago unlike the mirrors of today

Mr Beer
11-19-2009, 09:25 PM
And you know this with absolute certainty?

The fact is that I cannot fathom what heaven is like from what I have read in the Bible though on occasion I may see but a poor reflection as in a mirror. Not until I see it face to face will I know with absolute certainty what it is like.

So you are sure it exists then?

ThundaHawk
11-19-2009, 09:30 PM
And you know this with absolute certainty?

The fact is that I cannot fathom what heaven is like from what I have read in the Bible though on occasion I may see but a poor reflection as in a mirror. Not until I see it face to face will I know with absolute certainty what it is like.

p.s. mirrors really did give a "poor" reflection 2000 years ago unlike the mirrors of today


Hah, nice try. But yeah, I know with absolute certainty that religions command their followers to unquestioningly accept the existence of their god(s) and heaven/nirvana/afterlife theory as fact with (obviously) no proof.

There is no grand experiment to "find God": the most you'll find is individuals "seeing signs of God" (aka very selectively and subjectively attributing things and events to their god when those same things and experiences could just as easily be attributed to another unknown force/deity by another person).

Finally, you may not know if cows are white, blue, red, or invisible in heaven but you DO assert this with absolute unflinching certainty:

1) There IS a Christian heaven. Despite a total lack of evidence, it must exist. 100%

2) There are specific rules to get into heaven. You know these rules, somehow (God told people and they wrote it in a book... now watch as people halfway around the world who can't access said book are condemned because almighty God didn't have the presence of mind to tell them the rules personally)

These are non-truths and assumptions you as a religious person would treat as fact. And this, I say, is the definition of willful ignorance.

Saleenmuscle
11-19-2009, 10:03 PM
LOL!!!



Faith is the acknowledgement of not knowing.

.

By your made up definition, your gullible.

ThundaHawk
11-19-2009, 10:12 PM
By your made up definition, your gullible.

faith (fāth)
n.



Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.


Note that this is a direct definition of the religious usage of "faith".

Wish trailwarrior would respond to my last post with some kind of rebuttal.

Harbinger
11-19-2009, 10:22 PM
By your made up definition, your gullible.


faith (fāth)
n.



Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.


Note that this is a direct definition of the religious usage of "faith".

Wish trailwarrior would respond to my last post with some kind of rebuttal.

One of the benefits of religion is that if something that is written doesn't fall in with your beliefs, you can interpret it any way you'd like so that it does fit.

EasTexan
11-19-2009, 10:36 PM
This guy makes amazing videos. I've already watched them all, good stuff.

Inev
11-19-2009, 10:54 PM
great vid. talks a little fast at times though.

TranceNRG
11-19-2009, 11:29 PM
First and foremost, we must learn to distinguish between pure scientific results, and scientists' interpretations of such results. Scientists, due to the fact that they are human just like any other human, are bound and grounded to their own metaphysical views of reality, what reality is to them. This underlying view is the center of their web of belief, upon which everything else is based on. Scientism, Materialism, Naive Realism, Logical Positivism, Physicalism, all these are metaphysical ideologies and beliefs, which many people, including scientists may hold when they proceed to form a coherent set of beliefs in their minds.

On this very basic and fundamental level, scientists, being that they're humans, and share human nature with the rest of us, are exactly similar (if not identical) to other humans, who may hold contrary beliefs and ideologies as these scientists.

It is because of this reason that we all claim to have evidence for our claims.
We all claim to have reasons for our beliefs.
We all claim that we are not intellectual victims of blind faith.

Because to us, to each one of us, the presence of a coherent web of beliefs in my minds, makes us firmly believe that our views must be superior to others. This does not exclude any individual, including the skeptics. Even they, are bound to an underlying, foundational ideology, namely Skepticism. Even they, have evidence for their conclusions, and form their conclusions based on logical constructions and reasoning.

Various terms, such as "evidence," are understood differently from different positions and ideologies. If one's ideology is materialism or physicalism, then to them evidence must also be something physical. This initial presumption and demarcation, would then exclude any other types of evidence found and noticed in other ideologies, which are not limited to Physical entities. Thus, yes, scientists have evidence within the science paradigm. Theologians have evidence within the theological paradigm. Psychologists have evidence within the psychological paradigm. These paradigms may or not over lap.

The philosophical field of epistemology is directly concerned with the matter of knowledge. Theories such verificationism, falsifiability, justified beliefs, and etc. are mere views, discussed and dissected from various perspectives. To accept that Verificationism is the right theory, and then take refuge in it, and claim truth can be known via verificationism, takes faith.

There are of course many more theories and examples, tested and dissected in the field of epistemology, and going over them one by one would neither be efficient nor within the scope of this thread.

Thus, at the core, we as humans are inseparable from our faith.
However, due to historical events, and popular trends, the term faith has attained a negative connotation, and many people strive to dissociate themselves from this term.

It is an uneducated claim to state that science isn't bound to dogmatic views. It is an uneducated claim to state that there is no dogma in science. Any philosophical examination of science and history of science would vividly point to this matter.

Tom Sorell is a decent contemporary philosopher, who speaks on this topic.
I would also recommend, The Structure of Scientific Revolution by Thoman Kuhn, a historian of science, to whoever that is interested in further examination of this matter.

Videos such as this, which make a general claim about "scientists" as if it is one unified item, often project the false image of science, and are misleading. Being "open-minded" is not a trait that is attached to being a scientist. "open-mindedness" and "gullibility" are character traits independent of one's career choice.


My 2 cents. :)

Spuddy
11-20-2009, 10:05 AM
According to Darwin's theory, the faithful are better survivors than Atheists, regardless of whether they're right or wrong. Just sayin..
...

Huh?
There's many times more believers in a higher power than there are Atheists, despite the many advancements in mankind over the last several hundred years. Science often says that we now no longer need to believe in a God, but the vast majority of humanity looks at these new complexities arising all the time as even more proof that none of this existence could possibly have gone the direction it has without help of some sort. Is it a need to belong? Is it a way for us to piece together something that is otherwise far too complicated? Or were we really actually created? Whatever it is, far more believers are alive and prospering on this planet than Atheists.

Personally, I choose to believe, and it makes all the difference in the world to me for my inspirations in life. This "inspirational factor" is the driving force behind most believers in anything, as well as the basis for the statistical advantage in the number of survivors that I pointed out in my first post. People have done incredible things, both good and bad, for their faith that they would otherwise not have done, and it is my opinion that the push to do what our faiths drive us to do should not be ignored when talking about survival.

It's an opinion really now that I look at it, but whatever your view, I would at least think that it's a point worth considering.

ThundaHawk
11-20-2009, 01:39 PM
...

There's many times more believers in a higher power than there are Atheists, despite the many advancements in mankind over the last several hundred years. Science often says that we now no longer need to believe in a God, but the vast majority of humanity looks at these new complexities arising all the time as even more proof that none of this existence could possibly have gone the direction it has without help of some sort. Is it a need to belong? Is it a way for us to piece together something that is otherwise far too complicated? Or were we really actually created? Whatever it is, far more believers are alive and prospering on this planet than Atheists.

Personally, I choose to believe, and it makes all the difference in the world to me for my inspirations in life. This "inspirational factor" is the driving force behind most believers in anything, as well as the basis for the statistical advantage in the number of survivors that I pointed out in my first post. People have done incredible things, both good and bad, for their faith that they would otherwise not have done, and it is my opinion that the push to do what our faiths drive us to do should not be ignored when talking about survival.

It's an opinion really now that I look at it, but whatever your view, I would at least think that it's a point worth considering.

What you just wrote boils down to "There are many more religious people in this world, therefore religion is both good and needed". The way you've tried to twist it is hilarious, since you've inferred that (since X% majority believes in religion(s)), a religious person is somehow "more likely" to "stay alive" and "prosper" than a person who does not subscribe to religion. This claim is weak at best and...really... lacks evidence.

Think about this, now.

All the people who have done remarkable things may have been "inspired" by an imaginary character (gods, superheroes, etc) or even real figures (historical, contemporary, whatever) but the unifying factor between them all is that they believed in A) the world (reality, that is) and B) themselves.

By that rationale, I could easily say back to you that "inspiration" starts and ends with one believing in themselves and, since religions essentially tell people to circumvent their "selves" (we're sinners, not good enough, and in need of god's salvation and guidance; we need to deny our selves) religion is actually harmful to the individual.

Saleenmuscle
11-20-2009, 03:15 PM
...

There's many times more believers in a higher power than there are Atheists, despite the many advancements in mankind over the last several hundred years. Science often says that we now no longer need to believe in a God, but the vast majority of humanity looks at these new complexities arising all the time as even more proof that none of this existence could possibly have gone the direction it has without help of some sort. Is it a need to belong? Is it a way for us to piece together something that is otherwise far too complicated? Or were we really actually created? Whatever it is, far more believers are alive and prospering on this planet than Atheists.

God of the gaps fallacy. Also, I hope you know that there is a correlation between Un-Educated people and religion.



Personally, I choose to believe, and it makes all the difference in the world to me for my inspirations in life. This "inspirational factor" is the driving force behind most believers in anything, as well as the basis for the statistical advantage in the number of survivors that I pointed out in my first post. People have done incredible things, both good and bad, for their faith that they would otherwise not have done, and it is my opinion that the push to do what our faiths drive us to do should not be ignored when talking about survival.



Placebo effect

Spuddy
11-22-2009, 12:51 AM
What you just wrote boils down to "There are many more religious people in this world, therefore religion is both good and needed". The way you've tried to twist it is hilarious, since you've inferred that (since X% majority believes in religion(s)), a religious person is somehow "more likely" to "stay alive" and "prosper" than a person who does not subscribe to religion. This claim is weak at best and...really... lacks evidence.

Think about this, now.

All the people who have done remarkable things may have been "inspired" by an imaginary character (gods, superheroes, etc) or even real figures (historical, contemporary, whatever) but the unifying factor between them all is that they believed in A) the world (reality, that is) and B) themselves.

By that rationale, I could easily say back to you that "inspiration" starts and ends with one believing in themselves and, since religions essentially tell people to circumvent their "selves" (we're sinners, not good enough, and in need of god's salvation and guidance; we need to deny our selves) religion is actually harmful to the individual.
What I still can't understand after all these years, is why Atheists are so completely faithful in science that they never see the irony in calling faith illogical. I have a very steadfast faith in God, but I am also willing to say that no one can prove anything on the subject, both ways, so I could very well be wrong despite my many life-changing experiences. On top of the fact that science always changes, it is in no way a hinderence to the idea of a higher power- If a system for life was created, then all logic would conclude that the creator made it that way, and it has simply taken us this long to reverse-engineer enough of it to say we know how it works; Yet somehow knowledge is often thrown around as some sort of proof that there's no God.. So we've figured out how volcanoes work; How exactly does that prove God didn't make the volcano to begin with?

That aside, you have just inadvertantly backed up my original point with your post. For your sake, let's say there is absolutely no God at all and go from there; Even as nothing more than a mechanism of the mind, having a god is absolutely a good survival tool. *A faithless soldier on the battlefield is injured- The first thing he does is try and come to terms with the god he never believed in, and asks for a chance to survive. With this "outside help" and newfound inspiration, he is able to survive where he otherwise would have felt hopeless and potentially could die. *Some ancient East Asians believe the gods want them to get in their boats and sail into the unknown- Many die, while the survivors who find land prosper far more than they ever had before, and spread humanity all across the Americas, Australia, and the Pacific Islands (which of course massively enhances survivability of the species as a whole). *A man goes to prison and is scared, bored, and depressed- He finds God, and now feels like life is worth living, thanks to having a purpose for being here in this otherwise pointless and wasted existence behind bars. He follows Jesus's example in love and peace, and is now less likely to get into the prison violence which quite regularly kills those who live for themselves.

Atheists like to laugh at the various "desperation" believers, while completely missing the irony in that newfound belief in God becomes the incredibly powerful inspiration to push on. Regardless of who's right or wrong, there is nothing at all in the psyche more powerful than help from above for keeping someone pushing ahead in the face of major problems. In the world of survival, it's completely accurate to say that God is exactly what they say- a miracle worker.


God of the gaps fallacy. Also, I hope you know that there is a correlation between Un-Educated people and religion.



Placebo effect
Lol, the God of the gaps fallacy is such a joke. If God created everything, then science was created by God- You're trying to prove that Ford didn't build a car because you finally understand how the engine works. Sorry, this little "fallacy" doesn't prove anything more than how incredibly complex and beautiful everything about our universe's design really is, and a simple gap in knowledge is resultingly no more an argument against God than it is an argument against science.

Education is nothing in survival, though you are incorrect with your statement's intentions from the start to begin with. First of all, If you are referring to places like Appalacia being uneducated, you are completely correct, though the education problems stem from the area being populated by physical laborers rather than intellectuals who stuck to the cities. As far as survival however, good luck finding anywhere in America with more closely-knit communities, where everyone happily helps whoever is in need, and where the people are as rugged as our country produces. If a massive catastrophe hits America, it's those "uneducated" religious folk in Appalacia who are going to grind through the desperate times and know what to do in order to live and repopulate. Second, there may be many well-educated Atheists, but historically the smartest people in history have concluded that something so incredibly complex as our universe could not have come about without the aid of something, whatever it may be, intelligent.


As far as "placebo affect", read the upper portion of my post.. By claiming a placebo is aiding me, you are claiming that faith is helping me survive. Crazy how that works, ain't it!

ThundaHawk
11-22-2009, 01:41 AM
That aside, you have just inadvertantly backed up my original point with your post. For your sake, let's say there is absolutely no God at all and go from there; Even as nothing more than a mechanism of the mind, having a god is absolutely a good survival tool. *A faithless soldier on the battlefield is injured- The first thing he does is try and come to terms with the god he never believed in, and asks for a chance to survive. With this "outside help" and newfound inspiration, he is able to survive where he otherwise would have felt hopeless and potentially could die. *Some ancient East Asians believe the gods want them to get in their boats and sail into the unknown- Many die, while the survivors who find land prosper far more than they ever had before, and spread humanity all across the Americas, Australia, and the Pacific Islands (which of course massively enhances survivability of the species as a whole). *A man goes to prison and is scared, bored, and depressed- He finds God, and now feels like life is worth living, thanks to having a purpose for being here in this otherwise pointless and wasted existence behind bars. He follows Jesus's example in love and peace, and is now less likely to get into the prison violence which quite regularly kills those who live for themselves.

Atheists like to laugh at the various "desperation" believers, while completely missing the irony in that newfound belief in God becomes the incredibly powerful inspiration to push on. Regardless of who's right or wrong, there is nothing at all in the psyche more powerful than help from above for keeping someone pushing ahead in the face of major problems. In the world of survival, it's completely accurate to say that God is exactly what they say- a miracle worker.


Eh.

The "faith in a personal god gives one bravery on the battlefield" argument has been twisted by you here. I do not doubt that believing some mystical being is somehow 'looking out for you' can embolden the uncertain: soldiers who are not 100% behind the mission may find hope, as may prisoners who were never on the same page as (ding ding ding) THEMSELVES to begin with.

The thing is, the only thing you've "proven" is that belief can have emboldening psychological effects on a person. The argument in this specific thread is that science and religion DO NOT require the same level or type of "faith" as one another (and, I think that much we can agree on: if you disagree, please come up with an argument on that).

Back to your point, though.

I'd equate the "inspirational" effect of believing in a mystical superpower (i.e. Norse warriors thinking they'll go to valhalla via valkyrie after they die in battle) to effect of morphine on a person whose bowels are leaking out in front of them. It's a layer of mind-comfort when reality may be too difficult to cope with (i.e. the person never really was 100% behind going into battle). Everybody knows that people juiced up on PCP feel virtually nothing (no fear, no pain: broken bones and punctured organs don't register).

The thing is, religious inspiration can JUST AS EASILY be considered a NEGATIVE psychological effects. RE: fanaticism. Zealotry. Witch hunts and Crusades of righteous pillaging and rape. Genocide. Suicidal bombings. There's nothing inherently Good in "religious inspiration": it's a perfectly neutral phenomenon and it certainly goes both ways.

Craptons of Evil has been done by people who "found God", and that's a fact: use the No True Scotsman plea if you will but, fact is, every Inquisitor/gay-murderer/jihad-******* has been "inspired" by the uplifting mechanism-of-mind that is believing in a god.

Waiting on your response.

ThundaHawk
11-22-2009, 02:01 AM
What I still can't understand after all these years, is why Atheists are so completely faithful in science that they never see the irony in calling faith illogical.

Oh, and this line is even easier to debunk.

I'm not now, nor have I ever been "completely faithful" in science. I see it for what it is: a system based on consistency that is consistently the most reliable method for knowing the universe I live in. I trust my airplane not to crash: it MIGHT, but it probably won't since it's been scientifically engineered not to. You do likewise. Because of science, I trust that my ship will not sink. Again, you do likewise.

I do not trust in god(s) to get me that job I wanted or "let me" meet the girl of my dreams. I do not trust god(s) to heal me if I become seriously wounded, and I would not trust god(s) to save my life if I fell off a twenty story building (science says you'll probably die... faith says "anything is possible>>> I'll take my chances with science).

Faith IS illogical. There is no direct correlation between praying to god and surviving cancer. None. "Believing" you can fly a-la peter pan will not make a man fly: either you build and airplane (science), a rocket pack (science), or discovery a system of incantation and magic (again, science insofar as it'll draw on consistent runes/power words/etc.)

When we trust in science, we do so knowing it "might" but probably WON'T let us down. When we trust in religion, we might as well be trusting to ANY religion: praying to Shiva, Zeus, Batman, Jesus, Superman, Spaghetti monster, and me will ALL have the same effects. True story.

Respond, please :P

tissuebox92
11-22-2009, 02:06 AM
What I still can't understand after all these years, is why Atheists are so completely faithful in science that they never see the irony in calling faith illogical.

Whoever said this has no logic at all.

How can accepting the truth after being backed up by evidence and proof be faith?

Faith literally means... belief in the absense of evidence... which is not what atheists do... that is what we are against.

You have no understanding of what being an athiest is..

you also have no place in these kind of arguements as you don't even know what you are talking about.

Mr Beer
11-22-2009, 02:22 AM
According to Darwin's theory, the faithful are better survivors than Atheists, regardless of whether they're right or wrong. Just sayin..

I agree, religion is an evolved trait.

Spuddy
11-22-2009, 12:13 PM
Eh.

The "faith in a personal god gives one bravery on the battlefield" argument has been twisted by you here. I do not doubt that believing some mystical being is somehow 'looking out for you' can embolden the uncertain: soldiers who are not 100% behind the mission may find hope, as may prisoners who were never on the same page as (ding ding ding) THEMSELVES to begin with.

The thing is, the only thing you've "proven" is that belief can have emboldening psychological effects on a person. The argument in this specific thread is that science and religion DO NOT require the same level or type of "faith" as one another (and, I think that much we can agree on: if you disagree, please come up with an argument on that).

Back to your point, though.

I'd equate the "inspirational" effect of believing in a mystical superpower (i.e. Norse warriors thinking they'll go to valhalla via valkyrie after they die in battle) to effect of morphine on a person whose bowels are leaking out in front of them. It's a layer of mind-comfort when reality may be too difficult to cope with (i.e. the person never really was 100% behind going into battle). Everybody knows that people juiced up on PCP feel virtually nothing (no fear, no pain: broken bones and punctured organs don't register).

The thing is, religious inspiration can JUST AS EASILY be considered a NEGATIVE psychological effects. RE: fanaticism. Zealotry. Witch hunts and Crusades of righteous pillaging and rape. Genocide. Suicidal bombings. There's nothing inherently Good in "religious inspiration": it's a perfectly neutral phenomenon and it certainly goes both ways.

Craptons of Evil has been done by people who "found God", and that's a fact: use the No True Scotsman plea if you will but, fact is, every Inquisitor/gay-murderer/jihad-******* has been "inspired" by the uplifting mechanism-of-mind that is believing in a god.

Waiting on your response.
First of all, thank you for making your points with courtesy and structure instead of resorting to name-calling as others have. Anyways, I spoke from the point of view of a non-believer to try and speak on the idea of faith working well as a survival tool alone, not so much proving God right or wrong, as there inherently can be no proof either way. That said, the soldier or prisoner "coming to terms with themselves" is still a fantastic survival tool, regardless of the validity of their newfound beliefs. History says that the Vikings fighting for Valhalla was about the best warplan ever hatched- A core group of just a few dozen vikings were able to annihilate entire Indian tribes numbering well into the hundreds, and potentially thousands, thanks to their ability to turn their bodies into all-out wrecking machines in the fight for their afterlife. There are massively powerful areas of the brain that we simply can't access without a very good reason, and that reason is often entirely limited to a "religious experience." I just can't really imagine a squad of warriors blasting through the enemies in their way like butter with the battle cry of "FOR MY GENES!!!! RAWWWRRRRR!!!" (lolol that's actually an awesome vision if you stick a sword in Dawkin's hand and put an army of natives in front of him :D)

"No true Scotsman" would be detrimental to the point I am making, as I am speaking on faith for survival alone, not comparing my faith to other (vastly inferior ;)) faiths. I absolutely agree with you that the amount of people killed off and suppressed in the name of religion is downright disgusting, but at the end of it all there are still two sides to this point- Religious suppression creates strong bonds with the oppressed, and in countless instances throughout history, has caused very important migrations to take place. Just speaking on Judaio-Christianity oppression alone, the Jews left their Egyptian oppressors and formed the powerful country of Israel. Oppressed Protestants left the Church of England for religious freedom in the new world and America was born (And of course there was much oppression in America for a while as well, which prompted further religion-based movement around the land). It's an ugly point to make, but oppression definitely has had the notion of unifying groups of people and prompting important movements in history, despite the nasty side-effect of terrible things being done to those on the raw end of the deal.

Oh, and this line is even easier to debunk.

I'm not now, nor have I ever been "completely faithful" in science. I see it for what it is: a system based on consistency that is consistently the most reliable method for knowing the universe I live in. I trust my airplane not to crash: it MIGHT, but it probably won't since it's been scientifically engineered not to. You do likewise. Because of science, I trust that my ship will not sink. Again, you do likewise.

I do not trust in god(s) to get me that job I wanted or "let me" meet the girl of my dreams. I do not trust god(s) to heal me if I become seriously wounded, and I would not trust god(s) to save my life if I fell off a twenty story building (science says you'll probably die... faith says "anything is possible>>> I'll take my chances with science).

Faith IS illogical. There is no direct correlation between praying to god and surviving cancer. None. "Believing" you can fly a-la peter pan will not make a man fly: either you build and airplane (science), a rocket pack (science), or discovery a system of incantation and magic (again, science insofar as it'll draw on consistent runes/power words/etc.)

When we trust in science, we do so knowing it "might" but probably WON'T let us down. When we trust in religion, we might as well be trusting to ANY religion: praying to Shiva, Zeus, Batman, Jesus, Superman, Spaghetti monster, and me will ALL have the same effects. True story.

Respond, please :P
I see nothing wrong with this statement. I would never expect God to do some miracle of health just because I asked Him. While I believe it's entirely possible, He has already provided the wonderfully effective healthcare fix called science :p As I mentioned in an earlier post, if God created everything, then He created scientific law as well, and we are simply discovering it is greater extent now than we could before. If I get Leukemia, I'm not gonna go about life as usual and expect my God to incinerate the illness; I actually see doing that as pretty arrogant ("Yo God, get this stuff out of me.. No I don't want to have to fight it like those non-believers, just cure me!") I'm instead going thank God that I have a wonderful hospital right down my street, and use the equipment and doctors He has provided me with to the greatest extent with which I can. Noah didn't expect God to give him gills, he used the tools he was provided with and built a scientifically-sound boat :p



At any rate, I think we have a decent understanding at this point, unless of course there is something I missed. I fully respect your opinion on the matter, and I appreciate your understanding towards my opinion as well.


Whoever said this has no logic at all.

How can accepting the truth after being backed up by evidence and proof be faith?

Faith literally means... belief in the absense of evidence... which is not what atheists do... that is what we are against.

You have no understanding of what being an athiest is..

you also have no place in these kind of arguements as you don't even know what you are talking about.

Wow, strong words for someone with such a low level of comprehension towards the point being made at hand. Note that I didn't say Agnostic, I said ATHEIST. You believe, without a doubt, that there can be no God. Since as you said, belief or disbelief in God is a thing of faith alone, then you are stubbornly putting your foot down on the idea of a god even though there is no proof whatsoever. All it takes is a little squeak; Just a little "yeah, we don't actually know for sure, but IMO all evidence/lack of, points towards no god" and you are completely redeemed and I will drop the point completely. But of course that would be pushing you near Agnosticism, which you faithfully say is ludicrous.

But please do continue with your powerful thesis statement of "you're ignorant cause I'm a scientist!" I certainly wouldn't want you disowning your faith over someone on the internet.

Spuddy
11-22-2009, 12:17 PM
I agree, religion is an evolved trait.

Just curious- Where do your beliefs lie? If I were an Atheist, this is how I would see it- An evolved tool to enhance survivability

Saleenmuscle
11-22-2009, 12:23 PM
Lol, the God of the gaps fallacy is such a joke. If God created everything, then science was created by God- You're trying to prove that Ford didn't build a car because you finally understand how the engine works. Sorry, this little "fallacy" doesn't prove anything more than how incredibly complex and beautiful everything about our universe's design really is, and a simple gap in knowledge is resultingly no more an argument against God than it is an argument against science.

Why was science created by God? How is our gap in knowledge an argument against science?

Also please look up argumentum ad ignorantiam. You use it quite often



Education is nothing in survival, though you are incorrect with your statement's intentions from the start to begin with. First of all, If you are referring to places like Appalacia being uneducated, you are completely correct, though the education problems stem from the area being populated by physical laborers rather than intellectuals who stuck to the cities. As far as survival however, good luck finding anywhere in America with more closely-knit communities, where everyone happily helps whoever is in need, and where the people are as rugged as our country produces. If a massive catastrophe hits America, it's those "uneducated" religious folk in Appalacia who are going to grind through the desperate times and know what to do in order to live and repopulate. Second, there may be many well-educated Atheists, but historically the smartest people in history have concluded that something so incredibly complex as our universe could not have come about without the aid of something, whatever it may be, intelligent.

Still, what your are implying is "we are to complex, therefore invisible magic man must have done it". Just because something is not known in science yet, doesn't mean it is unknown. Your arguments are illogical.



As far as "placebo affect", read the upper portion of my post.. By claiming a placebo is aiding me, you are claiming that faith is helping me survive. Crazy how that works, ain't it!

So you basically don't care if your living a lie, as long as it gets you by. Well, some people care more passionately about the truth, and want to find to best method for deciding what is true and what is false. This method would be evidence.

The truth hurts sometimes, it's time to start honestly facing the world of reality, fare and square and stop being dishonest to yourself.

ThundaHawk
11-22-2009, 12:35 PM
I see nothing wrong with this statement. I would never expect God to do some miracle of health just because I asked Him. While I believe it's entirely possible, He has already provided the wonderfully effective healthcare fix called science :p As I mentioned in an earlier post, if God created everything, then He created scientific law as well, and we are simply discovering it is greater extent now than we could before. If I get Leukemia, I'm not gonna go about life as usual and expect my God to incinerate the illness; I actually see doing that as pretty arrogant ("Yo God, get this stuff out of me.. No I don't want to have to fight it like those non-believers, just cure me!") I'm instead going thank God that I have a wonderful hospital right down my street, and use the equipment and doctors He has provided me with to the greatest extent with which I can. Noah didn't expect God to give him gills, he used the tools he was provided with and built a scientifically-sound boat :p

.

Actually, that is one of my biggest gripes with anti-science bashing in general (the notion that God "gave" man science).

First of all, didn't Adam and Eve get out for eating from the Tree of Knowledge?

Second of all, my argument is this: the medicine and science you rely on day by day were not arrived at by faith but by knowledge. You don't faith yourself from New York to Amsterdam. You rely on the knowledge that the methods that'll ferry you have been researched and verified to be as consistent and reliable as possible.

Religion says it's bad to question God. It's bad to know how he's working or if s/he's working at all. We aren't "meant to know", and faith is good enough (and, in many cases, even better than knowledge). By this broken rationale people can claim that science requires as much faith as religion when, frankly, it does not and never will.

Religion= total faith that things work the way you believe they do.
Science= eliminating the reliance on faith by accruing as much knowledge as possible.

Spuddy
11-22-2009, 12:38 PM
Why was science created by God? How is our gap in knowledge an argument against science?

Also please look up argumentum ad ignorantiam. You use it quite often
If there was nothing before God, and God created everything, then it is logical to conclude that the scientific laws we understand are nothing more than working aspects of the system created by God which we now understand. How is that possibly wrong? A gap in knowledge is not an argument against science, I was merely conveying the connection between God and science, which I have just explained again, hopefully with a little more clarity.




Still, what your are implying is "we are to complex, therefore invisible magic man must have done it". Just because something is not known in science yet, doesn't mean it is unknown. Your arguments are illogical.

I never said that.. You really need to start reading my posts without such a stubborn innate response waiting to anxiously jump out if we are going to get anywhere. I said what we KNOW ALREADY is so complex that intelligence makes more sense than spontaneity. But that's not me talking, it's the geniuses of humanity.




So you basically don't care if your living a lie, as long as it gets you by. Well, some people care more passionately about the truth, and want to find to best method for deciding what is true and what is false. This method would be evidence.

The truth hurts sometimes, it's time to start honestly facing the world of reality, fare and square and stop being dishonest to yourself.
If any of my posts are evidence, I ponder everything about life more deeply and more often than just about anyone around me. I never stop thinking about this subject, and from all points of view. This is why I am able to say that while I have every reason to believe I am correct, it would be immensely arrogant to call everyone else wrong by default on a subject which revolves around faith and faith alone. Read your last sentence through a different point of view than your own, and you may just find yourself shocked at the stubborn arrogance you are displaying.


Anyways, I'm off to a Patriots party, I'll be back later tonight

Spuddy
11-22-2009, 12:51 PM
Actually, that is one of my biggest gripes with anti-science bashing in general (the notion that God "gave" man science).

First of all, didn't Adam and Eve get out for eating from the Tree of Knowledge?

Second of all, my argument is this: the medicine and science you rely on day by day were not arrived at by faith but by knowledge. You don't faith yourself from New York to Amsterdam. You rely on the knowledge that the methods that'll ferry you have been researched and verified to be as consistent and reliable as possible.

Religion says it's bad to question God. It's bad to know how he's working or if s/he's working at all. We aren't "meant to know", and faith is good enough (and, in many cases, even better than knowledge). By this broken rationale people can claim that science requires as much faith as religion when, frankly, it does not and never will.

Religion= total faith that things work the way you believe they do.
Science= eliminating the reliance on faith by accruing as much knowledge as possible.

Ok, I'll get one more response in real quick :p

I'm not saying God gave man science, I'm saying that science results from the system that was created. There's no way around it IMO- If God created the Universe as it is, which is an incredible symphony of interconnecting activity, then the resulting science would have to be a result of what God made. It's not an excuse of any sort, it is simply the most logical conclusion to be made by someone who has faith in a higher power. Why would I say God created the universe, then contradict myself by saying science is wrong by default? I see it instead as science slowly but surely figuring out a genius "language" invented eions ago which has been elusive until now.

Religion DOES say it's bad to question God as you mentioned, and that suppression of knowledge is precisely why I am not religious. I do have faith in God however, and as part of this faith, God Himself says to question it at every turn. I have been questioning God as long as I've believed, and that constant questioning and pondering is the very thing which has strengthened my faith as much as it has.



NOW I'm gonna go watch my Pats lay the smack down, be back tonight :D

ThundaHawk
11-22-2009, 12:58 PM
.

Religion DOES say it's bad to question God as you mentioned, and that suppression of knowledge is precisely why I am not religious. I do have faith in God however, and as part of this faith, God Himself says to question it at every turn. I have been questioning God as long as I've believed, and that constant questioning and pondering is the very thing which has strengthened my faith as much as it has.


Science, by definition, refers to the SYSTEM through which we understand our world (with all its wacky phenomena) and not the world itself. If a god/dungeon master did create all the world/universe, it could very easily do so without providing science (the method humans use to 'know' and manipulate their environment).

Science is simply our way of navigating the world. If the dungeon master made a disease that killed humans, it would be up to humans to figure out a cure (via medical science). In this case, humans did it all themselves since-- had they done nothing-- the sickness would have killed them. This is just a case of god taking credit for a man's actions. God may have created wheat and rain, but man needed to go out on his own and develop the sciences for harvesting crops. You can't really say it was any particular god/creature/ghost that made scientific advancement possible, since our tech has been invented by a crazy plethora of people with varying/no religious backgrounds. It's always better just to go what we know for sure, first, and that is science is a product of humanity.

Mr Beer
11-22-2009, 02:35 PM
Just curious- Where do your beliefs lie? If I were an Atheist, this is how I would see it- An evolved tool to enhance survivability

I'm an atheist.

EDIT

As an atheist, I think it would be tough to say otherwise. Whether or not religiosity is still a beneficial survival trait is of course another argument.

Geese_Howard
11-22-2009, 04:28 PM
Man only has a level of intellect because, according to the bible, he had to steal it from god. god wanted us to be stupid, docile animals in the garden of eden. Therefore, science is a gift that is the result of man's ingenuity, cunning and own will and not a gift from any god.
Christians so often thank god for wisdom. Why? Man had to steal it for himself...

Saleenmuscle
11-22-2009, 04:41 PM
If there was nothing before God, and God created everything, then it is logical to conclude that the scientific laws we understand are nothing more than working aspects of the system created by God which we now understand. How is that possibly wrong? A gap in knowledge is not an argument against science, I was merely conveying the connection between God and science, which I have just explained again, hopefully with a little more clarity.

Nothing before God? Who created god? You say in your below post "spontaneity" doesn't make much sense, but your implying god came from nothing?..




I never said that.. You really need to start reading my posts without such a stubborn innate response waiting to anxiously jump out if we are going to get anywhere. I said what we KNOW ALREADY is so complex that intelligence makes more sense than spontaneity. But that's not me talking, it's the geniuses of humanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

Now tell me why I.D is more plausible




If any of my posts are evidence, I ponder everything about life more deeply and more often than just about anyone around me. I never stop thinking about this subject, and from all points of view. This is why I am able to say that while I have every reason to believe I am correct, it would be immensely arrogant to call everyone else wrong by default on a subject which revolves around faith and faith alone. Read your last sentence through a different point of view than your own, and you may just find yourself shocked at the stubborn arrogance you are displaying.


You didn't read my last sentence. I said reality, not fantasy.

Reality (re?al?i?ty): That which exists OBJECTIVELY and in fact

Grinners
11-22-2009, 06:19 PM
Good video, same guy does a great on on evolution!

Spuddy
11-23-2009, 10:50 AM
Science, by definition, refers to the SYSTEM through which we understand our world (with all its wacky phenomena) and not the world itself. If a god/dungeon master did create all the world/universe, it could very easily do so without providing science (the method humans use to 'know' and manipulate their environment).

Science is simply our way of navigating the world. If the dungeon master made a disease that killed humans, it would be up to humans to figure out a cure (via medical science). In this case, humans did it all themselves since-- had they done nothing-- the sickness would have killed them. This is just a case of god taking credit for a man's actions. God may have created wheat and rain, but man needed to go out on his own and develop the sciences for harvesting crops. You can't really say it was any particular god/creature/ghost that made scientific advancement possible, since our tech has been invented by a crazy plethora of people with varying/no religious backgrounds. It's always better just to go what we know for sure, first, and that is science is a product of humanity.
That is one way to look at it, and there are most likely many believers in a higher power who see it that way, but I see it as exactly the opposite- Man has fallen, and God helps us up, just like a dad with his kids (which is why the Bible has so many analogies to the family, with God being the father). While God is always here, I don't think He's sitting here deciding every little tidbit that happens around you. I instead see it like He's our father, and when we get a skinned knee, He puts us on His knee and says it'll be alright. Ask for some fatherly wisdom when we're doing something, and He gives us an idea on handling the situation.

And I don't at all believe God is inventing everything for us, sorry if it sounded that way. By saying God created science, I mean everything we have (life, molecules, natural resources, everything) was created as part of the whole system of life, so the natural laws we discover and the various things we make to better our lives as a result are completely in tune with the design. Say I build an engine, and after years of study, someone figures out that the mysterious driving force in that engine is gasoline. It doesn't mean I didn't make the engine, it just means someone figured out part of how it works. God could make all the anominalies He wants after the original design, but that would be pointless to do, so I don't really it's a dominating occurance.

But then of course, He DID make the Platypus, so I guess He does like doing just a few random things anyways :p


Man only has a level of intellect because, according to the bible, he had to steal it from god. god wanted us to be stupid, docile animals in the garden of eden. Therefore, science is a gift that is the result of man's ingenuity, cunning and own will and not a gift from any god.
Christians so often thank god for wisdom. Why? Man had to steal it for himself...
Not stupid, but definitely Naive. But that's why there was a choice; There's always a choice. Man hadn't sinned, so man didn't know anything about "right" or "wrong". There was nothing special about the forbidden fruit, it was just a way to give humanity choices instead of being robots. Since we have a choice, I tend to believe we can ask advice on which way to go about certain thing


Nothing before God? Who created god? You say in your below post "spontaneity" doesn't make much sense, but your implying god came from nothing?..

Spotaneity- Everything randomly falling into place via chance.

And there is no "Before God". Being creatures of time this is weird to think about, but God existing outside of time makes eternity a perfectly normal thing, because being beyond time, He just IS, or in His own words, "Before there was Abraham, I AM". Whether you want to believe it or not, the Bible speaks of an existance outside the dimension of time as perfectly as it could be said, long before time was seen as a dimension. In fact, the thing that I actually have trouble wrapping my head around is the eternal soul. If you create something and introduce it to a timeless environment, when did it begin??? There's no such thing as a beginning in a time-free environment. My head hurts so I'm gonna move on now lol

"Who created God" is a pointless argument to use at any rate, because it begs the rebuttle: "Where did all this matter that produced the universe as we know it come from?"



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

Now tell me why I.D is more plausible
Because something had to set evolution in motion. I take it you're assuming I think the world is 6,000 years old? Just because I believe God created life doesn't mean I think He just slapped us all in place overnight..


You didn't read my last sentence. I said reality, not fantasy.

Reality (re?al?i?ty): That which exists OBJECTIVELY and in fact

Reality... Well, when you're ready to show me your video of the godless beginning of the universe, I'll stop thinking about how hypocritical you sound.

Saleenmuscle
11-23-2009, 12:09 PM
Dude, if you don't know somethings, just be honest and say you dont know. You can't just make stuff up thats unprovable.

Saleenmuscle
11-23-2009, 12:54 PM
..dble pst