An observation about Faith Based beliefs

Rogus Maximus
Theist
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
An observation about Faith Based beliefs

Theism and Atheism/Anti-Theism are the same in that they are both faith based.There is no scientific tangible evidence for the existence of God.There is no scientific tangible evidence against the existence of God.Both groups are on equal footing in the realm of science/logic.Once upon a time people believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe.  Obviously reality is not subject to our beliefs.So wether we believe there is a God or believe there is no God that is only our beliefs. Reality is not concerned with what we believe.Theists and Atheists tend to look down their noses at "the other side".  This is called prejudice.That is where all of humanity seems to go wrong.I am new here and I am a Theist. I learned of this site from the debate with Way of The Master that I saw on TV. From what I saw both sides of the debate were rather weak.In the end such debates are just ignorant people debating the nature of reality. Funny.I say ignorant because both sides were trying to make a case. When you are trying to make a case for one side or the other you have chosen the answer that most closely suits your ego. And when you begin to defend your ego there is no possiblilty of learning. Learning can only take place when you are willing to scrap your beliefs in favor of new evidence and you have become satisfied with the new evidence. Otherwise we are still in the 3rd grade.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I don't know why I'm

I don't know why I'm bothering. A cursory glance at a hundred other threads would provide refutation of what you're saying. Your first statement, equating atheism with anti-theism is false. Atheism describes a position from agnosticism to a stated certainty that religious propositions are false.
If we addressed the flat earth example in the manner you suggest for all the questions of religion, we wouldn't have looked for a definite answer. We might eventually have found it in spite of ourselves, be we would have shrugged our shoulders and arbitrarily decided on whatever answer seemed satisfying.
Stop pretending that atheism is a matter of being ignorant of religious propositions -- this is false for most of the atheists here. Stop pretending atheism is some kind of knee-jerk reaction. Atheism is a logical position in the face of the lack of supporting evidence for the world's religions. The burden of proof is on you.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Rogus Maximus wrote: Theism

Rogus Maximus wrote:
Theism and Atheism/Anti-Theism are the same in that they are both faith based.

OK. I have faith that I do not believe in a god. Actually, on a fundamental basis I just don't believe in a god ergo I am a fundamental atheist.

I don't have to have 'faith' to not have faith.

Quote:
There is no scientific tangible evidence for the existence of God.

Nope. Glad you can admit that, but please don't quit looking because then you would simply have to take your own statement on faith.

Quote:
There is no scientific tangible evidence against the existence of God.

Depends. I'd say the very fact that one has to have 'faith' in order to believe that there is a god is pretty good evidence.

Quote:
Both groups are on equal footing in the realm of science/logic.

Well, I'm sure that remains to be seen doesn't it? I mean you denigrate the idea of 'faith' and then expect us to just agree on 'faith' with your assertions.

Quote:
Once upon a time people believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Obviously reality is not subject to our beliefs.

This is self-contradictory. The beliefs were accepted as reality for a very long time. See: catholics and Galileo.

Quote:
So wether we believe there is a God or believe there is no God that is only our beliefs.

Very good. Except atheism is a lack of belief in a god not a belief that there is no god. Big difference. Please read more of the site.

Quote:
Reality is not concerned with what we believe.

Reality has no consciousness ergo it cannot have a concern. Reality is reality.

Quote:
Theists and Atheists tend to look down their noses at "the other side". This is called prejudice.

No. Not all. That is a generalization about people. Were we discussing beliefs or people?

If we're still talking about beliefs then I must call into evidence the fact that nearly every religion has incorporated into its 'holy books' the idea that unbelievers should be pitied and not trusted at the same time. The religious beliefs themselves foster discrimination.

Quote:
That is where all of humanity seems to go wrong.

Well, I guess we're on to people. Who created religion and prejudice?

Quote:
I am new here and I am a Theist.

Figured that since only theists and obnoxious people calling themselves 'agnostics' have ever said anything about your first two paragraphs before, but I didn't want to prejudge.

Quote:
I learned of this site from the debate with Way of The Master that I saw on TV.

You and forty-eleven others. I'm glad that the debate has drawn people to discuss these important matters.

Quote:
From what I saw both sides of the debate were rather weak.

Only the side making the positive claim needed to be 'strong'. Ray and Kirk made the claim that they could prove 'god' scientifically without using faith or the bible. They failed miserably. That's what counts in my opinion. Why not check the six other threads covering the debate instead of making an entirely new one.

Quote:
In the end such debates are just ignorant people debating the nature of reality. Funny.

LOL. Just a minute ago, you tried to ascribe a human emotion to reality. You're wrong though. It isn't funny.

Quote:
I say ignorant because both sides were trying to make a case.

Nope. Just explained this.

Quote:
When you are trying to make a case for one side or the other you have chosen the answer that most closely suits your ego.

Nope. Sorry. If you do that then you're no better than the people that imprisoned Galileo and fight stem cell research. Why? Because you would be making reality fit your beliefs.

Quote:
And when you begin to defend your ego there is no possiblilty of learning.

Agreed. What have we learned here today?

Quote:
Learning can only take place when you are willing to scrap your beliefs in favor of new evidence and you have become satisfied with the new evidence. Otherwise we are still in the 3rd grade.

See. That whole idea of being satisfied with new evidence implies stopping there. There is something new everyday. IMHO, that's what makes life so wonderful and more evidence for evolution. New things mean change not 'satisfaction with yesterday's new evidence'.

The idea that whatever evidence you have seen leads you to conclude that there must be a god completely goes against your premise since 'faith' is defined as 'belief without evidence' and we already saw the evidence of your theism is 'faith'.

Meanwhile, I have made no conclusion except not to accept 'faith' as evidence. Do you see how the assertion that I have 'faith' is actually insulting?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh Reality or what

darth_josh

Reality or what you perceive as reality cannot be proven even your own existence is unprovable. faith is required for you to believe that you are conscious awake and you are reading this. soz Atheism is a  faith. in as much as our perception of reality and everything in that reality is based upon faith. it's only a technical point and if you are unhappy with it just believe it isn't here I'm sure it will disappear in a puff of logic


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Are you ready then to reject

Are you ready then to reject any distinction between subjective and objective claims? Most of us perceive reality in similar ways, but the differences are significant enough that we rely on methods to remove as many human variables as possible when attempting establish objective theories. This is necessary to keep ourselves from laboring under concepts we've convinced ourselves of, but don't actually exist. N-Rays are an example. A process was established for generating them -- they being perceptible under certain conditions as an orange glow emanating from a filament. Unbeknownst to the researcher studying the N-Rays, a visiting scientist had removed an element key to the set up, breaking the process. The researcher claimed to have seen them just the same. N-Rays don't exist.
I thought that was an interesting story, and I shared it even though your argument is merely a tu quoque against the rationality of atheism.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Are you

magilum wrote:
Are you ready then to reject any distinction between subjective and objective claims?

 I'm not entirely sure. I will need some time to think about this

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
"it's only a technical

"it's only a technical point"

As it can only be a technical point. although one cannot deny the truth in the philosophy. one can-not live in the world of that philosophy

"Are you ready then to reject any distinction between subjective and objective claims"

Technically yes. but I draw a distinction between the philosophies and in my perceived reality no

 

And this begs the question will you deny truth for your faith ?

 


 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Technically yes. but I draw a distinction between the philosophies and in my perceived reality no

 

Then N-Rays exist, time actually does slow down in a traumatic event, and the birds sing louder when you're in love. It's not a hypothetical philosophical question. Every day the police work hard to remove the failures of subjectivity from eyewitness accounts. Why do you think they pack a lineup with cops and people they know are unrelated to the crime? Why do scientists make every effort to disprove their own hypotheses, rather than just settling on the answer that appeals to them? There is a difference between something that seems true at one moment, and something that can be repeatedly and independently verified. While we trust our senses on a daily basis, we're forced to confront their limitations when we're looking for reliable information.

 

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:
And this begs the question will you deny truth for your faith ?

 

Don't bother trying to call atheism a position requiring faith again.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Rogus Maximus wrote: Theism

Rogus Maximus wrote:
Theism and Atheism/Anti-Theism are the same in that they are both faith based.
First off, problem #1, there are 3 positions in your statement.Anti-theism is not the same as atheism. Not all atheists are against theism.
Quote:

There is no scientific tangible evidence for the existence of God.
The adjective 'tangible' is redundant, but you are correct; there is no evidence for a god.
Quote:

There is no scientific tangible evidence against the existence of God.
There is an abundance of evidence against the existence of a god. I express it in a syllogism:

P1 - If there's no evidence of a god, then the lack of evidence of a god is evidence that there is no god.
P2 - There is no evidence of a god
C - Therefore there is no god

Quote:

Both groups are on equal footing in the realm of science/logic.
In reference to atheism and theism, there's no equality as I've clearly demonstrated. There is no evidence of a god.
Quote:

Once upon a time people believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Obviously reality is not subject to our beliefs.
So wether we believe there is a God or believe there is no God that is only our beliefs.
Reality is not concerned with what we believe.
The comparison of an empirical error and the belief of a god is a false analogy.
Quote:

Theists and Atheists tend to look down their noses at "the other side". This is called prejudice.
This is called a disagreement.
Quote:

That is where all of humanity seems to go wrong.
A hasty generalization fallacy.
Quote:

I am new here and I am a Theist. I learned of this site from the debate with Way of The Master that I saw on TV. From what I saw both sides of the debate were rather weak.
You are in the minority.
Quote:

In the end such debates are just ignorant people debating the nature of reality. Funny.
It wasn't a debate on the nature of reality.
Quote:

I say ignorant because both sides were trying to make a case.
Only the believers were trying to make a case; the atheists demonstrated that the theists did not prove god's existence.
Quote:
When you are trying to make a case for one side or the other you have chosen the answer that most closely suits your ego.
I guess that's why you erringly concluded the atheist's position was weak.
Quote:
And when you begin to defend your ego there is no possiblilty of learning. Learning can only take place when you are willing to scrap your beliefs in favor of new evidence and you have become satisfied with the new evidence. Otherwise we are still in the 3rd grade.
Thats true, so when are you going to scrap your beliefs?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
magilum

magilum wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Technically yes. but I draw a distinction between the philosophies and in my perceived reality no

 

Then N-Rays exist, time actually does slow down in a traumatic event, and the birds sing louder when you're in love. It's not a hypothetical philosophical question. Every day the police work hard to remove the failures of subjectivity from eyewitness accounts. Why do you think they pack a lineup with cops and people they know are unrelated to the crime? Why do scientists make every effort to disprove their own hypotheses, rather than just settling on the answer that appeals to them? There is a difference between something that seems true at one moment, and something that can be repeatedly and independently verified. While we trust our senses on a daily basis, we're forced to confront their limitations when we're looking for reliable information.

Even in the real world or what we perceive as reality there are no absolute certainty only probabilities. science is not absolute and it can never claimed to be absolute because of certain fundamental problems the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for example. it's a big universe and are understanding of it is quite limited. we are clever monkeys but we ain't that clever yet. N-Rays may exist although they probably don't, 

"time actually does slow down in a traumatic event" on a personal level yes certain parts of your brain will shut down increasing the speed of decision making. adrenaline will speed up muscle reactions. and if you happen to be falling out of a plane. the universal constant C speed of light ie time. will be affected by gravity air density and so on as you fall 

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:
And this begs the question will you deny truth for your faith ?

magilum wrote:
 

Don't bother trying to call atheism a position requiring faith again.

Atheism is a position requiring faith unless you have some certain and absolute knowledge and not just some gut feeling you have. remembering "I think so therefore I am" died at the birth of AI.

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: Even in

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Even in the real world or what we perceive as reality there are no absolute certainty only probabilities.

 

If this is so, can you provide an example of an exception that suggests it?

  

Rev_Devilin wrote:
science is not absolute and it can never claimed to be absolute because of certain fundamental problems the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for example.

 

Absolute as opposed to what? Religious claims are absolute within their contexts, but they haven't been demonstrated to actually represent anything in the real world. I can say “argle is greater than bargle,” and I can mean it as an absolute certainty, but it doesn't describe anything actual. Science is based on observations and predictions which, when tested, will speak to the validity of our understanding of those principles. The religious question exists because it was written down in a book, not because there was evidence that warranted further study. Religiously-motivated “science” works backwards, starting with a certainty and a conclusion, then looking for ways to support it, with no allowance for failure.

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:
it's a big universe and are understanding of it is quite limited. we are clever monkeys but we ain't that clever yet.

 

N-Rays may exist although they probably don't, 

 

They were specifically defined, tested, and disproved. They don't exist. That's the beauty of having a hypothesis you can test.

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:
“time actually does slow down in a traumatic event“ on a personal level yes certain parts of your brain will shut down increasing the speed of decision making. adrenaline will speed up muscle reactions.

 

What do you mean by “actually?” A witness to the event not really paying attention might experience the whole thing as a fraction of a second. The clocks of the world don't seem to be affected, despite the daily occurrences of traffic accidents. The difference between perception and reality is potentially vast, which is why we take pains not to rely on perception alone for proof of something.

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:
[...]

Atheism is a position requiring faith unless you have some certain and absolute knowledge and not just some gut feeling you have.

 

To hold an unproven position requires faith -- not to hold it does not.

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:
remembering “I think so therefore I am“ died at the birth of AI.

 

No idea what you mean here. Sorry.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
In philosophy the

In philosophy the realization that what we perceive as reality may not be real " ? am I a butterfly dreaming that I am human " being one example of many

Ones very existence was called into question until a philosopher called René Descartes came up with "Cogito, ergo sum" I think so therefore exist. which became the cornerstone of Western philosophy proving ones own existence

Until AI "artificial intelligence" although it still at an incredibly primitive stage.the realization that a human consciousness could eventually be contained artificially or made artificially called into question the validity of Cogito, ergo sum. and ones existence has again been called into question

ie you may just be part of a sims game

 

Science whatever the question the answer is physics

Physics has two main disciplines classical physics you drop a ball and it bounces in a predictable way "observational science"

But the ball will never be absolutely predictable because of external physical forces Erath quakes dust particles air temperature alpha particles and so on. it is not technically possible to take into account every possible variation. so an approximate model of how the ball should bounce is used in observational science. the model can be extremely accurate but it will never be absolute. weather forecasts work in exactly the same way using observational science. but the external physical forces a far greater so the model is less predictable "If this is so, can you provide an example of an exception that suggests it?" weather forecasts. as an extreme and every other scientific model ever. it's all down to probability

Quantum physics the second discipline

The ball is made of atoms. atoms were created in the Big Bang. by accelerating energy to the speed of light E=MC squared ( E energy equals M matter squared by the speed of light universal constant C ) Heisenberg uncertainty principle is used to point out that you can not observe these atoms without affecting them thus the uncertainty

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

And without certainty of the structure of the ball at any given time no absolute model of the balls behavior can be made

You exist in a uncertaint universe. science can only give us probabilities not absolute certainties

"To hold an unproven position requires faith -- not to hold it does not."

Magilum you hold an unproven position.

And this begs the question will you deny truth for your faith ?

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
You ignored the specific

You ignored the specific content of my reply, and simply posted a long description of physical concepts before making the jarring conclusion.

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:
In philosophy the realization that what we perceive as reality may not be real “ ? am I a butterfly dreaming that I am human “ being one example of many

 

*****************, would you say your experience suggests something as wildly inconsistent with day to day life as this is something necessary to entertain on a serious level? Is there some special reason you don't think your reading this right now represents reality, versus a bizarre “brain in a jar” type scenario?

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:
[more of the same snipped]

 

[physics stuff snipped, no reply on that]

 

And without certainty of the structure of the ball at any given time no absolute model of the balls behavior can be made

You exist in a uncertaint universe. science can only give us probabilities not absolute certainties

 

I waited for the point to materialize, and none did. Maybe your point fell victim to the uncertainties of science and crossed into a parallel universe.

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Magilum you hold an unproven position.

 

What position is that?

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:
[repetition of same question, the sign of a poor imagination]

[MOD EDIT - removed poor taste in word choice] 

 


Rogus Maximus
Theist
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
my only point was that

my only point was that regardless of what side we stand on we are all flawed people...and without attacking atheism  you still found the need to defend it...interesting...the burden of proof is on me ?...how quaint...a cop out at best and an unwillingness to face the fact that you believe what you believe based on an assumption...the burden of proof is on every person for what they believe, it is only fair...of all there is to learn in this universe man knows so very little and assumes the rest...man can not yet speak with knowledge but only heart felt conviction...the objectivity of man is often just another unfounded assumption...your assertions of what you think I believe about atheism and religion, which I disdain, are too numerous for me to address within the constraints of time and seem to be only varying shades of wrongness...you know me not and simply because I label myself theist you define me with an appaling assortment of assumptions...I assume this is how you make most of your decisions and as it becomes a habit so truly it was said that "first we make our habits and then our habits make us"...I came here to quarrel with no one only to engage in an exchange of ideas with what I hoped would be free thinkers...if you wish to debate the merits of atheism and theology then I am here to struggle with you in pursuit of the truth...I see the purpose of debating to attack an idea without mercy, to shake away everything false and be left with only truth... this is not happening when you make unfounded assertions as to what I believe...you never even asked what I believed, never cared to investigate what I believe before drawing your conclusions... oh how Mr. Paine was right when he said "time makes more converts then reason"...


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Greeting Rogus, I think you

Greeting Rogus, I think you may find the following advice useful concerning this topic. I was engaged in the very same argumentation that you are outlining in this post. I ultimately came to realize that I was trying to argue something that most intelligent atheists already know and accept. What I am specifically referring to is the uncertainty in science. I tried to translate this uncertainty into the argument that atheism is a faith-based belief. Ultimately, I have come to realize that this argument just doesn't stick.

If I may recommend that you read the first four chapters of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He outlines the positional stance of proper atheistic conceptions and brings up many objects that you have brought up. He essentially explains how it is that atheism is not a faith based system of belief similar to theism.

After reading these four chapters I can almost guarantee that your motives will be more focused on issues that are worthy of debate in this forum.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Rogus Maximus
Theist
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
imagine you are to conduct a

imagine you are to conduct a scientific observaton of people and in the interests of integrity you of course can not interact or tamper with what you are observing...so you watch people and make your notes...at the end of your observation you would have a list of what they did and said...this is basically what science does it observes things to see what they do and then draw useful conclusions...however I find that when I look at mankind and namely that man called myself I find there is more to me than what I do, there is also what I should do...and the part "what I should do" is a big part of me and science can not detect it even though it is real... with each of us observing the same reality disagreements are outward expressions of internal prejudice...how can we (humanity) look at the same thing and draw so many different beliefs unless we are all guilty of twisting evidence in favor of our preconceived beliefs ?...you state that I am in the minority...this is very telling that you would even think that matters...minority vs majority has nothing to do with what is correct only with what is popular in a given circle of people...at first you sound intellectual and rational but then stoop to popularity...hmmm...it wasn't a debate on the nature of reality ?...are you kidding, every debate is about the nature of reality...and yes both sides were weak...I am always ready to scrap my beliefs when evidence is presented to the contrary and have done so...I was raised in the church, spent my early 20's as an atheist and then returned to theism but decided I would not let anyone cram their beliefs down my throat and so I meticulously inspect the ideas thrown at my door and just like the mail I recieve much of it is junk...so if you can lay something at my door worth considering cool, but I must say a lack of evidence does not measure up for me as a reason to believe something especially when man is restriced to such a small part of the universe and has hardly learned anything in comparison to to all there is to learn which means there is much unconsidered evidence... 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I see a lot of random

[nevermind, I was replying to the wrong poster]


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
"repetition of same

"repetition of same question, the sign of a poor imagination" or I could just be looking for a straight answer

"*******************, would you say your experience suggests something as wildly inconsistent with day to day life as this is something necessary to entertain on a serious level? Is there some special reason you don't think your reading this right now represents reality, versus a bizarre “brain in a jar” type scenario?"

Bingo we have moved into the realms of gut feeling and a personal belief system. and far far away from the disciplines of science

Please excuse me while I stick to science

bizarre “brain in a jar. science teaches us that nothing is impossible just highly improbable

would you say your experience suggests something as wildly inconsistent with day to day life as particles constantly popping in and out of existence

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?chanID=sa005&articleID=0004D0F8-772A-1526-B72A83414B7F0000&topicID=13

Because the highly improbable sometimes happens science is able to deal with this because of the inbuilt uncertainty in the scientific discipline

If you claim certainty you have moved away from the scientific disciplines into your own personal belief system and you invoke faith in your own personal belief system

If you stay within the scientific discipline and the uncertainty in this discipline then you invoke faith

And this begs the question will you deny truth for your faith ?

 [MOD EDIT - removed poor taste in word choice]


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: And this

Rev_Devilin wrote:
And this begs the question will you deny truth for your faith?

Ahhhh. No. I won't deny verifiable truth ever. That would be delusional.

Prove god 'is' or 'was' and I won't be an atheist. Neither would you be a theist.

Because then (after proof) there need be no 'faith' involved. No reason to say that you have faith and I lack faith.

You can call it a cop out if you wish. Unfortunately, it is reality.

It should be easy right?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm getting very bored with

I'm getting very bored with this. You make a ham-fisted comparison of human comprehension of reality to quantum physics and things occuring at a particle level, and you do so as though it begged some philosophical question.
You've failed to address my previous points, failed to substantiate your claim that my position as an agnostic-atheist requires faith, and offered only repetition and inane science fiction scenarios or concepts orphaned from your premise.
Unless your next post substantiates your claim about my "beliefs," I'm done talking to you.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I'm getting

magilum wrote:
I'm getting very bored with this. You make a ham-fisted comparison of human comprehension of reality to quantum physics and things occuring at a particle level, and you do so as though it begged some philosophical question.
You've failed to address my previous points, failed to substantiate your claim that my position as an agnostic-atheist requires faith, and offered only repetition and inane science fiction scenarios or concepts orphaned from your premise.
Unless your next post substantiates your claim about my "beliefs," I'm done talking to you.

Then we have done talking

You are entirely certain of you're beliefs and you are entirely certain of the world you live in. science is the foundation for your certainty. because science shows with certainty that you are correct. and if any field of science doesn't it should be considered woolly headed nonsense

Thank you for answering this question "will you deny truth for your faith " the answer would be yes. as I have demonstrated uncertainty in science. which seem to deny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle the clue is in the name uncertainty principle / but I'm just repeating woolly headed nonsense here am I not. this isn't real science.

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?chanID=sa005&articleID=0004D0F8-772A-1526-B72A83414B7F0000&topicID=13

And some more woolly headed science. they just tend to make this stuff up it's not real is it. virtual particles woolly headed science fiction more like. it isn't real science and I'm just repeating woolly headed nonsense here

 My apologies if missed some issue you've raised but I was trying to remain focused on the key issues

 Subjects such as time can get extremely complicate. and the behavior of time or more precisely space-time can seem extremely unusual unless you've already study quantum physics and also studied cosmology


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I've got a link for

I've got a link for you:
http://www.worcestervoice.com/removed%20clergy/named_in_suite_rev_devilin.htm

Is that you? Can you prove it isn't? How can you be certain?


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh

darth_josh wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:
And this begs the question will you deny truth for your faith?

Ahhhh. No. I won't deny verifiable truth ever. That would be delusional.

Prove god 'is' or 'was' and I won't be an atheist. Neither would you be a theist.

Because then (after proof) there need be no 'faith' involved. No reason to say that you have faith and I lack faith.

You can call it a cop out if you wish. Unfortunately, it is reality.

It should be easy right?

 I'm not entirely certain what am. I tried to remain open-minded to all possibilities. I use science to explain the world around me while being ever mindful of its limitations. I like to study philosophy for the possible answer that science may give us in the future ? is that a theist 

Proof denies faith. unfortunately as far as I'm aware you can't prove negatives which leaves faith to fill the gaps. I have faith that there isn't an invisible teapot orbiting Mars as I can not prove it. so  I must have faith that it isn't there

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I've got a

magilum wrote:
I've got a link for you:
http://www.worcestervoice.com/removed%20clergy/named_in_suite_rev_devilin.htm

Is that you? Can you prove it isn't? How can you be certain?

http://www.themonastery.org/ 

I'm an Ordained atheist Minister

 I'm pretty certain it's not me although I'm assuming I'm not a schizophrenic living a duel life 

Sex drugs and rock 'n roll those Catholics


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Rogus Maximus wrote: but I

Rogus Maximus wrote:
but I must say a lack of evidence does not measure up for me as a reason to believe something
And that shows where your confusion is about atheist being faith based.  I agree with only this one statement you made.  A lack of evidence is definatly no reason to believe something, and I have never believed something because of a lack of evidence.  On the other hand, if there is a lack of evidence for something, I don't believe it.  Believing something and not believing something are not the same thing, they are complete opposites, yet you imply that they are.