Reply With Quote
you said evidence... do you know what evidence is?
God used to exist, but the CIA abducted him.
you said evidence... do you know what evidence is?
I concur.
I'm the same way, except I trust we have some type of afterlife. I am absolutely certain that we have a soul/spirit. Had some interesting experiences during my life.
No . They have as strong of faith, or stronger, than Christians, and the like.
how does it take faith to not believe something unseen actually exists?
Is this the same type of faith it takes to not believe in Santa Claus?
Because the belief is solid, without exception, therefor it is faith.
I don't see individual atoms, but I believe they exist. Is that faith? I say no. I trust the work of others that have the equipment to tell me what their experiments reveal. How can you make an acceptable scientific experiment to show the Gods don't exist? Until then, it's faith that they don't.
(winces)
That is just a hodge podge of bad logic.
I can tell you for certain what I had for breakfast today, but can't tell you what my co-worker had for breakfast.
Does that mean I am wrong about what I had for breakfast?
This is the structure of mouse's "logic".
A scientist can tell you X, but can't tell you Y, therefore they must be wrong about X.
This is, by the way a textbook ad hominem logical fallacy.
The truth about what I had for breakfast is completely independent on whether I can tell you what my co-worker had for breakfast.
The difference is that one can make solid, verifiable, and reproducible predictions as to the existance and functions of atoms. , we've even gained the ability to *see* atoms.
Do you have a laboratory experiment confirming the existance of your soul or "Gods" that I could reproduce?
I'm not saying believing in a higher power isn't faith. I agree it is. I'm saying that the belief there is no God is also faith, as there is no proof they don't exist, and no way to prove they don't.
To lack faith in this department means being open minded to either possibility. That if you include risk mitigation, it's best if you believe!
Again, it doesn't take faith to not believe in something that has no evidence. The initial position is that something doesn't exist until proven otherwise. Using your way of thinking, there is no limit to what one should believe in.
I know you don't believe in unicorns or the tooth fairy, and yet they are just as likely to exist as a god.
Faith is to believe in something without proof.
We both agree believing in God without proof is faith.
You say NOT believing in God is faith.
I have no proof in the existance of purple unicorns. By your double standard, this is faith too.
Do you have faith that purple unicorns don't exist?
You beat me to it.
This thread has become Inception II.
Concerning athiests... faith is most certainly interjected when speaking in absolute/or near-absolute terms about the origins of the universe/life [and the claim that natural processes are solely and unquestionably involved].
Not a single person [scientist or other] sitting on that side of the fence has the scientific evidence required to claim that only natural processes were involved. Again, I'll say this: no study surrounding the subject of origins can satisfy the three immutable elements of the scientific method - observation, measurement and repeatability. And yet we find ourselves having this discussion over and over, ad infinitum...
Like it or not... Athiests have placed their faith in the notion that our universe came into existence without any sentient driving force (not necessary placed in the disbelief of GOD - or specifically, the GOD of the Bible)... that the complexity and beauty of life was a numerical happenstance and nothing more. Either way you dice it... your camp's semantical protest to the term is nothing more than that... The steadfast way that athiests hold on to their beliefs, without the scientific evidence to undisputedly back their perspective, is as "religious" as the next guy who believes in a sentient Creator [of some sort].
But the denial that faith is being employed by athiests will continue no matter what those who see it and recognize it may say...
-Peace out.
He wants the supernatural to be taken into consideration, even though there is no evidence that it even exists.
I don't understand why atheists have such a problem with the term faith. I also think that there are two camps here arguing two different things. The "atheist" side is arguing that they do not employ faith because they don't need faith to not believe in something for which there is no proof. I agree. The non-athiest side seems to be arguing that atheists do employ faith because they are believing in something for which they don't have complete evidence. I agree.
I have no problem saying that atheists use faith as a tool because we have very little idea of what happened to jump start the universe.
The reason that I choose science and reason over religion is that the former is actively seeking to understand what happened at that time (eg. LHC). Once they have this evidence, scientists all over the world will seek to disprove it. If it withstands these tests only then will it become accepted, and even then there will be those who will seek to disprove it (although with less ferocity than the original onslaught).
No, it's really not.
I believe you are confusing zeal with faith. It doesn't take hard faith to not believe in something that we can't see. If it is considered faith in this sense, it is a very very loose use of the word.
There is no need to disprove a god. The notion of a creator was apparently made by man. It is up to that man to prove the creator exists.....it's not for another man to prove the creator doesn't.
No matter how many times this argument fallacy has been explained to you, you still continue using it. Very chucklesome.
God gave that notion to man.No, it's really not.
You are confusing zeal with faith.
There is no need to disprove a god. The notion of a creator was apparently made by man. It is up to that man to prove the creator exists.....it's not for another man to prove the creator doesn't.
No matter how many times this argument fallacy has been explained to you, you still continue using it. Very chucklesome.
Why won't they take the supernatural seriously? Only natural explanations should require proof.
It only becomes "faith" if one tries to insert an emotional "you-too" argument into a logical discussion. The need of theists to somehow claim some minor schoolyard victory causes them to imply, against logic and reason, that atheists MUST have faith too, in order to drag down what is a logical conclusion into the muck of belief in order to beat it to death with a shovel.
Our current understanding of evolution, life on our planet, and the physical processes of the universe's creation don't really require the existance of God/Gods whatever to work.
One can't logically exclude them, but it looks increasingly improbable.
As for there is no "scientific evidence required to claim that only natural processes were involved", that is pretty much empty hand-waving.
"I see your evidence and say unto you: BAH!".
Not really a rebuttal.
All of which covers and distracts from the total absence of any evidence that God really exists, which is I suppose what the ultimate aim of such arguments are.
That belief takes faith.
It does not, however, take an equal amount of faith to not believe you.
I would tend to agree for the most part.
One cannot exclusively rule out Gods existance, merely conclude that it seems highly improbable that the Bible is the literal word of God.
Who is to say what happened on the other side of the naked singularity...?
Exactly. This guy will go on an on for paragraphs about how evolution and the big bang theory are impossible from a scientific standpoint, but when he's asked to prove that a god had something to do with our existence, he either shuts up or claims that skeptics just don't want to accept his evidence.
They are not the same thing, regardless of how much you try to equate them with each other.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
