How much of whatsupyall/musclemans's posts do u comprehend?

[whatsupyall]

Frencheneez, none of the "10 arguments of the atheists" I said above is my conclusion, those are taken out of the words mentioned here by you and the atheists...
I can quote to you exactly that you stressed knowledge means "controllin" and you even backed it up saying that "God is all powerfull" and you dont see why he cant control us, being powerfull doesnt mean breaking a promise..
Many of you stressed here that you are more smarter than christians in the field of science, when the truth is opposite, an intelligent man can notice the order and design of nature, retards stress that nature is chaos, and "probabilities" and "chance" which is not evident, Einstein believes in nature as order for a reason, if your intelligent u can only be agnostic or deist, atheism is below dumbness.
YOU CAN DENY IT ALL YOU WANT, BUT YOU CANT CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT IS POSTED HERE....

Your analogy of toothfairy is STUPID. You cannot compare God who have billions of followers, from top scientists to world leaders to presidents to PHD grads to multibillionaires...You cannot compare "toothfairy" to "Placebo" because they are both a mystery, but one is proven a fact, the other gives no evidence at all....Your analogy is like comparing a rock to a human brain, COMPLETELY UNIDENTICAL TO BE USED AS AN ANALOGY....There is no conviction of belief in toothfairy none..

I said........."1. Atheist says "To have faith means to believe in myths", so faith is illogic...(LOL, got brain?)"



Then you said "---exactly"....

Frencheneez child, I know your a teenager, but are you mentally challenge? Im serious, Im not only saying this to insult you, I am saying this as a fact that Im really curious if theres something wrong in your head...Do you know the meaning of faith? Are you a planet earth citizen? or a marsian?

Frencheneez, everything else you typed are senseless and stupid..I have no reason to make a respond to questions A KID CAN ANSWER, A NORMAL KID THAT IS, WITH COMMON SENSE, if your not normal, and you dont have common sense, then I guess you cant answer your own question....

 

[Cris]

French, Marc,

The use of the term faith in these discussions is confusing and is not being used in a consistent manner.

When talking about religious faith we should really say blind faith since religion is based on zero evidence. Religious faith has no evidential substance as its basis.

Faith (unqualified), say in science or oneself, is not blind. It is based on the evidence of past successes. Science has shown itself useful in an extraordinarily number of practical applications. Based on this past evidence I have faith that science will continue to provide useful results. This is a valid argument based on inductive logic.

In a similar way I have faith (not blind faith) in myself to undertake tasks that I have done before or are similar. The evidence again is my past achievements.

Faith in gods is blind because there is no irrefutable evidence. And irrefutable here indicates a quality of evidence where there is little to no doubt, i.e. most sane people accept that there is a sun in the sky. There is no such evidence for gods, and all claimed evidence that has been presented has always found alternative explanations, or more precisely alternative speculations.

An unexplainable event is not evidence for a god, but simply that there is no explanation.

Note also that if real evidence did exist for a god then that would constitute knowledge and religion would then slide into the realm of science, where faith is not used or required.

The existence of religion depends on zero evidence for its claims of the supernatural. The continued belief in a religion depends entirely on blind faith. If the supernatural ever became detectable by material means then it would cease to be supernatural.

 

[EvilPoet]

Cris

Do you agree or disagree with Mortimer Adler on belief?

Adler On Belief

 

[Cris]

Evilpoet,

Belief: In any religious community that has an articulated creed, the first words uttered when the creed is recited are "I believe." The various things thereupon recited are the articles of religious faith. That is the primary meaning of the word "belief." It stands for things affirmed that lie beyond all philosophical knowledge or opinion, as well as beyond science and history.

From Webster - conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Adler talks here only of belief that does not have an evidential basis. This is blind faith. I believe many things that do have an evidential basis. Clearly there are two forms of belief. Adler seems to imply there is only one definition, although the text is prefixed by “in any religious community”.

The demonstrations of God's existence, if it is valid philosophical knowledge, is said to be a preamble to faith rather than an article of faith. In the three great religions of the West -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- the first article of faith is that sacred scripture is the revealed word of God.

This simply affirms that the followers of these religions assume that their holy book is true without qualification or need for historical or scientific evidence (see first paragraph).

There are, of course, beliefs that are not religious faith. William James tells us about things he cannot affirm as knowledge but which he does affirm by exercising his will to believe. Unable to resolve the issue about the freedom of the will, a matter that troubled him greatly. He derived great comfort from willfully believing that human beings had freedom of choice.

This ignores the common usage of the word faith where people state a faith in something for which they really do have evidential support. E.g. I have faith in my doctor because of his past proven expertise or because of his qualifications or references from trusted friends.

The type of non-religious faith that Adler is trying to illustrate here is simple irrationality. I.e. believing something without a rational basis (no evidence) simply because they want to.

To affirm this freedom, in his view was beyond all evidence and reason.

And that defines irrationality.

Others similarly settle for belief in God, or in the immortality of the soul, by exercising what James called the will to believe.

The will to believe in this context has no evidential basis but rests entirely on emotional convictions. Something that science deliberately avoids because it is inherently unreliable as a source of truth.

Such affirmation tend to be stronger and firmer convictions than the knowledge we have or the opinions we hold by empirical evidence and rational argument.

In my personal experience this is blatantly untrue. As a practicing Christian I could never achieve a belief based on emotion where there was no rational explanation. It was fundamentally unsatisfying.

The element that is common to religious faith and nonreligious belief is its voluntary aspect. Both involve an exercise of the will.

I see no difference between religious faith and non-religious irrational belief; neither is based on evidence and hence neither has a rational basis. The exercise of the will here is no more than an appeal to emotionalism.

Being willing to believe is what distinguishes both religious and nonreligious faith from knowledge and right opinion. The will moves the reason to affirm what reason cannot establish by its own power.

Being willing to believe and actually believing are two distinct activities. I am willing to believe many things but I withhold actual belief for many things where there is no rational support. Adler is trying to make a case that strength of will alone is more valuable than empirical knowledge. I do not see that he has proved his case.

When religious faith is though of as divine gift, the will is moved by God to affirm what lies beyond the natural powers of the mind to acknowledge. The will is supernaturally moved for those who have a faith that is not religious, the factors that move the will are natural, not supernatural.

The last sentence doesn’t make sense. Looks like a syntax error. However, I think the point here is the allegation that religious faith is valid because it is directed and influenced by the supernatural and therefore does not need any empirical evidence for its basis.

This last claim is the more typical argument for faith that I have come to understand over the years. The more experienced theologians recognize the absence of evidence and see no point in arguing what is obvious and hence must depend on the power of the supernatural as their claim for faith. Contrast this with the inexperienced debaters like whatsupyall, inspector, and truthseeker, who all insist that there is plenty of evidence for God.

The Adler description leaves the atheist with little to argue since the argument rests entirely on the supernatural being real and no one can prove that one way or the other. Once the question of evidence has been removed from the debate, and deemed unnecessary then the only argument that remains to the atheist is that the claim for the supernatural is irrational and not credible.

 

[EvilPoet]

Cris,

Thanks for the reply, I agree with the points you made. I want to
go over your post again but I don't think I have anything more to
add. I will say this though, it appears to me that a lot of debates
turn into fights over semantics and as a result nothing gets
accomplished.

Regarding the last sentence - it is a typo - I checked my copy of
Adler's Philosophical Dictionary and the word should be thought.

 

[Frencheneesz]

Whatsupall:

I can quote to you exactly that you stressed knowledge means "controllin"

Can you at least acknowlege that I have contradicted this statement at least 4 times? When we made that point, we avoided the conclusion that god WOULD be the one controlling. Our point was that, using evidence, we proved that the world was predestined if god KNOWS everything. At least I never said that GOD predestined it, but the logical conclusion would be that it was god who predestined it BECAUSE he is all powerful.

This is much more than knowing=doing. We use (knowing + most-powerful-being-in-the-universe + creator-of-everything + everything-is-predestined) = doing. That uses much more than just knowing there. If you want to continue arguing your stupid name calling shit, then at least do it with what I wrote here.

"if your intelligent u can only be agnostic or deist"

According the the dictionary, I am "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God". So I AM agnostic, but I am also atheist, "One who disbelieves the existence of a God". I am both. It is both impossible to know whether god exists, and by that premise I believe that god does NOT exist.

"Your analogy of toothfairy is STUPID. You cannot compare God who have billions of followers,"

Followers are, simply, not proof or substantial evidence. It just isn't so stop using it. Take away the followers and god IS the toothfairy.

"Frencheneez child, I know your a teenager, but are you mentally challenge?"

Nice grammer. One more post like this and I will NEVER read your "fuck-my-cells-make-natural-heroin" posts again. NEVER call me child you peice of hairy mokey shit.

"I have no reason to make a respond to questions A KID CAN ANSWER, A NORMAL KID THAT IS, WITH COMMON SENSE"

That would simply be because you don't have common sense, a kid can answer the question, why can't you?

 

[Frencheneesz]

"it appears to me that a lot of debates
turn into fights over semantics and as a result nothing gets
accomplished. "

I think I have said that more than once, so I agree.

 

[MarcAC]

What is Faith?

French

Religion is the belief in a god or other supernatural entities. It REQUIRES faith, but is not synonomous with it. Thus we are not all religious, but life itself requires some bit of faith in yourself.

Did I state that faith=religion was my conviction? No. Re-read

Science is quite reliable.

Give me some evidence on the 'reliability' of science. You'll see that you have a lot if faith in science.

There is already no neccesity for god

The existence of the universe makes God necessary. Scientists are struggling [might I say it will continue until science becomes the next religion] to take Him out of the picture and introduce a self sustaing system and self initiating system. That defies all logic, which is the tool they use.

God will always be a possibility, but if we can prove him, why can't we take him as an alien being instead of a god that needs us to pray to him? Why can't we focus our energies on making human kind better, rather than focusing on the selfish desire to make a deity happy so they can go to heaven.

The big picture - We can't do that. It would violate His nature. Prayer is a spiritual act of communication - I don't have to drop down on my knees five times a day to pray to God. What will make God happy is what is good for the human race. You make God happy, you make the human race happy. Hey I admit, I want a better existence after this; I can't imagine something worse than your flesh burning off your skin and you smell it cooking and feel the pain of it and yet you cannot die. I want everyone to go to heaven [a better existence], but I am also thankful to God that he let me experience all this. And I will praise Him for that.

When we made that point, we avoided the conclusion that god WOULD be the one controlling. Our point was that, using evidence, we proved that the world was predestined if god KNOWS everything. At least I never said that GOD predestined it, but the logical conclusion would be that it was god who predestined it BECAUSE he is all powerful.

This is much more than knowing=doing. We use (knowing + most-powerful-being-in-the-universe + creator-of-everything + everything-is-predestined) = doing. That uses much more than just knowing there.

To add to the support for the theist cause above. God is all powerful. He can also limit his power as we can see with our free will and also with the fact that He inhabited a human body and died - and was raised to life of course.

According the the dictionary, I am "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God". So I AM agnostic, but I am also atheist, "One who disbelieves the existence of a God". I am both. It is both impossible to know whether god exists, and by that premise I believe that god does NOT exist

In light of all the above... .... How can you say it is impossible to know and you don't believe? You should say I don't KNOW.

Nice grammer.

Now French I've seen this before so I need to ask. What exactly is grammer? Heh... haven't had such a good laugh in a while.
Cris

When talking about religious faith we should really say blind faith since religion is based on zero evidence. Religious faith has no evidential substance as its basis.

Can you please define the nature of the evidence in reference? Are you reffering to scientific evidence? Faith and evidence come hand in hand where God is concerned. You have to have faith to accept evidence.

Faith (unqualified), say in science or oneself, is not blind. It is based on the evidence of past successes. Science has shown itself useful in an extraordinarily number of practical applications. Based on this past evidence I have faith that science will continue to provide useful results. This is a valid argument based on inductive logic.

In a similar way I have faith (not blind faith) in myself to undertake tasks that I have done before or are similar. The evidence again is my past achievements.

Is the faith based on your evidence or is the evidence based on your faith in it? Science has it's uses. It explains God's works and gives man a route to try and emulate God. Scientific know-how alone, however, cannot emulate God's nature. Cris, we both define faith differently. You assume there are more then one types of faith to escape your dilemma - you know your dilemma right? - Everyone has faith - that is your dilemma. There is only one term - faith - and there is only one definition.

Faith in gods is blind because there is no irrefutable evidence. And irrefutable here indicates a quality of evidence where there is little to no doubt, i.e. most sane people accept that there is a sun in the sky. There is no such evidence for gods, and all claimed evidence that has been presented has always found alternative explanations, or more precisely alternative speculations.

When you doubt something is it that you have little faith in its truth? Or little faith in the evidence presented for it? Cosmogony - Steady State theory - Big Bang theory - Superstring theory - Brane theory. Which one do you believe Cris? A team of scientists have hypothesised the existence of Dark galaxies withing the universe [Galaxies consisting completely of dark matter ] - so you can't detect them yet - but based on atheistic reasoning "Dark galaxies do NOT exist!!!". I'll keep my mouth shut - I don't know. Evidence abounds Cris. You just refuse to see it because you have no faith in it bro or... sis...

Note also that if real evidence did exist for a god then that would constitute knowledge and religion would then slide into the realm of science, where faith is not used or required

Didn't you just state above that faith is used in science? There is only one type of faith bro or sis.

The existence of religion depends on zero evidence for its claims of the supernatural. The continued belief in a religion depends entirely on blind faith. If the supernatural ever became detectable by material means then it would cease to be supernatural.

The first sentence is opinionated and erroneous - evidence abounds - don't ask me what my evidence is - you won't like it. The continued belief in a religion depends continuously on faith - faith makes you see the evidence as true. Third sentence is also a fallacious notion - or did I misunderstand? In christian doctrine - God will return one day and you surely will detect Him with all your senses. And based on your theory above if people see ghosts with their eyes this means ghosts are not supernatural right? - not to mention all the other supernatural phenomena supposedly detected by natural means.
Lata Cris, French, God bless...

 

[whatsupyall]

Mark, excellent response...I was running out of breathe, but thanks for responding to the kid's post.....Over the period of time, atheism will be abolished, and God will be able to establish the new heavens and the new earth.

 

[Thor]

Don't you just love it when Skitzo's agree with themselves

 

[Frencheneesz]

"Don't you just love it when Skitzo's agree with themselves"

Marc AC is trying. He just has a completely different line of thinking, where as whatsupall is just a flaming retard.

Yo, whatsupall, you are permenantly blocked. I am not reading any more of your bullshit. Sorry you brought it on yourself.

 

[Frencheneesz]

"Did I state that faith=religion was my conviction? No. Re-read"

"Faith is a religious experience in other words; thus we are all religious."

I don't know, thats what I got out of the above statement. You said, faith is religious and we all experience faith. To that I will simply say that faith is not always religious.

"Give me some evidence on the 'reliability' of science. "

I doubt I have to prove to you that science has been a great help to human kind in the past 100 years especially.

"You'll see that you have a lot if faith in science."

Leonardo de Vinci invented a primative helicopter in his scetchings. We have, since, built a helicopter by his model and found that it flys. Leonardo constructed it using science, not faith.

"Scientists are struggling to take Him out of the picture and introduce a self sustaing system and self initiating system."

um... I don't know who told you that... Do you have such an inferiority complex that you can't just admit that you DON'T KNOW how the universe began? You HAVE to say that god did it? THAT defies logic. We have little to no proof of how the universe started, SO scientifically we DON'T KNOW. No evidence god did it, no evidence that it is a cycle, no evidence that it was a space time rip. We got nothin' and so, because we have nothin', you want us to believe that god created the universe? I don't think so.
How bout this? I tell you that my cat created the universe until you can prove me wrong, how logical is THAT?

"You make God happy, you make the human race happy."

That defies the bible just a tad. (cough) "great" flood and noah's arc (cough, cough), punishing the whole race because adam and eve ate a stupid fruit (hack!). When did this good-deed-doing of god start?

"The big picture - We can't do that. It would violate His nature."

Course it would, thats what makes him supernatural. You say that one day god will come down for all to see. Won't that prove his existance?

"In light of all the above... .... How can you say it is impossible to know and you don't believe?"

It is very simple. I believe you can't know if god exists or not, right? I also believe that you can't know if something, that does not exist, exists or not. So, most likely, I believe that god does not exist. It is VERY SIMPLE inductive reasoning. VERY simple. Please try and understand this VERY SIMPLE logic.

"What exactly is grammer? Heh... haven't had such a good laugh in a while."

Hehe, well Obviously you missed the parrallel between my misspelling and his bad grammar...

"Cris, we both define faith differently. You assume there are more then one types of faith to escape your dilemma - you know your dilemma right? - Everyone has faith - that is your dilemma. There is only one term - faith - and there is only one definition. "

What can I say, you're just plain wrong here. Ever look it up? I never needed to, but obviously you do. Here ARE the definitions.

"1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

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

If you count them, theres two. One is just confident belief, the other is belief that does not have logical evidence. Two definitions, two connotations. This is the dillemma. Most of us have "faith" as in we have confident belief, but mostly religious people have belief that does not have logical evidence.

"When you doubt something is it that you have little faith in its truth? Or little faith in the evidence presented for it?"

Faith has nothing to do with it. The only things I have faith in are my sences and my reasoning. I doubt something because the evidence isn't sufficient.

"A team of scientists have hypothesised the existence of Dark galaxies withing the universe [Galaxies consisting completely of dark matter ] - so you can't detect them yet - but based on atheistic reasoning "Dark galaxies do NOT exist!!!". "

Do you believe in dark galaxies? I don't know much about Dark matter, but I THINK that it was matter that is so so far away the light hasn't reached us yet. Does this means there is no evidence for it, not a change. Mind you, its a HYPOTHESIS, meaning that is does not have enough evidence to bring it into the relm of theory. Evidence is there and it isn't faith. Axioms, direct evidence, and inductive and deductive reasoning are things that seem to me to be foreign to you. As far as we can see, there are stars spread out in a fairly uniform matter. SO we can then use inductive reasoning to say that PROBABLY most space (at least immediately beyond what we can see) contains stars and such. The dark matter is stars we cannot see yet, so by this method we find evidence that dark matter exists. This is not enough to make it a full fleged theory, but its something.

Whatsupall had an extreme problem with stuff like reasoning and comprehending the idea of probability and change. Do you have the same misunderstanding? Probability has to do with things we don't know, stuff we CAN know (in the future, say) but for whatever reason do not posses at the moment we predict. For example, if you flip a coin and don't look at it, then show it to me, I KNOW whats on the coin. If I ask you whether its heads or tails, you will say there is a 50% probability that it is heads and a 50% probability that it is tails. Even though I ALREADY KNOW, there is still a probability. Probability has to do with unpredictable behavior, but not neccessarily behavior that is IMPOSSIBLE to predict.

"The first sentence is opinionated and erroneous - evidence abounds - don't ask me what my evidence is - you won't like it. "

I already don't like blind faith, I think knowing what "evidence" you have might help my understanding.

"based on your theory above if people see ghosts with their eyes this means ghosts are not supernatural right?"

Rather than having another uneducated argument, Ill just ask you what you're definition of "supernatural" is, then Ill answer that question.

 

[whatsupyall]

same old same old posts...This should be marked in history few years from now, when atheism will evaporate and perish..giant purple squid monkey, fuzzy pink elephant, science says this and that WITHOUT CLARIFYING WHICH SCIENCE IS IT, we dont know how nature exist therefore earth is "chance", the words of the uneducated..Same old same old.......

 

[Thor]

Look, Whatsupyall, you're calling us uneducated when you didn't even now about Lightning! I learnt that at Secondary School for crying out loud.

Do you think that the bible is enough education?

French, nice post.

Back to Whatsupyall. I would like you to do what you are asking us to do. Disprove this

giant purple squid monkey

and this

fuzzy pink elephant

It's impossible isn't it. You cannot disprove what is not there. You have to prove that it is there. Tell me, where is your proof as to the exsistance of god.

I have seen you use no scientific facts in your posts, only babble. Yes, babble. You seem almost incapable of getting your ideas forward.

 

[MarcAC]

Everyone has faith!

French

I don't know, thats what I got out of the above statement. You said, faith is religious and we all experience faith. To that I will simply say that faith is not always religious.

French you did not re-read the post! The statement was in reference to what the spurious monkey said. Nowhere did I state that I BELIEVED faith and religion were the same thing. Even if you characteristically take the statement out of context you really have to do some twisted thinking to get it to mean that.

I doubt I have to prove to you that science has been a great help to human kind in the past 100 years especially.

Review that statment, review history, and review the meaning of reliable. Something reliable is something you trust in or/and have faith in. I tend to put my trust in something consistent. Science is as consistent as the predicted path of an electron.

um... I don't know who told you that... Do you have such an inferiority complex that you can't just admit that you DON'T KNOW how the universe began? You HAVE to say that god did it? THAT defies logic. We have little to no proof of how the universe started, SO scientifically we DON'T KNOW. No evidence god did it, no evidence that it is a cycle, no evidence that it was a space time rip. We got nothin' and so, because we have nothin', you want us to believe that god created the universe? I don't think so.
How bout this? I tell you that my cat created the universe until you can prove me wrong, how logical is THAT?

You posit that saying God did it defies logic? Please... logically show me how. I am waiting. Evidence is everywhere bro or sis; you just fail to accept it for what it is! Well I can take a car and run over your cat 9 times and all it's lives would be used up. Then you can either burn it, or freeze it, or leave it there and let the decomposers do their work. Can you do that to God? You always come up with these very odd analogies. But to leave your train of thought - the cat was actually created after the universe... unless of course you are going to tell me that the age of the universe is the age of the cat? - oh brother.

That defies the bible just a tad. (cough) "great" flood and noah's arc (cough, cough), punishing the whole race because adam and eve ate a stupid fruit (hack!). When did this good-deed-doing of god start?

I expected this. You, characteristically, were blind to the point French. God does everything for a greater good. There was the flood and as you stated yourself - there was the Ark. God spared the good people. He let the murderous evil ones who were out to destroy themselves go. Ask the most pious literalist zealot you know if he/she/it thinks Adam and Eve ate a simple fruit. Tell me what he/she/it [could be your cat] says and tell me what you realise from that. You tend to look at things in black and white and forget there is a whole spectrum of colours inherrent in it - stereotypical atheist thinking

Course it would, thats what makes him supernatural. You say that one day god will come down for all to see. Won't that prove his existance?

Thus your unadulterated proof is coming. Even if you want to refute it then you won't be able to. Hopeful you'll open your mind before it's too late.

It is very simple. I believe you can't know if god exists or not, right? I also believe that you can't know if something, that does not exist, exists or not. So, most likely, I believe that god does not exist. It is VERY SIMPLE inductive reasoning. VERY simple. Please try and understand this VERY SIMPLE logic.

The world is not very simple French."I also believe that you can't know if something, that does not exist, exists or not. So, most likely, I believe that god does not exist." Huh? So you are not sure if you believe he doesn't exist right? So therefore with your simple inductive logic we don't know everything there is to know about the universe so what we don't know doesn't exist [or that's your errant belief]. Therefore, 2000 years ago the world was flat, it was at the centre of the universe, there were no galaxies, jupiter didn't have rings, pluto, neptune and uranus didn't exist. That is what you belive French. You need to sit and think for a while... really... you need to. You need to start looking at the colour - not just the black and white.

Hehe, well Obviously you missed the parrallel between my misspelling and his bad grammar...

"it appears to me that a lot of debates
turn into fights over semantics and as a result nothing gets
accomplished. "

I think I have said that more than once, so I agree.

Sure I did.... wow... it is still funny. Well you learnt something there French, I'm sure.

What can I say, you're just plain wrong here. Ever look it up? I never needed to, but obviously you do. Here ARE the definitions.

"1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

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

If you count them, theres two. One is just confident belief, the other is belief that does not have logical evidence. Two definitions, two connotations. This is the dillemma. Most of us have "faith" as in we have confident belief, but mostly religious people have belief that does not have logical evidence.

What can I say? Your characteristic misinterpretation again [a common atheistic trait] I love my dictionary. I always search for words - thus I can avoid mistakes that you and Cris make. Now can you tell me that those two definitions are mutually exclusive? Well more than likely you can with your mode of thought... but I don't think they are. Does definition 1 state that logical proof and evidence are included in the belief? No. That dictionary has a redundancy - that is it. And with those definitions you successfully buried Cris's belief that there is more than one types of faith - you buried Cris and your self [12ft deep]. BTW be careful with your grammar. It isn't 'theres two' it should be there are two.

Axioms, direct evidence, and inductive and deductive reasoning are things that seem to me to be foreign to you.

I can understand why you would say that. You seem to be subject to delusionary thinking. Your ignorance where Dark Matter is concerned shows just like you ingnorance of the Bible and your ignorance of who God is. You need to go find out about dark matter.

I already don't like blind faith, I think knowing what "evidence" you have might help my understanding.

If you insist. My evidence for you is all of reality. When you grasp that get back to me. You yourself have proven your blind faith in science.

"based on your theory above if people see ghosts with their eyes this means ghosts are not supernatural right?"

Rather than having another uneducated argument, Ill just ask you what you're definition of "supernatural" is, then Ill answer that question.

Are you and Cris one and the same? Can't be - then again the dementia would explain everything. Anyway, my definition is something being caused by a force beyond the laws of nature - comes from the Oxford Dictionary. It tends to avoid redundancies. Now answer the question.

 

[Frencheneesz]

"The statement was in reference to what the spurious monkey said. Nowhere did I state that I BELIEVED faith and religion were the same thing."

I'm sorry, my mistake. But, instead of telling me to re-read you're post or look it up think it through again, can't you just rearticulate it for me so that I can better understand it. Most likely, if I read you're words, I won't get much more out of them by rereading.

"Something reliable is something you trust in or/and have faith in."

Reliable: "Yielding the same or compatible results in different clinical experiments or statistical trials."

This has nothing to do with trust. No trust, no belief. If something WORKS again and again and agian, it is reliable. Noone even has to know about it for it to be reliable, it is an inherint property of something. Please tell me that you can accept this. At the very least, this is the definition I use. All that matters is that you understand what I mean, ok?

You are becoming a bit more irrational than I had hoped. You keep telling me I can't accept things and that I am typical and Bahhhd. Could you please accept that what I believe I believe because I have thought about it. At least take it for granted (this is the only time Ill ask that). I know that you and I have different ways of thinking, but don't call me an idiot for having it. I will change my mind if contrary evidence comes up. Its not my fault if I think something is not substantial evidence. You can try to PROVE that it is substantial, but don't just say that I can't accept it; that just doesn't help.

"I tend to put my trust in something consistent."

Yes, you tend to trust something that is reliable. But that in no way makes "reliable" MEAN faith. It means "faith WORTHY" or something to that extent. Worth of faith. This does not mean that you NECCESSARILY have faith in it. If you like the color green, and that book is green, you don't NECCESARILY like how that book looks, do you?

"You posit that saying God did it defies logic?"

no, I am not. I posit that saying "god did it" is not a rational (or logical) thing to do. You have no proof, therefore you have no theory. You cannot just ASSUME that god did it, can you?

"the cat was actually created after the universe... unless of course you are going to tell me that the age of the universe is the age of the cat? - oh brother."

That is exactly what you claim for god. Oh brother is right.

"You, characteristically, were blind to the point French."

Lets stick to the rationality and leave insults to the idiots.

"There was the flood and as you stated yourself - there was the Ark. God spared the good people. "

Ok, as I recall, there were only two people spared (I doubt that they were the ONLY good people on earth...). But you might be right, killing bad people is not always a bad thing, yet it does go against the biblical commandmant "thou shalt not kill"... Or does he mean "thou shalt not kill, but I can!"?

"Ask the most pious literalist zealot you know if he/she/it thinks Adam and Eve ate a simple fruit."

Stop giving me vauge statements. Just tell me what you mean; PLEASE.

"You tend to look at things in black and white and forget there is a whole spectrum of colours inherrent in it"

Metephors are usually hard to understand, can you avoid using them? Aside from that, all I can get from this is an insult. What are you suggesting I do?

"Thus your unadulterated proof is coming. "

You said "The big picture - We can't do that."

I took "that" to mean "prove god's existance". Was I wrong? Because if we can't prove his existnace, then he won't come down so that we can.

"Even if you want to refute it then you won't be able to."

You seem to think that atheists deep down know that god exists, but that we lie to you and deny it. You seem to think that we can't handle a god. It is simply not true, when we see proof we'll believe it. Its that simple. The only reason we do not believe in god is because we haven't seen proof that we can recognize as such! Can you please understand that we have our own ideology and that we aren't just some pitiful resistant scum? WE DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD! How hard is that to understand? It is not a matter of wanting, it is a matter of being.

"So you are not sure if you believe he doesn't exist right?"

Wrong. I am not 100% sure. I am more like 99% sure, but sure non the less.

"So therefore with your simple inductive logic we don't know everything there is to know about the universe so what we don't know doesn't exist [or that's your errant belief]."

What we don't know MOST LIKELY doesn't exist. If we didn't know about atoms, the would MOST LIKELY not exist. We have trillions of possibilities for how the universe would work, and each has the same probability for being correct. Every option has a small probability. When we find evidence for it the probability of its correctness goes up. Can you understand this?

"You need to sit and think for a while... really... you need to."

Thank you for insulting me up the Ying Yang. YOU need to explain your thoughts better. I can't ask you to understand my writing better, it won't happen. Eventually I might make something click, but until then....

"Therefore, 2000 years ago the world was flat, it was at the centre of the universe, there were no galaxies, jupiter didn't have rings, pluto, neptune and uranus didn't exist."

Close. They had a low probability of existing. let me remind you that probability has only to do with knowlege and known evidence. It has no direct connection with what actually exists.

"Does definition 1 state that logical proof and evidence are included in the belief? No. That dictionary has a redundancy "

Ok, I think I got this one covered for ya'. Definition does NOT, for sure, say that evidence is included in the beilef. YET it does NOT say that evidence CANNOT be included. It is analogous to saying "I stapled". You might say "stapled what?". Well, that sentence leaves it open, I might be stapling paper, or maybe rubber, or maybe I am stapling at the air, or maybe I am stapling wood. We didn't specify. The first definition DOES NOT SPECIFY, the second DOES.

faith 1: Belief

faith 2: belief WITHOUT PROOF

The second is not redundant, it is specifying.
In any case, you now SHOULD know what I MEAN. I would love it if you could try and understand what I MEAN instead of what you think I SAID, because you might just misunderstand a word, or I may make a dictionary slip.

"BTW be careful with your grammar. It isn't 'theres two' it should be there are two."

What do you want me to do, say "Y'ar"? I would in speach say "there's two" so I will also write it. Do you have a problem with language evolution and slang?

"You seem to be subject to delusionary thinking."

And why is that? Because I like to prove things using axioms and reasoning rather than blind belief?

"Are you and Cris one and the same?"

Really, I appreciate all the insults, but enough is enough. I don't insult you do I? And no we are not the same person (I've noticed that whatsupall has never denied being the same person as muscleman.....)

I hate playing this game with you. Please just describe you're thoughts instead of forwarding me to a search-for-myself. Please don't talk in metephors, just be frank.

"my definition is something being caused by a force beyond the laws of nature"

I'm telling you that that cannot exist. Anything that exists has its own laws. Those are the laws of nature. In the laws of nature, anything can be defined. The laws of nature encompass EVERYTHING that can exist. SO, supernatural things are like saying that "the substance within the box" is surrounded by material that is "outside the box" it just can't happen simultaniously.

 

[MarcAC]

I don't insult...

Nowhere did I insult you French. Nowhere did I call anybody an idiot. I personally consider an attempt at an insult to be one where you describe a characteristic which is untrue of the person. I say one insults oneself when they post something foolish and are better capable - not saying that you do. If you see insults French; you are insulting yourself.

I will not re-articulate anything for anyone. My posts are as clear as day if you readd them in context. You do the same thing with the Bible. You do not read it properly and then you state that there are contradictions. Inherent in my refusal is encouragement to find the facts for yourself. Don't be lazy and just engulf all the not-necessarily-smart arguments your comrades present.

All the crap the crap on this website has aa lot to do with word meanings. Here again we need to have a consensus on word definitions before we can argue

"the cat was actually created after the universe... unless of course you are going to tell me that the age of the universe is the age of the cat? - oh brother."

That is exactly what you claim for god. Oh brother is right

That is blatantly incorrect. Oh brother! Some religions might claim that for their god French: Not Christianity.

Yes, you tend to trust something that is reliable. But that in no way makes "reliable" MEAN faith.

Nowhere was that stated. I tend to use my dictionary which states my definition. So you say science is reliable according to your definition. I don't see how. If you were to enter the intricacies, yes [reliable titbits], but not as a whole. Thus when you say you rely on your spouse to be faithful it is due to the statistics? You have no trust in your spouse? Thus if statistics were in favour of the odds you would stay single or totally mistrust your spouse? You redifine many things French. Your definition is purely scientific [deals with experiments].

Ok, as I recall, there were only two people spared (I doubt that they were the ONLY good people on earth...).

8 people. You would be surprised. How do you think the human population looked back then?

I took "that" to mean "prove god's existance". Was I wrong? Because if we can't prove his existnace, then he won't come down so that we can.

You were wrong and you are wrong. I was referring to the alien scenario. Because we can't prove God doesn't mean he won't come down. H esaid he will. Proof comes when he comes. Does it mean the human race has to prove everything for it to be so? You yourself said no.

What we don't know MOST LIKELY doesn't exist. If we didn't know about atoms, the would MOST LIKELY not exist. We have trillions of possibilities for how the universe would work, and each has the same probability for being correct. Every option has a small probability. When we find evidence for it the probability of its correctness goes up. Can you understand this?

I can understand why you would think that [you are an atheist - do you see an insult there?]. Basically that is where your mind closes. I open my mind to many possibilities. 'MOST LIKELY' has one meaning; DOESN'T another. I consider this notion strange because we know so little. You state you belive God doesn't exist.

I'm telling you that that cannot exist. Anything that exists has its own laws. Those are the laws of nature. In the laws of nature, anything can be defined. The laws of nature encompass EVERYTHING that can exist. SO, supernatural things are like saying that "the substance within the box" is surrounded by material that is "outside the box" it just can't happen simultaniously.

Here you illustrate your faith in the laws of nature. The laws of nature have not come close to explaining many observed phenomena. And you assume that the laws of nature - which are our laws by the way - are absolute [a narrow mind manifest]. I disagree. [an open mind manifest]. You can try to imagine yourself as two dimensional animation on a PDA [small computer with touch screen]. Now I exist outside of your world in 4 dimensions. When I touch your screen you will see something from your vantage point which you can't explain. I would be supernatural [caused by something beyond your reality]. You would've thought that your world was the only thing - but you realise that there is something out there.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

+++The laws of nature have not come close to explaining many observed phenomena.+++


maybe 'many' phenomena cannot be explained by science, but most can. I don' really have the feeling that we can say the same thing about religion. It cannot explain 'most' things (unless you accept things in blind faith), and can only explain a few things.

this is maybe why we would consider science to be the most logical explanation and religion the most illogical.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
maybe 'many' phenomena cannot be explained by science, but most can. I don' really have the feeling that we can say the same thing about religion. It cannot explain 'most' things (unless you accept things in blind faith), and can only explain a few things.

this is maybe why we would consider science to be the most logical explanation and religion the most illogical.

I don't undeerstand. I don't know about other religions but Christianity doesn't attempt to explain anything. It presents the absolute truth. Science attempts to explain what we see: religion does not. - EDIT - o.k. some religions do, not mine - it presents the truth - not a way of explaining it.

 

[inspector]

this is maybe why we would consider science to be the most logical explanation and religion the most illogical.
----------------------

In our culture, science is often regarded as the final judge in all matters of truth. To disagree with science, is to disagree with reason itself. Despite its popularity, however, this position is false, for two basic reasons:

First, it is false because it is self-refuting. The statement "the scientific method is the only reliable means of obtaining knowledge of the world" is itself a statement which can not be known through the scientific method. By its own standards, then, scientism is a position which must be accepted solely on the basis of blind faith, and one which cannot be known to be true. This is also known as circular reasoning.

Second, this position is false because it contradicts many things in our own experience. How do you know that you are in love with someone or that someone genuinely loves you? How do you know that things like racism and the killing of innocent people are wrong? How can you verify scientifically that life is meaningful and worth getting up in the morning for? None of these things are things that can be verified scientifically, but that does not seem to make any of them any less meaningful or less knowable.

Science is merely a branch, a collection of knowledge within the realm of a world that was created by God. Science and Christianity are intertwined. It is only when individuals attempt to use science to disprove God is when truth is compromised.

><>