We Aren't That Different You and I (doctrine, science, evidence)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, IF it is understood and accepted that faith (or belief) based on sound reasons and faith (or belief) not based on sound reasons is not the same thing nor are they equal which is what you were trying to argue in the OP. Don't try to deny it and stop thinking that you can fool us.
But don't deny that the faith many people hold in science may well be only the faith based not in sound reason (the second type above).
Just because there has been a good track record of scientific progress, whats to say that will continue?
Especially in the emerging geo-political world we live in, how are we to know that science will not be hijacked with political or economic motive?
If that were to happen (already has to some extent) then how can we really believe and science that comes out?? Sicence could become completely unreasonable and unreliable.
Just making a point that the past can not dictate the future, we have to constantly challenge ourselves.
....for example there are a lot of concepts thrown out about the origination of life via purely natural devices, and yet there has been absolutley no evidence to show that life could arise from nothingness, other than life's existence ....
You guys sure do get hung up on this 'life from nothing' thing don't you. Who is saying life came from nothing? Not science. Not any atheist I've ever met. No....the only people that claim that something was created from nothing are theists who believe that their god created everything...from nothing!
You guys sure do get hung up on this 'life from nothing' thing don't you. Who is saying life came from nothing? Not science. Not any atheist I've ever met. No....the only people that claim that something was created from nothing are theists who believe that their god created everything...from nothing!
I am trying not to get this post into that discussion, as evidenced by me stating as much in the previous post. However, the point is valid.
Like I said, these are my thoughts, this is a philosophical debate.
No. If it's based on previous experience then it would be trust not faith. Faith is when you believe something will happen or is true when there is no evidence that it is. Trust is when you believe something based on the evidence that it has happened before.
An example of this would be a simple chair that you use every day. You have used the same chair to sit on every day for the past 20 years and in all the times you have sat on it, it has never collapsed under you so, based on that verifiable evidence, you trust that it will not do so this time either. However, if you sat on that chair every day and every time you did, it collapsed under you but you believed that the next time you sit on it, it would not collapse, then you would be using faith because the verifiable evidence does not support your belief that the chair will not collapse.
Good point, sincerely!
See.... that wasnt so hard was it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Yes, IF it is understood and accepted that faith (or belief) based on sound reasons and faith (or belief) not based on sound reasons is not the same thing nor are they equal which is what you were trying to argue in the OP. Don't try to deny it and stop thinking that you can fool us.
Please show me where in the OP I made this remark, that they were the same. Faith based on sound reason or not, it is still faith, no matter how you classify it. Now I would agree that there is a difference but as I stated in the OP, everyone has faith of some kind
Please give me a valid reason as to why I would try and fool anyone on here?
Really, it dosnt matter what you want to call it whether it be faith, confidence, trust........... both sides beleive somthing that has not yet been proven, regardless of the underlying evidence and how strong or weak it may be.
I do not see how anyone with any amount of reason or ligic can deny this fact, other than to just be disagreeable
Doug, why do you spend so much of your time arguing such trivia as semantics? Does it really matter? This is like the non belief = belief conflict you and I had days ago...A rose by any other name is still a rose....
To address the topic....You and I are very different.
Doug, why do you spend so much of your time arguing such trivia as semantics? Does it really matter? This is like the non belief = belief conflict you and I had days ago...A rose by any other name is still a rose....
To address the topic....You and I are very different.
well..... yes and no. Its important for atheists to realise that they to must have faith { at this current point in scientific time } to beleive what they believe as well.
Doug, why do you spend so much of your time arguing such trivia as semantics? Does it really matter? This is like the non belief = belief conflict you and I had days ago...A rose by any other name is still a rose....
To address the topic....You and I are very different.
Sans, I can understand the point whipper is trying to make with the faith semantics issue. Atheists in this forum spend an awful lot of time making the claim that it is foolish and silly to believe in things that can't be proven...taking this a step further in the argument it is silly and foolish to had faith in something.
This argument is highlighted in the statement that believing in a dirty is akin to believing in leprechauns and flyin elephants.
The point whipper is trying to make is that everyone operates in some sort of faith, whether that faith be well placed in trust that the driver beside u's is not going to crash into us, or faith in the well reasoned history of science, or faith in the unreasoned history of religion...it is all faith nonetheless.
So, in arguing that we all operate in faith is a way to deminish the argument that faith in a dirty is a silly notion....
You know, as I read this and other religious forums in which there are debates, I have realized somthing... Atheists, Theists, and everything in between really arent that different.
1.] They both have somthing that they wholeheartedly beleive, regardless of the differences in what they beleive.
2.] Both can be very rude, judgemental, condescending, arrogant, etc. etc. when defending what they beleive.
3.] Both beleive that they know the truth about reality
4.] Lastly, regardless of whether or not Atheists are willing to admit it, both need to have """FAITH""" in order to beleive what they beleive.
4a.] theists and beleivers of revealed religions need to have faith that there is infact a God even though they have no concrete, non-refutable proof of one. Some need to have faith that the impossible events described in religious texts are infact true.
4b.] Atheists need to have faith that science will one day, un-doubtedly prove that there is no God. They need to have faith that science will one day answer all questions regarding the beginnings of time and life itself. { this is undeniable, there is NO theory of everything just yet } Lastly, Atheists need to have faith that the findings and opinions of like minded scientists are unbiased, and are a true account that has not been affected by their personal beleifs.
5.] At this point in time, both are purely speculative arguments. Neither can prove or disprove what they beleive to be true. { as I said, there is NO theory of everything just yet.
I am sure there are many more simalarities that some of you will post. But let me ask, with so many simalarities, why are we so harsh towards one another? Why is it so hard for us to get along? Perhaps its time to realise that no matter what our beleifs may be, we are ALL human and its time we start treating each other with more respect. No one of us is any better than the next.
Sans, I can understand the point whipper is trying to make with the faith semantics issue. Atheists in this forum spend an awful lot of time making the claim that it is foolish and silly to believe in things that can't be proven...taking this a step further in the argument it is silly and foolish to had faith in something.
This argument is highlighted in the statement that believing in a dirty is akin to believing in leprechauns and flyin elephants.
The point whipper is trying to make is that everyone operates in some sort of faith, whether that faith be well placed in trust that the driver beside u's is not going to crash into us, or faith in the well reasoned history of science, or faith in the unreasoned history of religion...it is all faith nonetheless.
So, in arguing that we all operate in faith is a way to deminish the argument that faith in a dirty is a silly notion....
Whipper, does that sum up the semantics issue?
I think so.....yes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
