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.
No...that's not 'faith'. That is 'trust'....you believe she won't cheat on you based on the EVIDENCE of her character. Now if you had the evidence to prove that she does sleep around every time she goes out...then to hope that she didn't cheat on you last night would be an act of 'FAITH' ...a believe held contrary to the evidence. When one is dealing with evidence, faith is obsolete.
1. I believe that my car will start this morning because for the past 10 years it hasn't failed to start.
2. My car has failed to start every morning for the past 10 years but this morning I really do believe that it will start.
Number 1 is a belief that is based on verifiable evidence (trust).
Number 2 is a belief that is based on a hope that is not supported by the verifiable evidence (faith)
They don't have, "a belief held contrary to the evidence".
To them...they have evidence superior to your evidence. They believe that what is written in The Bible or other writings to be better evidence than anything put forth by the various genres of scientific study.
You keep saying, over, and over, and over, and over again, "contrary to the evidence"...because you do not accept what they consider to be superior substantiation.
They trust based upon the evidence of the info in The Bible, Quran, etc.
Get it right...they have trust, faith, belief, even a personal determination that "false evidence" has merit....not "contrary to the evidence". You make like the science based evidence is the only evidence that there is.
They do have evidence (to them)...just not the evidence you and I put greater stock in.
They don't have, "a belief held contrary to the evidence".
To them...they have evidence superior to your evidence. They believe that what is written in The Bible or other writings to be better evidence than anything put forth by the various genres of scientific study.
You keep saying, over, and over, and over, and over again, "contrary to the evidence"...because you do not accept what they consider to be superior substantiation.
They trust based upon the evidence of the info in The Bible, Quran, etc.
Get it right...they have trust, faith, belief, even a personal determination that "false evidence" has merit....not "contrary to the evidence". You make like the science based evidence is the only evidence that there is.
They do have evidence (to them)...just not the evidence you and I put greater stock in.
If God exists and chooses to hide behind (as the Christianity God does), looking for evidence of His existence means the seeking for the death of all mankind, as the advocate of Christianity is that humans are saved by faith in terms of the covenant between God and man.
As long as God has a good reason to hide behind, what we can examine to get to the truth is thus not the evidence but the validity of human witnessing. It's just most of history we examine the legitimacy of how they are written instead of how evidenced it is. You can randomly fetch any history books written by humans some 2000 years ago, then go through section by section to ask the same question "how evident it is said", in the end you've got no history if evidence is demanded.
Like I said, atheists are living in a fantasy world to think that everything should be evidenced, but in this very reality humans rely on witnessing instead of evidence to get to a truth. This is the reality atheists failed live with, or it's their intellectual dishonesty to use evidence as an argument in order to be against Christianity.
No...that's not 'faith'. That is 'trust'....you believe she won't cheat on you based on the EVIDENCE of her character. Now if you had the evidence to prove that she does sleep around every time she goes out...then to hope that she didn't cheat on you last night would be an act of 'FAITH' ...a believe held contrary to the evidence. When one is dealing with evidence, faith is obsolete.
1. I believe that my car will start this morning because for the past 10 years it hasn't failed to start.
2. My car has failed to start every morning for the past 10 years but this morning I really do believe that it will start.
Number 1 is a belief that is based on verifiable evidence (trust).
Number 2 is a belief that is based on a hope that is not supported by the verifiable evidence (faith)
It boils down to humans can approach a truth. How a truth can be conveyed among humans. "Evidence" is an exaggerated term. Humans mostly rely on faith to get to a truth. You don't have direct evidence of the existence of black holes. Instead you rely on putting faith (may be without your own awareness) in those you think that they have the evidence. You rely on putting faith in the scientists to get to the truth that black holes exist.
We trust that the scientists (as a small group of human witnesses) have a more direct contact of the black holes. We trust our media (another small group of human witness) or our education (teachers as human witnesses) are conveying "black hole exists" in a reliable way. We have confidence/faith in our "source of news" which leads us to such a truth.
That said, if hell is true then how can humans get to this truth? Our science won't be able to get to this truth because science relies on repeated observations to build up a theory. It doesn't work as long as we can't go to hell to do the repeated observation. It's an advocate that hell isn't a place of our physical realm. It's an spiritual realm lying in another dimension beyond the reach of our science.
Then how can we reach it if it's a truth. We have to rely on some human witnesses who have a more direct contact to either hell itself or someone who knows it (i.e., God). We rely on that the Jews ever maintained a close relationship with God that the religious concept of the Jews play a critical role for us to put our faith in that their concept of hell isn't fabricated but a possible information from God. If hell is true, this is the only way we as humans can approach, there's no other round!
The Jews with the message they conveyed becomes our "reliable source of news" for us to put our faith in believing that it is a possible truth. That's the only way to get to such a truth anyway, under the circumstance that it is a truth. God actually made this explicit by naming Gospel as the source of "Good News" (what a coincident).
Another factor is that, we cannot stand neutral to this possible truth. It ties up to our dead or alive in terms of an afterlife. So in the case that it is something true, it is something which will affect our dead or alive, and that the only way for us to possibly approach such a truth is through putting faith in the message conveyed, which was started with the Jews then now Christianity. I see no point to reject such a possibility. What worth examining though is the reliability of the source, that is, how valid the witnessing itself is. It is said that those direct witnesses of Jesus Christ are willing to martyr themselves for the testifying of the truth of Jesus Christ.
If the direct witnesses are willing to die in order to bring the message out, and at the same time this is the only possible way for us to approach it if it is a truth, and if it is a truth that it will affect our dead or alive. Then again I see no point why it should be rejected, even in terms of a logical judgment!
They don't have, "a belief held contrary to the evidence".
But, lesser mortal, they do! Amongst other ludicrous things, they think that every living thing on the planet, those that have gone extinct, those that exist now and those yet to be discovered all fitted onto a small boat along with their food and water for nearly a year and were then released into a world utterly devoid of vegetation and prey...and they all survived to give us the vast diversity of life that we have today. The verifiable evidence says that they are wrong.
Quote:
To them...they have evidence superior to your evidence. They believe that what is written in The Bible or other writings to be better evidence than anything put forth by the various genres of scientific study.
You keep saying, over, and over, and over, and over again, "contrary to the evidence"...because you do not accept what they consider to be superior substantiation.
...and when they present that evidence and the verifiable evidence says that they are wrong, they continue to believe and thus hold beliefs that are contrary to the verifiable evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkins
You can randomly fetch any history books written by humans some 2000 years ago, then go through section by section to ask the same question "how evident it is said", in the end you've got no history if evidence is demanded.
If we have a book written 2000 years ago about a great military leader, the verifiable evidence for it's truth does not need to be of the same standard as a 2000 year old book about every life form fitting into a small boat....or someone being born of a virgin, doing miracles and being killed and coming back to life.
Quote:
Like I said, atheists are living in a fantasy world to think that everything should be evidenced...
...and yet, when it comes to anything other than your god belief, you are exactly the same as us. When the salesman stands on your doorstep and tells you that, if you give him $1000, he'll invest it in his company and next week he'll give you $5000 back as a return on your investment, do you simply believe him and give him the money... or ask him for verifiable evidence that the investment is sound?
When you go to buy something expensive like a car, do you simply take the word of the Ford salesman that a Ford is your best buy or do you do some research the verifiable evidence to ascertain which car is best?
If you were looking for a school for your children you wouldn't just take someone's word that a certain school is the best academic record. You would examine the verifiable evidence for the claim wouldn't you?
I could fill a page with examples where you would consider yourself an imbecile not to demand verifiable evidence before accepting something but in this one thing, your god belief, you believe it implicitly, without question. Why is that?
They don't have, "a belief held contrary to the evidence".
To them...they have evidence superior to your evidence. They believe that what is written in The Bible or other writings to be better evidence than anything put forth by the various genres of scientific study.
You keep saying, over, and over, and over, and over again, "contrary to the evidence"...because you do not accept what they consider to be superior substantiation.
They trust based upon the evidence of the info in The Bible, Quran, etc.
Get it right...they have trust, faith, belief, even a personal determination that "false evidence" has merit....not "contrary to the evidence". You make like the science based evidence is the only evidence that there is.
They do have evidence (to them)...just not the evidence you and I put greater stock in.
I would classify "evidence" as something you can take to anybody, anywhere, and they repeat it. Like a measurement on a meter stick. Measurements are just comparisons to standards.
A bible is not a standard. But like you say, they there literalalists fellerz, call it "evidence" regardless of what rational people say.
I would classify "evidence" as something you can take to anybody, anywhere, and they repeat it. Like a measurement on a meter stick. Measurements are just comparisons to standards.
A bible is not a standard. But like you say, they there literalalists fellerz, call it "evidence" regardless of what rational people say.
The problem is AA...they feel their evidence is straight from Jehovah, Allah, etc.
No matter what anyone else presents...they will go with what they feel has supremacy over any other info.
They not only see it as "evidence"...they see it as the only absolutely infallible information there is.
The problem is AA...they feel their evidence is straight from Jehovah, Allah, etc.
No matter what anyone else presents...they will go with what they feel has supremacy over any other info.
They not only see it as "evidence"...they see it as the only absolutely infallible information there is.
...but you see O'Foolish One...the brilliant thing about verifiable evidence is that it is available to EVERYONE. The bloody knife sticking out of someone's back is verifiable evidence to everyone that knives exist and not just to those that believe in knives.
...but you see O'Foolish One...the brilliant thing about verifiable evidence is that it is available to EVERYONE. The bloody knife sticking out of someone's back is verifiable evidence to everyone that knives exist and not just to those that believe in knives.
I didn't endorse their position...I was just stating what it is.
And...since it has "the strength in numbers"...it will continue to dominate the world like it has for a long, long time.
So, claims having better "verifiable evidence support" notwithstanding...Atheism will just have to get used to its ultra-low position in the "pecking order".
I didn't endorse their position...I was just stating what it is.
And...since it has "the strength in numbers"...it will continue to dominate the world like it has for a long, long time.
So, claims having better "verifiable evidence support" notwithstanding...Atheism will just have to get used to its ultra-low position in the "pecking order".
Raffs...you have more patience than I. The idiocy is all on the religious side-and they aren't even fundies. Black holes were postulated on the mathematical working of a physics genius. But there was no Faith in them until they were demonstrated factually. And now we have reliable evidence for them to the extent that even 'belief' seems absurd. we KNOW they exist - on evidence.
And the other is the usual mix of semantic fiddling and '"ou will never win!" which has nothing to do with what's true or not. So on one side, beliefs based on reliable evidence. On the other side, illogical thinking, wilful ignorance and denial.
As I have said a couple of times, the debate was over long ago. The problem is making people aware of who won and getting them to accept it. The amount of undeserved credit religion has and the amount of undeserved distrust atheism has is almost incredible; Goldie is right in this at least; there is tremendous cultural resistance to the idea of life and thought without religion. Even outside America. The thought of removing religion from the social fabric fills them with horror. They feel that - if it did not collapse, civilization would lose all its' meaning.
This seems to be even stronger than hellthreat, which surely isn't the manipulative force it was, even in America. The danger in Europe seems rather to be the other wangle of religion -association with patriotism, national pride and xenophobia.
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.
