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.
Just in case anyone was wondering, this might be the the most obvious sign that wjtwet is a creationist.
Of course, he doesn't seem to understand what he's talking about.
The discussion is the word faith and who has faith. My contention is we all have faith. Not necessarily in a religious sense.
i have seen nothing to counter the point we all at some time use faith
The discussion is the word faith and who has faith. My contention is we all have faith. Not necessarily in a religious sense.
i have seen nothing to counter the point we all at some time use faith
What do you considered "proof?" If you think we need to percieve something in order to prove it, I've got bad news for you. Your perceptions, aside from being highly subjective, can lie to you. Your perceptions cannot be trusted, not even Commander Adama's. This is a well known problem in both philosophy and psychology.
You actually have to know what these theories state before you go around using them in your attempt to discredit science and\or atheism, which is the not so concealed goal you're going for. The origins of man are well documented.
The scientific method has a track record of discovering truth. I don't need to put faith in something that has been shown to work time and time again.
As everybody has pointing out, you can't really put belief into facts: they have been proven, which is why they are facts.
[/color]
Not with a 4.5 billion year track record of rising.
Both past experiences and knowledge of physics, yes. Evidence for something happening does not require faith. Physics proves the sun will rise tomorrow. Past experiences make me strongly suspicious that it will.
If the sun were to burn out, you wouldn't know for 8.3 minutes. It would be a fact before you could prove it!
If we need to see something to "prove" it happens, we have both a very narrow minded person and some who doesn't understand anything about empirical evidence. We don't need to see something happen in order to know it happened. We see a wolf covered in blood, bits of deer hanging from its mouth, deer in its poop, and there are paw-prints walking away from the deer carcas, we know that this wolf ate the deer. We don't have "faith" that it happened because we have evidence that it did. DNA testing of the bits of flesh in its mouth show that it matches the deer. The stomach contents of the wolf show it has a significant amount of the deer in its stomach.
We never saw the deer get eaten by the wolf, but only a idiot would claim the wolf did not eat the deer.
Your own ignorance of science, the theory of evolution, the big bang, atheism, and empiricism does not make any of these wrong or faith based. You are just ridiculously and sadly ignorant of them.
[/color]
What do you considered "proof?" If you think we need to percieve something in order to prove it, I've got bad news for you. Your perceptions, aside from being highly subjective, can lie to you. Your perceptions cannot be trusted, not even Commander Adama's. This is a well known problem in both philosophy and psychology.
I have never seen proof that man evolved from ape. I have seen theory i have seen what people think. I have never seen proof of the "missing link" which would be the link that proved TOE
You actually have to know what these theories state before you go around using them in your attempt to discredit science and\or atheism, which is the not so concealed goal you're going for. The origins of man are well documented.
I have not tried to discredit any science so please do not put words in my mouth . I have stated what the dictionary defines as faith and Since TOE or Big bang are all a theory , if you believe in the facts that go into that theory you have faith in that theory. your attempt to be condescending is not needed
The scientific method has a track record of discovering truth. I don't need to put faith in something that has been shown to work time and time again.
Never said it did not. But the origin of man has not been proved by the scientific method
As everybody has pointing out, you can't really put belief into facts: they have been proven, which is why they are facts.
Facts areDarwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world
So all the facts do not prove the origin of the species
If you believe in In Darwin's TOE then you have the choice to believe the facts that leads to the theory. believing in the facts that lead to the theory in no proves the theory . So since you can not prove the theory you have to have faith that the facts lead to your conclusion
[/color]
Not with a 4.5 billion year track record of rising.
the fact is one day it will not. That is a fact. So to believe that the sun will come up is a belief in the expectancy based on the past. However that belief is based on faith because you can not prove the sun will come up until it does
Both past experiences and knowledge of physics, yes. Evidence for something happening does not require faith. Physics proves the sun will rise tomorrow. Past experiences make me strongly suspicious that it will.
The fact you believe it will happen based on evidence is faith unless it is a proven fact
If the sun were to burn out, you wouldn't know for 8.3 minutes. It would be a fact before you could prove it!
I'm not saying i need to prove the sun will not come out. I have said it is faith to believe it is . Despite all the evidence there is a chance it is not. So you only have faith that it will come out
If we need to see something to "prove" it happens, we have both a very narrow minded person and some who doesn't understand anything about empirical evidence. We don't need to see something happen in order to know it happened. We see a wolf covered in blood, bits of deer hanging from its mouth, deer in its poop, and there are paw-prints walking away from the deer carcas, we know that this wolf ate the deer. We don't have "faith" that it happened because we have evidence that it did. DNA testing of the bits of flesh in its mouth show that it matches the deer. The stomach contents of the wolf show it has a significant amount of the deer in its stomach.
If we believe something will happen and there is not proof it will happen you have that belief based on faith in the facts
We never saw the deer get eaten by the wolf, but only a idiot would claim the wolf did not eat the deer.
You do not know it was a wolf do you, you can not prove it was wolf. Could have been a lion, could have died a natural causes and the buzzard ate it. So your belief it was a wolf is based on faith because you can not prove it was a wolf
Your own ignorance of science, the theory of evolution, the big bang, atheism, and empiricism does not make any of these wrong or faith based. You are just ridiculously and sadly ignorant of them.
trying to marginlize me with insults proves my point.
We all have faith, it does not have to be religiously based.
I had faith you would not grasp or understand that and that faith is now proven by your insults.
that is the so what.
When discussing the origin of man we all use faith to argue our belief.
One side uses religious faith
one side uses faith in science.
Since neither side can prove the origin of man both sides use faith.
simple
The discussion is the word faith and who has faith. My contention is we all have faith. Not necessarily in a religious sense.
i have seen nothing to counter the point we all at some time use faith
Well now that you have so broadened the definition sufficiently broad enough as to not have any context with the threads original premise, hell yeah, "We's all gots faith!" (125 posts later).
I have never seen proof that man evolved from ape.
Of course you havent. That's because man didn't evolve from apes. You have been told this on a number of occasions, why do you keep ignoring it and repeat the same over and over. EVOLUTION DOES NOT CLAIM THAT WE EVOLVED FROM APES.......GOT IT?
that is the so what.
When discussing the origin of man we all use faith to argue our belief.
One side uses religious faith
one side uses faith in science.
Since neither side can prove the origin of man both sides use faith.
simple
that is the so what.
When discussing the origin of man we all use faith to argue our belief.
One side uses religious faith
one side uses faith in science.
Since neither side can prove the origin of man both sides use faith.
simple
I disagree. Science has lots of evidence proving the origin of man....Religion (creation) has only faith. I'll place my trust in science over myth always.
Well now that you have so broadened the definition sufficiently broad enough as to not have any context with the threads original premise, hell yeah, "We's all gots faith!" (125 posts later).
the title of the thread is Do atheists have faith? origins of the universe
What do you considered "proof?" If you think we need to percieve something in order to prove it, I've got bad news for you. Your perceptions, aside from being highly subjective, can lie to you. Your perceptions cannot be trusted, not even Commander Adama's. This is a well known problem in both philosophy and psychology.
I have never seen proof that man evolved from ape.
The theory of evolution does not posit that humans come from apes.
You may be surprised to learn this, but humans are apes!
Yes, you are a great ape, one of the five species of great apes. I'm an ape. Your wife is an ape. My kids are apes.
Humans did not come from apes because humans are apes.
So that right there proves you don't know enough about the Origin of Man with regards to evolution to discuss its validity.
The origin of man *is* documented and proven by the theory of evolution. The origin of man is *not* from apes. The theory of evolution proves this.
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.
