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.
I suggest you watch this highly educational video and pay particular attention the segments on "strawman argument" and "argument from personal incredulity"
I watched the video. Some of what the narrator said was spot on. But for an "educational" video it was pretty shoddy. Quite a few of the "examples" of the fallacies weren't really examples (e.g., the bits on the Kalam cosmological argument the Big Bang come to mind). And the narrator himself, I fear, seemed at times on the verge of committing his own logical fallacies (pace the above examples I gave). As a logic professor told me once: don't worry so much about spotting fallacies; worry more about reasoning correctly.
I found myself wondering if they had just lifted some of their video clips of "creationists" out of context. And it seemed that, if we just gave some of the Christians they quoted a bit more of a charitable reading, then the supposed fallacies weren't really that bad--they were probably more rhetorical points and bits of conversation, things we all do when we're talking about issues. We hardly ever, in conversation, adopt a hard-line logical way of talking about things. We don't number our assumptions and deductively prove our conclusions--we just talk. So, I found the video to be unfair at certain points, at times missing the points being made, and occasionally making assertions without argument (e.g., when the narrator discussed the limits of science). But other than that is was smooth sailing.
Saying you can only have faith in unproven things is such a ridiculous statement, I really don't know how to respond.
Please respond with clarity why one needs faith to accept a fact.
I think I'll just respond with a question(s):
How many people die every year from pulling into intersections on green lights, only to have their faith in the power of a red light let them down?
It is apparent that an awful lot of people can't think or read correctly. It is not faith in the power of a red light that kills people or lets them down, it is the idiot driver of the vehicle driving through the red light that causes the disaster.
And then:
Are red lights unproven?
Further, I can't believe your basing your beliefs and ideas on a silly book written my a man(Hume). Isn't that what believers get ridiculed for with our bibles?[/quote]
Apparently you didn't read the article clearly. I state, 'I discovered the the philosphy of Hume, after arriving at my own philosophy.' Snaefell.
It is apparent that an awful lot of people can't think or read correctly. It is not faith in the power of a red light that kills people or lets them down, it is the idiot driver of the vehicle driving through the red light that causes the disaster.
I can read and think correctly, thank you. But there is a tremendous amount of faith exercised every time you hit a a green light and don't stop to make sure no one is running it.
I can read and think correctly, thank you. But there is a tremendous amount of faith exercised every time you hit a a green light and don't stop to make sure no one is running it.
You are abusing the word 'faith'. I would say that in your example what you are doing is acting based on an expectation about the behaviors of other human beings operating their own automobiles, with that expectation also being based on lots of previous personal experience. An expectation based on experience is not 'faith'.
On the other hand, doing something for which you have no firm (rational or experiential) basis to form an expectation of the outcome, that would be 'faith'. As a Christian, you have 'faith' that your belief will result in your eventually being in Heaven with God/Jesus.
You are abusing the word 'faith'. I would say that in your example what you are doing is acting based on an expectation about the behaviors of other human beings operating their own automobiles, with that expectation also being based on lots of previous personal experience. An expectation based on experience is not 'faith'.
On the other hand, doing something for which you have no firm (rational or experiential) basis to form an expectation of the outcome, that would be 'faith'. As a Christian, you have 'faith' that your belief will result in your eventually being in Heaven with God/Jesus.
You're absolutely wrong.
I don't expect you to agree with me on that, but you are.
My faith is strengthened by previous personal experiences in which god showed Himself faithful.
Just like your's in red lights is based on your previous personal experience that indeed, most people stop.
Regardless, this is more on faith than evolution...I'm just saying we do have faith in both what we see and what we don't see.
No I don't agree with you. This is an example of the general issue about how folks use/redefine words when they discuss religion. Fuzziness at best. Mumbo-jumbo at worst.
If a member of species X gave birth to the very first member of 'newly evolved' species Y, what would the new Y breed with?
OOOOPS.
That would be the end of species Y.
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.