the Jesus toast?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
the Jesus toast?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
yeah, this type of thing: BBC NEWS | Americas | 'Virgin Mary' toast fetches $28,000
There is no need to explain Mount Rushmore. We know humans created it.Quote:
Originally Posted by volleykinginnc
It's a sculpture of human faces. It's very detailed and obviously cut out from the surrounding rock. I don't think many would think it was from natural erosion. There would be plenty of evidence it was man made.Quote:
Originally Posted by volleykinginnc
A, so now you're a deity expert as well. What you mean is "if there's a God and he's like humans then he doesn't care at all" because you believe that if there'd be a God he'd do the things that YOU think are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
No, you're wrong. Most people that believe in God have had plenty of evidence. What you're saying is believe in God without evidence repeatable in a lab. There's quite a difference.Quote:
They aren't the same kinds of faith. Religion requires blind faith. You have to believe god exists without any evidence.
You don't need blind faith in science. It might be difficult but you can reproduce the results claimed by science and verify them yourself.
I'm sure most rely on faith with regards to science. Faith in the scientists that they are not deceiving the public.
So I'd say that the main difference is then believing someone else's evidence (science) versus your own evidence (religion). That doesn't mean one is more valid than the other. But people who believe in God generally believe that they've had plenty evidence.
So I still say it's the same thing. Just based on different things. The Idead FAITH doesn't change whether you put it in science/medicine/people/religion/whooping naked around a campfire/your ancestors.
Then maybe you should read my posts again? It is because in both science AND religion there's a trust on a higher authority/other authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by markevens
Scientists build on the theories put forward by previous scientists. They don't go out and first try to make sure that all those theories are correct. If they did that then nothing new would probably ever be discovered.
Building on something that you didn'nt verify for yourself (trust in) is called faith.
The problem is that so many people who call up the science VS religion debate (which is a stupid debate in itself the more I think about it) think that because faith is mentioned often in religion it's a religion exclusive concept. It's simply not.
What about the parent that tells his child "I have faith in you" and as proof of that faith drives him/her to soccer practise?
How about the teacher that claims to have faith in his pupil and as a result spends extra time with him making sure that the student passes an exam.
Or the student that has faith in the teacher and as a result studies the material the teacher presented him with.
All faith, all nothing to do with religion.
I won't say what side of the fence I'm on...
Someone referred me to this url several years ago and it was so "entertaining", that I saved the url for later use: Why Won't God Heal Amputees?
That explains why there's so few normal, intelligent people in the worldQuote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
You're the one claiming to know what god cares about and you claim I'm the expert?Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
And now you're telling me what I mean? I know what I mean and it's not what you claim.
There is no evidence of a god intervening in human lives at all. If he's a caring god he sure isn't doing much.
If he just cares about humans but does nothing then he's irrelevant.
They can claim they have evidence but it doesn't mean they actually do.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Why would anyone care about anecdotal evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
No they aren't just as valid. One is anecdotal evidence and the other isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Completely different things.
Except with science you don't have to trust a higher authority. You can perform the experiments yourself. You can't do that with religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
There is not one definition for faith. You put blind trust in the claims of holy texts. You don't have to put blind trust in scientific texts.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Big difference.
Why don't you point out what's wrong with the video instead of trying to insult?Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
I might be wrong, but I read the post as agreeing with the substance of the video:Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
"That (the prevalence of such delusions) explains why there's so few normal, intelligent people in the world."
Ah then maybe I read his comment wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by northpaw
That's just arguing whether the faith is justified or not. Not whether it's faith or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
Untill you've actually repeated those experiments yourself. It's still faith. And unless you have a large Hadron Collider in your basement I don't think you'll be doing a whole bunch of those in the near future.
When did I say it wasn't faith?Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
I said it's not the same kind of faith and it's not.
And they are not equally valid.
Hey guys, none of you is going to change each other's mind, and this discussion is going to spiral down if it is going to consists of nothing but 'is not, is too!' quoting back and forth.
If you've gotten to the point where you do not want to hold a constructive argument, then just drop it ok?
So now there are different kinds of faith. Teach me oh great master.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
I've only claimed to far what faith is exactly and that untill someone acquires proof on his own (on any subject) that faith is just as valid as anyone else's.
But it seems you know about different kinds of faith. I'd like to know what kinds there are, what they're called and hear some examples on what that means.
Well i'm no great master by any means but if i may explain how i see the difference between 'faith' and 'faith', or call it 'belief'. As said, in my language there are different words for these, so i try to tell what is a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Now you know how the material world works. It works based on the laws of physics. With little knowledge in chemistry, physics and mathematics you can go far. At simpliest i can say that 2+2=4. I know it is true; i doesn't have anything to with faith. Now we can make it complicated and i still know it is true. Without faith. Even i hadn't calculated most complex theories myself, i know that they can be recalculated at any time. This how the world goes on. If the world wouldn't work by the laws of nature, or laws of physics, it wouldn't work at all. However i must admit that i've worked with engines and motors with such poor condition that little help from any God would have been great :)
Science is universal. The world works the same way everywhere, it has nothing to do what people believe. Sun shines for pagans too.
Now the second faith. I'm no religious person at all, but i can easily imagine such thing as higher spirit, supernatural or God (or Aesir and Vanir in case of my wife). Now if somebody tells me there is a God, can such claim be repeated and verified in some neutral enviroment in a way that there will be no way for anyone to deny any more? Is it 2+2=4 or is it just someones personal faith without any scientific proof? I say the latter. I'm not saying there is or is not God(s) of any kind but you cannot make an idiot proof claim in the terms of science. You cannot ever proof to say fundamentalist Muslim why your God is more true than his and vice versa. You both only believe and have faith on what is yours and that is it. Can you even take some word from others that there is a God and just rely on that or is personal experience necessary?
Back to my original claim: faith on any higher spirits and science are wrestling on a different arenas. Sometimes they agree and in a case of the OP they disagree. In a scientific terms claiming that the world is 10000 old is an equation that is untrue and false. To believe it is ok but to teach such thing as a science is dangerous.
Lastly i'm not arrogant and try nor am not even ever capable of changing your mind or telling you are wrong. I think that this is just gentlemanlike conversation with just exchanging of opinions.
No bad intention taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor
This is exactly what I'm saying though. In English there's two different words for it as well:
Faith
Belief
And most people mix the two up and lump them as if they're the same. My interpretation of faith seems to be a little different from yours since my version of the meaning includes the intention to act on beliefs.
So in my interpretation:
Belief -> Faith -> Action
I realise that this is more of a philosophical matter than a standard scientific one (as someone before me already pointed out). But I don't think the idea faith has to do with religion or proof. It has to do with the honest intention to act on ones beliefs. (whether they be scientific, philosphical, religious doesn't matter to the meaning of the word.)
Agreed :) What we are arguing is just about words.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
You don't understand Bruno, he who has the last post/word wins. :matrix:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Just look at the definition of faithQuote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
faith (fth)
n.
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, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
If you won't accept that there are different definitions of faith then there isn't really any point in this discussion anymore.
Guys, I was reading the first pages and was truly impressed by the gentlemanly conduct as well as relevance of the posts. But the more and more I was reading, the further away people were getting away from the initial subject and bitting down on their bone harder & harder.
Religion is a delicate subject to debate that takes alot of effort by everyone involved. It's VERY easy to get emotional and say something that can be interpreted in a way that gets under someone's skin, so PLEASE use your best judgement to stay a true gentleman when posting.
The discussion are starting to ro round & round, let's not have it go down also....
Cheers !
:beer2:
Well, if the bickering keeps up, then that would be me, explaining why the thread was closed. You may or may not believe in God or the Young Earth, but in this little corner of the universe called 'SRP' you can always believe in me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
.
.
.
.
Ok guys I don't want to take myself too seriously, but that line was just waiting to be said :D
Bruno be praised!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
:angel:
Hail Bruno. (Pascal's wager)
Gents I had fun. Thank you for letting me share my viewpoint on this. I'm stepping out of this discussion for now.
Fundimentalist come in all forms, Christian agnostic and atheist.... Christians seem to be fair game to pick on because of their tolerance and are still being slaughtered all over the world to this day. There are many scientists who are Christian and are anything but fundimental. Everyone needs to be treated with respect regardless of their cognitive abilities.
God reveals himself to all who look for Him, regardless of their thinking abilities.
Science attempts to explain reality, man is humbled when he figures out how little he knows. The most arrogant are often the ones who know the least.
how about this
:rofl2:
Ok, I think this thread has officially gotten out of hand.
Don't make us don our Caligula avatars again Bruno ;)
How can an agnostic or atheist be a fundamentalist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingfish
With conviction!Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
WIKI has a better answer.
If you're interested, fill out form 13B and return it to the International Board of Fundamentalism (IBF).Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
Still doesn't make any sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian
Fundamentalism is a strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs.
Neither agnosticism or atheism have a set of beliefs.
Well, it doesn't work for agnostics, but atheists firmly and strictly adhere to the belief that your beliefs are false.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian
I fall more in the agnostic category, but where I work, I have alot of Atheist collegues. I find it astonighing how violently some of them defend their point of views and openly say people who beleive in god are idiots.
To me, calling someone who beleives in something an idiot, falls in the fundamentalist category.
I believe that almost everyone is an idiot. It saves time.
FUNDAMENTALIST !!!! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Utopian
