03 Oct 11
Originally posted by sumydidYou mean like there really is a creator, and believers "know it" based on rational observation of all creation, but the non-believers don't "know it" because they are either irrational or willfully ignorant?
The cynics want to believe faith is blind. If it isn't blind, that means the believers know something the cynics don't and that's unacceptable.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindshttp://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/
I think you should read real history for no real Christian ever said such a thing.
Some scientist believed it and the RCC.
The RCC is a Christian church, that pre-dates yours.
And nobody, who has ever been able to have any creditable claim to being a scientist
has thought the world was flat.
The Greeks worked out it was round, and roughly how big.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by sumydidSeveral things, there is no way of determining an ideas likelihood.
The skeptics are saying that just because 9 out 10 people believe in a creator, that doesn't mean anything whatsoever. It's just the equivalent of 9 people raising their hands. Nothing more.
I will accept that retort -- however you are missing something.
a. As mentioned before - mankind has had 7,000 years to put together a belief system. 7,000 yea ...[text shortened]... they rely upon, is equally tainted and skewed by the bumbling foolishness of the human race.
firstly, 9 out of 10 people (assuming that that's an accurate number of theists which I dispute) don't believe the same things or in the same
god/gods.
So you can't claim them as a unified "90% believe this" because they don't all agree on what 'this' is.
Second for point a,
Mankind has had a lot more than 7,000 years to study the world.
And the way i know this is because we invented a thing called science to do so, which has discovered that both us and the world has been
around a lot longer than 7,000 yrs.
I don't claim that religious people never found anything of value, many moral values they hold are good.
But you can derive them without divine help (of course since there is no god), and the religious morals come with a whole load of extra
baggage that secular morals do away with.
However again, simply because lots of people believe or have believed something, has no bearing on its truth.
The only meaningful way of testing ideas for truth is to check them against the reality we live in.
Which means science, which has uncovered no evidence for god/s whatsoever, it has however found a number of potential reasons why religions
are so popular of a psychological perspective.
Third, point b,
No that is not the argument at all, ideas that are tested against reality have objective evidence for their validity.
The original argument put forward is that as the vast majority of people throughout history, and in the present day,
believe in some kind of deity. Given that there must be some chance that a deity exists.
Which is wrong because the number of people believing in something doesn't tell you anything about its likelihood.
However this doesn't mean that there is now way of telling an ideas likelihood.
The scientific method was designed and created because humans are fallible, and it provides a way of objectively testing ideas to determine there
likelihood of being true (broadly speaking).
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by sumydidIf you have faith in something for which you have no evidence that is blind faith (and many theist claim this to be their position)
The cynics want to believe faith is blind. If it isn't blind, that means the believers know something the cynics don't and that's unacceptable.
some theists however do claim evidence, although we dispute the veracity of it.
You are claiming a uniformity of position for theists that doesn't exist.
I get told off by some theists for saying there is no evidence,
And told of by others for asking to see evidence they say the don't need and couldn't have faith if they did have evidence/proof.
And I agree with the second lot that to have faith that your god exists requires that you not have proof that it exists.
Otherwise what you would have is knowledge that god exists, not faith.
I also have to say that objectively there isn't any 'proof' of gods existence, for reasons I have gone into many times, so theists can't
have anything but faith in the existence of god.
03 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeThere seems to be a pretty consistent misunderstanding of faith, blind faith, etc. when it comes to believers -- at least the believers like me and the people I know.
If you have faith in something for which you have no evidence that is blind faith (and many theist claim this to be their position)
some theists however do claim evidence, although we dispute the veracity of it.
You are claiming a uniformity of position for theists that doesn't exist.
I get told off by some theists for saying there is no evidence gone into many times, so theists can't
have anything but faith in the existence of god.
Faith is "blind" only in the sense that it is a faith in something that (literally) cannot be seen. That does not mean that faith is simply a leap into the dark with no evidence whatsoever. Every Christian I've ever talked to has had personal experiences that augment and solidify their belief and faith.
I'm merely claiming that I have personal experiences that support my faith, but it remains faith and not knowledge because afterall, I could be insane. Right?
As the old saying goes, the only thing we know for sure is "I am." Beyond that we cannot honestly have 100% certainty of anything at all. My pastor once put it this way, "How do I know I'm not just a brain in a jar, imagining all of this?" The fact is, we don't necessarily know that.
I guess this lends to the idea that a little bit of faith is required in all of us, unless we just want to go around as radical Agnostics, not believing anything whatsoever.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyProvided by whom?
Trev, Rationalism, Empiricism and Faith Perception are the only three
means of knowledge and understanding provided to human beings.
.
Or did you mean available?
And I would scratch Faith from the list of means of gaining knowledge.
For knowledge to have any meaning it must have certain standards or justification
which faith spectacularly fails to meet.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI am a scientific skeptic, an agnostic atheist, a rationalist empiricist, a realist, and a secular humanist (among other things).
Cynic - A faultfinding captious critic.
P.S. Examples: googlefudge and twhitehead
I am not a Cynic by any definition I can find in an actual dictionary.
I do not subscribe to Cynicism, nor display its attributes.
Of course if you want to continue making up the meaning of words you use then go ahead
and label me a Cynic.
But you have to know it isn't actually true.
Which means you are deliberately speaking untruths...
There is a word for this...
You tend to follow statements like that with lighten up it's a joke.
It's only a joke if it's actually funny.
And this being an internet forum where nobody can see your body language or hear your tone of voice,
you have to make it clear it's a joke.
If you label me, or a position I take, incorrectly, I will correct it, because I think that truth matters.