Faith VS Science & Athiests

Woodcarver

JohnFisher
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly

 

The important difference being... We CAN SEE the EVIDENCE of evolution everywhere.... We do not see the evidence of a god.... or at least current knowledge allows us to now safely say that what we do see does not point towards the existence of a god...

God is self-evident.

I do not need any proof to understand that someone designed and built the apartment I'm sitting in right now. The fact that someone designed it is self-evident.

The universe exists. The very fact that I wake up, know myself, and see the world, is evidence enough that someone designed and built it. If there was no God of any sort, existence as we know couldn't exist.

Another person using the watchmakers fallacy.

edit on 7-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

You say fallacy. I say analogy. You dislike my analogy, so you call it a fallacy. You think I'm dumb. I think you're foolish and blind. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

reply to post by mOjOm

Actually, God is not Self evident. Otherwise we'd all have that same opinion.

That isn't true. If it were, it wouldn't have taken until the 17th century to 'discover' gravity.

That is not compelling enough evidence for the claim that is being made. You claim a Divine All Powerful Being that created everything, watches everything, Is Timeless, Formless, etc. You're gonna need more than "You wake up, know yourself and see the world" as evidence to support that claim. Otherwise call it what it is which is Belief and/or Faith. That's almost as bad as "the tides go in, the tides go out, you can't explain it. -Bill O'reily"

It's in the eye of the beholder I guess. But it IS evidence. You think maybe it's a hyperbolic fallacy or circumstantial. I think you can't see what's right in front of you. Either way, it is plenty compelling for me. Being alive in the flesh is all the evidence I need. You bet it's faith. I wake up, know myself, and see the world, and that is plenty. Everything in our universe was contained inside a speck smaller than the size of a grain of rice and then erupted to form the universe as we know it? OK, who planted that seed? God is beyond our comprehension. Not even the top scientific minds could ever hope to comprehend God. The arrogant and blind will try in vain.

Again, that's simply your opinion which has no support at all other than "because you say so". For anyone other than you, that means nothing.

I think you'd be better off sticking with, "The universe exists" and just stopping right there.

It is my opinion, true. For anyone other than me, it makes no difference? False. I tell you, it IS evidence. I tell you, all things exist within the bounds it they were given. You can live in blindness, but I won't reject these self-evident truths because...

The universe exists.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

It does matter if this simpleton logic is taken as divine truth. I suppose we can pick and choose, as per protocol, which is metaphor and which is assertive and apply it how we see fit; but no sort of logic, whether bronze age or not, suggests that the Bible is both figurative and literal, unless, of course, it is a work of fiction.

Well that isn't true. We know the Old Testament is full of figurative truths AND literal truths. We know the Old Testament contains stories, songs, poetry, etc. We know that Christ spoke in parables. We already should know that many, not all, stories in the bible are fiction because the Bible itself tells us so. For example, I know that the story of the prodigal son is a made-up story meant to convey a truth, and it DOES convey a moral truth. Therefor, I accept the story of the prodigal son as fact even though it is a parable.

JohnFisher
That isn't true. If it were, it wouldn't have taken until the 17th century to 'discover' gravity.

The nature of gravity was first scientifically considered by Aristotle, then much more accurately described by the 11th century Indian Mathematician Bhaskaracharya, before Newton defined it mathematically in the 17th century.

JohnFisher

That isn't true. If it were, it wouldn't have taken until the 17th century to 'discover' gravity.

Either way, it is plenty compelling for me.

Being alive in the flesh is all the evidence I need. You bet it's faith. I wake up, know myself, and see the world, and that is plenty.

God is beyond our comprehension. Not even the top scientific minds could ever hope to comprehend God.

The arrogant and blind will try in vain.

It is my opinion, true. For anyone other than me, it makes no difference? False.

I tell you, it IS evidence. I tell you, all things exist within the bounds it they were given.

Not sure where you're going with the gravity statement there but let me illustrate what I mean by using your own words. I don't deny that the universe, life and reality are compelling because they certainly are compelling and full of mystery and wonder. However, that isn't enough to conclude a Creative God Entity being true, especially not one described by Religions.

Just look again at what you wrote. You admit it's faith which is evidence for you. Fine, but Your Faith isn't valid evidence for anyone but you.

Then you say God is beyond our comprehension. If so, then how is God also a Self Evident truth??? How can anyone Know Something that is also beyond comprehension???

Then you admit, it's your opinion. So which is it, your opinion or a self evident truth???

Then once again you back up your claim simply with, "I tell you...". Well, I'm sorry but that just isn't going to be enough to support such a massive claim as an Omni-everything, Timeless, incomprehensible Creator God, Heaven, Hell, Judgement, etc. You're just going to have to do better than, "I tell you....".

That doesn't mean you have to stop belief for yourself. But you can't expect YOUR WORD to be proof enough for anyone else.

Therefor, I stand by my reasoning that God isn't self evident.

TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by LucidWarrior

 

For goodness sake, man, its a saying. ever heard "I'd be willing to go to the ends of the earth"? does that make that person an idiot for thinking the earth has an end? No,, because its a saying. And the corners of the earth are the points of the compass, genius.

How is "the four corners of the earth" a saying if that was its first usage? It's a saying now, genius. Not then. The compass wasn't even around at those times, genius.

edit on 7-4-2014 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)

lol, good sayings gotta start somewhere, eh?

besides it probably was the closest translation they could get from the original language.

i do translations from chinese to english with my wife and some things in cantonese can't be translated easily or have no direct english word.

for an english speaking audience, i have to put it in a way the english speakers will make sense of it.

facelift
By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.


No...


www.snopes.com...

If Snopes says it's false, it's probably true.

Snopes is just another agenda driven propaganda arm funded by Soros & is 100% pure DISINFO.

It has been exposed by many as a disinformation tool that is working to suppress the truth.

A good rule to live by is to always believe the opposite of what propaganda says.

Snopes is a large part of the liberal propaganda machine ...

I have submitted several things to Snopes which I know to be true that Snopes claimed were bogus. Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros; a big time supporter of Obama! Yep you got it; Snopes Lied!

Snopes funded by Soros.. and people are still stupid enough to believe it

reply to post by mOjOm

Therefor, I stand by my reasoning that God isn't self evident.

I am truly sorry that you can't open your eyes enough to see it, but hopefully one day you shall. It is an incredible feeling, one that everyone should have.

reply to post by Woodcarver

Woodcarver
Science is the fight against ignorance. If you want to find something out. You must use science to discern the truth. There is no other way! What would you use besides science to find an answer?

Yes when a good scientist realizes his work is inaccurate, he should back up and try again. Lots of hypothesis get tossed out. Its the right thing to do.

Religion has a hard time throwing out scripture which we can prove to be untrue. Para investigators have a hard time with this too.

In a perfect world where everyone is honest that COULD be possible.

In OUR world, it's a complete impossibility.

Trusting science makes just as much sense as trusting politicians.

I no longer believe a single word coming out of mainstream academia.

People believe that if "science" says it is true, it must be true.

That takes gullibility to a whole new level...

I am beginning to wonder if most are actually as naive as the girl in the State Farm commercial (substitute Science for Internet):

Where did you hear that?
The Internet.
And you believed it?
Yeah. They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true.
Where did you hear that?
The Internet.

Science has become nothing more than a massive form of mind control and propaganda with less credibility than Snopes or even the MSM.

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

"Throughout recorded history, the Illuminati has successfully withheld from humankind major aspects of history and science in order to subjugate the masses" "Historical, religious and political truths have been withheld from the general public in order to perpetuate armed conflict," he continues.

"Similarly if the presently suppressed technology were to be made commercially available, disease, famine and environmental pollution virtually would become eradicated." By manipulating the souls evolving on earth, the Illuminati have deliberately suppressed the spiritual facts of life, not to mention liberating technologies, which could bring plenitude to all.

Secrets of Suppressed Science and History

reply to post by Murgatroid


That is a rediculous position to take considering any new findings are published all the time. You can literally look at the work and do the math for yourself. Laziness, willfull ignorance, and a deliberate lack of education is the position you are fighting for. What findings specifically do you disagree with? Because certainly you can agree that not all science is trash. Its important to be specific when you are trying to debunk certain claims. But you say that you do not believe science? Come on, really?

Woodcarver
reply to post by Murgatroid

 

That is a rediculous position to take considering any new findings are published all the time. You can literally look at the work and do the math for yourself. Laziness, willfull ignorance, and a deliberate lack of education is the position you are fighting for. What findings specifically do you disagree with? Because certainly you can agree that not all science is trash. Its important to be specific when you are trying to debunk certain claims. But you say that you do not believe science? Come on, really?

The word is Ridiculous...

reply to post by 168617


So is this thread.

Spirituality requires neither science or faith.

Annunak1

I am no Christian nor do i have a religion. I believe in a Creater, a Source of light.

I asked you a question.... Is the creator you believe in self aware? Or have you not thought that far yet...

Wow, great stuff I see happening here. The same old arguments, hashed and rehashed. You think we'll get some answers this time? Come to an agreement? Taking all bets!

Firstly, religion doesn't deny science and therefore how anyone can put Athiesm and Science together is beyond me. Religion doesn't teach the reader to simply sit around and do nothing all their lives, the idea is to give a person a higher standard of living and self enlightenment. Depending on what you follow is what your Spirit is led by so if you are an Athiest, you don't believe in God or the teachings and put your beliefs above everything else. If you believe in God your spirit is led by God and therefore the person will apply those teachings to their life as best as they can.

This isn't about some invisible man floating around in the sky, It is about learning and understanding why certain actions can cause problems while others are a benefit. Though Athiests are not bad people, they do not follow the teachings and therefore are likely to commit actions which the Bible does condemn. It may not hurt a person physically but this isn't the idea of religion. Most of the actions that are condemned hurt people through their Spirit. So it's more about not committing certain things because though you may benefit from it, someone else may suffer from it and if we look on the global scale today where our scientific inventions are being used on a regular basis, Our countries may benefit from oil in Iraq but hell some people are suffering for it at the same time. The bible let's the reader understand that if any action harms another then that action must be stopped.

A couple of examples

Adultery - Great for the person committing the act - That person's husband/wife finding out that they have been cheated on and the problems that follow

Theft - Stolen for personal gain - Leaves the person it was stolen from with nothing after they obtained it legally

Sorcery - Believing in spirits and Mediums etc - If you believe in ghosts and stuff, why wouldn't god and Satan be real?

Murder - Violence - Self seeking - Jealousies - Ignorance - Inventing evil things (Through science) - Idol worship

All of the above are Condemned in the Bible so if you want to be ignorant towards it, don't lie about it either because you obviously do not know the first thing about Spirituality if you do.

reply to post by JohnFisher


Have you never heard the watchmakers fallacy? Can you explain why we call your analogy a fallacy? Humor me and give it a shot.

AfterInfinity
Wow, great stuff I see happening here. The same old arguments, hashed and rehashed. You think we'll get some answers this time? Come to an agreement? Taking all bets!

Your absolutely right man. I watched that enigma video like 37 times and i got no answers from it. I even saw someone bring up the watchmakers fallacy. Ive been arguing against that since early college. At least no one brought up the stupid bannana thing. If these folks would just learn how to read we could get on to the real discussion.

reply to post by 168617


Religion does deny science everytime religion makes a claim that has not been proven. Religion denies science when it denies evolution. Religion denies science when it denounces gays, witches, womens rights, childrens rights, the right to not be raped, or owned. When the church denounces the use of condoms. How about the fact that people dont raise from the dead, or donkeys cant talk.


None of the things you listed are spiritual problems. None of those things can be fixed by religion. Religious/spiritual people, still have those problems, some of them in statistically higher percentages.

These "laws" first appeared in hammurabi's code, thousands of years before christianity.

Religion really doesnt even address these things. It only bans them. Anyone can see how these acts can be harmful. You dont need magic to know these acts cause harm.

JohnFisher

Woodcarver

JohnFisher
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly

 

The important difference being... We CAN SEE the EVIDENCE of evolution everywhere.... We do not see the evidence of a god.... or at least current knowledge allows us to now safely say that what we do see does not point towards the existence of a god...

God is self-evident.

I do not need any proof to understand that someone designed and built the apartment I'm sitting in right now. The fact that someone designed it is self-evident.

The universe exists. The very fact that I wake up, know myself, and see the world, is evidence enough that someone designed and built it. If there was no God of any sort, existence as we know couldn't exist.

Another person using the watchmakers fallacy.

edit on 7-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

You say fallacy. I say analogy. You dislike my analogy, so you call it a fallacy. You think I'm dumb. I think you're foolish and blind. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Here's a good article explaining why you are wrong.

The Watchmaker Analogy: A Self-Refuting Argument

Here's the gist of it:

In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved (ha ha) to include the notion of "irreducible complexity," a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes.

But let's think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, "Oh, this must be designed," what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree.

If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don't have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that's exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.