Um, Why Was "If you believe in God, You're a retard" Locked?

[queenofnines]

You were saying that there was no evidence that anything the bible exists-

Hmm?  Can't understand the structure of this sentence - sorry.

well there is no evidence that there is wind either-

Uh, please read what you wrote again.  Of course there is evidence for wind!  Ever have a bad hair day?  Ever see the leaves blow down the street?  Ever use a fan?

we all use faith all the time in every day life-

Erm, I'm sure you're referring to examples of "faith" that aren't really faith at all -- like the sun coming up.  We have recorded evidence of it happening everyday since the beginning of time; that's as close to guaranteed proof that you're going to get that the sun will, indeed, rise tomorrow.  So you don't need "faith" on such matters, because faith is belief without evidence, and you HAVE evidence for the sun coming up every morning.  A lightswitch is another silly, incorrect example of "faith" that people like to use.

you put your faith in something you can't see, and is not seen by the senses- think about it.

Of course wind is seen by the senses!!  You SEE it blow trees; you HEAR it during a storm; you can FEEL goosebumps from cold air getting on you.  

God, on the other hand, is all in your head.  

[shernajwine]

Don't worry tammyrwa, people who believe in evolutionary origins of life and origins of the cosmos, have faith and don't want to admit it. 

because faith is belief without evidence

because they have faith that the universe had a natural cause even though there is no evidence for it and they also believe that evolution can explain the origin of life even though there is no evidence and evolutionists themselves can't agree on any theory. They have faith that there is a natural cause, we have faith it was supernatural.

They don't want to call it faith but as queen put it....it's belief without evidence and that is exactly what they have. 

[shernajwine]

Oh and now apparently marie is going to lock all her threads randomly. Even though this doesn't affect our number of posts, it is still annoying. Oh well, at least we can still quote from the threads and start another one. (sigh)

Someone has a tendency for temper tantrums don't they lol. 

[Falconer02]

people who believe in evolutionary origins of life and origins of the cosmos, have faith and don't want to admit it.

I quote Liljp from an older thread--

Everything in life is a belief at the end of the day.  However, it's absolutely necessary to distinguish between a belief and faith-based belief.

I believe the chair I'm sitting in right now won't break under my weight.  I believe this based on my experiences with chairs, my knowledge of how and why they're built, and based on how much weight/force it would reasonably take to break a sturdy chair.  

As true as my view may be, it is still definitely a belief -- there's no way in the world I can guarantee, beyond all doubts, that this chair will not break in the next five minutes.

But take note that this belief is not faith-based.  It is not a belief without reason or evidence.  It is not an extraordinary belief (defined god).  It is clearly based on reasoning and leads to a rational conclusion.

To me, there is a very clear line separating belief from faith.

(I will also add that our beliefs are changeable with any new evidence whereas believers have obviously been locked since day one)

[shernajwine]

I believe the chair I'm sitting in right now won't break under my weight.

Believing your chair won't break is a belief based on evidence.

Believing the cosmos had a natural cause despite lack of evidence is faith based belief.

Unless you want to change queen's definition of faith...belief without evidence, then you are stuck with having faith in things based on having no alternative explanation you are willing to accept.

You believing your chair won't break would not be faith based because of previous times you sat on it and it didn't. This is repeated experimentation that gives a reason for that belief to be valid. However, to believe that scientists hypotheses for natural causes to origins is to believe without any evidence, due to inadequate experimental evidence to justify those claims.

[queenofnines]

they have faith that the universe had a natural cause even though there is no evidence for it

There's evidence for the Big Bang, and that's natural.  True we do not yet know what prompted the Big Bang, but being able to see back in time some 13 billion years is pretty impressive in my book.

they also believe that evolution can explain the origin of life even though there is no evidence and evolutionists themselves can't agree on any theory.

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life!  It only explains what happened after life got started.  So you're starting with a false premise...  Also, evolution is an established fact.  It did happen - it does happen...this is not up for debate.  The specifics of HOW it happened (a.k.a. scientific "theory") is what still needs some working out.

Unless you want to change queen's definition of faith...belief without evidence

Hey now, I didn't make that definition up to make fun of anyone!  It is the actual definition of faith in the English language. 

Although I do like Mark Twain's alternative: "Faith is believing in things you know ain't so."  (He was an atheist).   

[shernajwine]

There's evidence for the Big Bang, and that's natural.  True we do not yet know what prompted the Big Bang, but being able to see back in time some 13 billion years is pretty impressive in my book.

Yes, the big bang is a natural phenomenon but we are talking about the cause. Despite lack of observational evidence you believe that cause was natural. That's faith by definition   Yes science has accomplished many incredible things....and all because people's minds were created in God's image  

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life!  It only explains what happened after life got started.  So you're starting with a false premise...  Also, evolution is an established fact.  It did happen - it does happen...this is not up for debate.  The specifics of HOW it happened (a.k.a. scientific "theory") is what still needs some working out.

Evolution is fact, when you define it as change within a species. Evolution happened and happens on a micro level. What is not established fact is the extrapolation of evolution to the macro level. Evolution can explain finch beak variation, it does not explain how finches got here in the first place, or how it is that natural selection acting on random mutations can explain the diversification of species. Despite lack of observational evidence for the Darwinian evolution theory of origins , you believe it was caused by natural processes. Darwinist theories of origins are the only alternative to belief in intelligent design. So once again, belief without evidence....

Hey now, I didn't make that definition up to make fun of anyone!  It is the actual definition of faith in the English language.

Yes, I apologize if I made it sound like you made that definition up.  

[Lusie]

If you boycotted me like you tried to get everyone to join in and do, would this be an issue?

How are you being boycotted?

[Falconer02]

Despite lack of observational evidence you believe that cause was natural. That's faith by definition  

Have I ever stated this though? I've only talked about the big bang happening. Everything before is up for speculation (yes-- including a metaphysical entity); I can say many things and not put faith in any of them. Faith seems to be too much the product of emotion anyway.

Yes science has accomplished many incredible things....and all because people's minds were created in God's image  

Science has accomplished many incredible things because people are able to question things. May I remind you of how things tend to work in this world-
http://www.jamesrb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/2007-01-15-science-vs-faith.png

Despite lack of observational evidence for the Darwinian evolution theory of origins , you believe it was caused by natural processes. Darwinist theories of origins are the only alternative to belief in intelligent design. So once again, belief without evidence....

Sounds like this came out of Kirk Camerons mouth.  Macroevolution is observable. Fossil records and atavisms. You need to do a little more research before saying something like this.

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution". - wiki entry of macroevolution

I'd go further into it but I need to get outta here-- Queen, Jordan, liljp, etc. can have a field day with this one comment alone.

[shernajwine]

Falconer, if you believe the cause was natural...no matter what you want to speculate that natural cause was....you have faith that it was natural because there is no evidence to support that the cause was natural.

[Falconer02]

We know how it happened-- that was natural. But to define what happened before that is currently impossible. I never said whatever came before it was natural (unless I'm mistaken?). It could have been Xenu, Zues, or a Harrison Ford for all I know. I don't know nor do I put "faith" in any crazy defined idea since, from what I know, there is no evidence. Like the poster says-- faith leaves no room for other ideas. I leave room.

[shernajwine]

No, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

It may have been a conversation with queen where she said there was no reason to believe the cause was anything but natural.

Sorry 

[Falconer02]

Aye! No prob. Btw I edited my last post a bit...I forget what was there previously.

[shernajwine]

I wonder what you're leaving room for though? Since you say the supernatural is impossible?

Is there a third option to add to natural or supernatural? Because if you're leaving room, I would assume you are leaving room there for a supernatural cause, whether you claim to believe in that specific explanation or not, if you're leaving room for that possibility then, are you conceding then that it isn't impossible?

[Falconer02]

Going with agnostic belief, I cannot really state anything on the subject beyond the realms of our natural universe. But I am saying the supernatural --especially the defined supernatural-- is impossible in this universe. Beyond those horizons, nobody can assert anything. I don't know and neither does anyone here. Embrace the mystery