Faith

[Falconer02]

Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy. Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.

This logic is beyond broken-
1.) Your assertion that a belief in a non-belief is irrational. It's much like someone who collects bugs and someone who does not- your logic is that the person who does not collect bugs has a hobby of not collecting bugs.
2.) There is no religious faith within scientific theories. They are based upon evidences with things you or I can (usually) interact with in the real world. Your one-of-a-million popular religious belief system with thousands of contradictions is based furthest from concrete evidences and moreso based upon social myopia and emotional validation. You and others have failed to show any shred of evidence for a god (much less your own personalized god), so therefore comparing both on the same spectrum is ludicrous reasoning. Granted scientific reasonings can be faulty (which can actually be a wonderful thing for the world-- see chart below), atleast there's a visible foundation to rest on.

[tigerlilly01]

I will ALWAYS have faith.  GOD IS ALIVE...  There is only ONE TRUE GOD and he is the Truth the Life and the Way. 

[falcon9]

Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy. Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.

This logic is beyond broken-
1.) Your assertion that a belief in a non-belief is irrational. It's much like someone who collects bugs and someone who does not- your logic is that the person who does not collect bugs has a hobby of not collecting bugs.
2.) There is no religious faith within scientific theories. They are based upon evidences with things you or I can (usually) interact with in the real world. Your one-of-a-million popular religious belief system with thousands of contradictions is based furthest from concrete evidences and moreso based upon social myopia and emotional validation. You and others have failed to show any shred of evidence for a god (much less your own personalized god), so therefore comparing both on the same spectrum is ludicrous reasoning. Granted scientific reasonings can be faulty (which can actually be a wonderful thing for the world-- see chart below), atleast there's a visible foundation to rest on.

Excellent elaboration; I'd momentarily forgotten that some folks require graphics to ignore along with the written reasoning.

[falcon9]

I will ALWAYS have faith. 

You will always insist upon a lack of evidence, ("faith")?

GOD IS ALIVE... 

Evidence for this claim consists of what?

There is only ONE TRUE GOD and he is the Truth the Life and the Way. 

Evidence of these two claims consists of what?

[SurveyMack10]

"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."

Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.

Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.

[falcon9]

"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."

Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.

Absolutely!

As in, absolutely false; atheism is not a "belief" itself since that would mean that requiring evidence of religious claims is a "belief."

Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.

"Many have trouble comprehending that "not believing X" (not believe gods exist) doesn't mean the same as "believing not X" (believe gods do not exist). The placement of the negative is key: the first means not having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is true, the second means having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is false. The difference here is between disbelief and denial: the first is disbelief in the broad or narrow sense whereas the second is denial."

[SurveyMack10]

"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."

Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.

Absolutely!

As in, absolutely false; atheism is not a "belief" itself since that would mean that requiring evidence of religious claims is a "belief."

Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.

"Many have trouble comprehending that "not believing X" (not believe gods exist) doesn't mean the same as "believing not X" (believe gods do not exist). The placement of the negative is key: the first means not having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is true, the second means having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is false. The difference here is between disbelief and denial: the first is disbelief in the broad or narrow sense whereas the second is denial."

Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?

[falcon9]

Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?

I do not consider "belief" to be a factor; either a phenomenon can be "explained" by the scientific method or, it cannot.  Any "belief" eitehr way has no affect on the outcome.  If a phenomenon cannot be currently explained by the scientific method, this does not preclude a forthcoming explanation in the future.  Regardless, "belief" is neither necessary nor, required while obtaining or awaiting evidence.

[SurveyMack10]

Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?

I do not consider "belief" to be a factor; either a phenomenon can be "explained" by the scientific method or, it cannot.  Any "belief" eitehr way has no affect on the outcome.  If a phenomenon cannot be currently explained by the scientific method, this does not preclude a forthcoming explanation in the future.  Regardless, "belief" is neither necessary nor, required while obtaining or awaiting evidence.

Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?

[Falconer02]

Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?

I have a very vague feeling that a "God of the gaps" argument is coming.

[falcon9]

Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?

I do not consider "belief" to be a factor; either a phenomenon can be "explained" by the scientific method or, it cannot.  Any "belief" eitehr way has no affect on the outcome.  If a phenomenon cannot be currently explained by the scientific method, this does not preclude a forthcoming explanation in the future.  Regardless, "belief" is neither necessary nor, required while obtaining or awaiting evidence.

Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?

Of course there are phenomenon which the scientific method cannot _currently_ explain.  This does not mean one should revert to the primativism of a "leap of faith" that some imagined 'deities' would explain what the scientific method does not.  There is a boatload of nonsense which the scientific method is not applied to because scientists are too busy applying it to observed phenomenon.

[SurveyMack10]

Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?

I do not consider "belief" to be a factor; either a phenomenon can be "explained" by the scientific method or, it cannot.  Any "belief" eitehr way has no affect on the outcome.  If a phenomenon cannot be currently explained by the scientific method, this does not preclude a forthcoming explanation in the future.  Regardless, "belief" is neither necessary nor, required while obtaining or awaiting evidence.

Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?

Of course there are phenomenon which the scientific method cannot _currently_ explain.  This does not mean one should revert to the primativism of a "leap of faith" that some imagined 'deities' would explain what the scientific method does not.  There is a boatload of nonsense which the scientific method is not applied to because scientists are too busy applying it to observed phenomenon.

When did I try to convince you that it should be applied to "imagined dieties?" I merely asked a yes or no question and you attempted to apply statements to me that I never made.

[falcon9]

Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?

I do not consider "belief" to be a factor; either a phenomenon can be "explained" by the scientific method or, it cannot.  Any "belief" eitehr way has no affect on the outcome.  If a phenomenon cannot be currently explained by the scientific method, this does not preclude a forthcoming explanation in the future.  Regardless, "belief" is neither necessary nor, required while obtaining or awaiting evidence.

Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?

Of course there are phenomenon which the scientific method cannot _currently_ explain.  This does not mean one should revert to the primativism of a "leap of faith" that some imagined 'deities' would explain what the scientific method does not.  There is a boatload of nonsense which the scientific method is not applied to because scientists are too busy applying it to observed phenomenon.

When did I try to convince you that it should be applied to "imagined dieties?"

That would be when you'd previously, (and recently), insisted upon a "belief" in an entity's existance for which you've no evidence, (thus the conclusion that there is no more evidence for an imaginary deity as there is for an imaginary unicorn in Falconeer's garage).

 

I merely asked a yes or no question and you attempted to apply statements to me that I never made.

Not exactly; you asked a leading question.  I can see where that was leading, (and so can Falconeer, apparently).  As to the statements you have made; those consisted of a belief in a deity whose existance lacks even a shred of evidence therefore, it was logically concluded that such a belief was in a non-existant entity, (imaginary one).

[falcon9]

Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?

I have a very vague feeling that a "God of the gaps" argument is coming.

I'd extrapolated something along similar lines when I replied to her leading question.  While such a "god of the gaps" argument may be new to some, I'd argued against the inherent logical fallacies it consists of before.  Maybe you'd like a stab at though?

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:42:19 pm
I would like to add, even if He were to strike a nonbeliever dead, the nonbelievers still would not accept God.  Why?  Because they will use the final findings of "heart attack," "ongoing cancer," "gun shot," "burnt to death in a fire," etc., as to what happened and consider it coincidental timing of the "strike" prayer and the death itself.

Quote from: falcon9:
You're quite correct in that such "coincidental" events cannot conclusively be attributed to some deity therefore, would not constitute proof.  Now, a bolt of lightening from a cloudless sky directly following the invitation would go a lot further as evidence, (once any weather anomalies were accounted for).

You cannot "box" God in a corner.  You are requesting:
1. A bolt of lightning
2. A cloudless sky
3. Weather anomalies are accounted for
4. Now: "If you exist, strike me dead, only using numbers 1 through 3."

You are demanding God to answer your requests with stipulations.  That is not using logic.  To you, faith is not logic.  We will not, at this point, agree with each other about this, and that's fine.  But, I do say that God will not be boxed for you, George Carlin, or anyone, just so you have absolute proof. 

I also want to clarify that faith is believing in something or someone you cannot see.  Christians, in this forum, in several threads, have consistently laid out evidence of God existing, and yet you (and others) never fail to call their evidence irrational and delusional.  Yet, you have no evidence, on your side, on what or who actually created man and the world from the beginning.  The kind of perfection in this creation has to have a higher mind to put together everything with such knowledge. The man and the earth/world could not evolve from nothing without someone having a cause to create in the first place.