Jump to content

The First Single Celled Organisms


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dude. Are you retarded? That is the definition. Religious sense? Perhaps if they wanted to exclude religion from the definition of proof they would have added that exclusion n the definition. you sure like to rephrase and redefine things. You are reminding me of a spastic child here.
as indicated i'm not talking about superficial definitions. i'm talking about how the faith-based religious mind operates, and it is completely different from how science works.religious faith as defined by the vast majority of religious people themsleves is independant from objective science-like evidence. science does not deal in absolutes and isalways free to change. religious faith deals in absolutes and is not free to change. you have to make a massive pointless philosophical stretch to draw any parallels betweenthem. it's not like this isn't an obvious point.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are using Scientific Truth. I would love to see you use Scientific Method to prove atheism? Go ahead I will wait.
you're again using a definition almost nobody uses in practice (except people trying to make the point that atheism requires faith).as a working definition used by the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists, atheism is simple lack of belief based oninsufficient evidence. it's belief that gods are improbable (some versions much more improbable than others) because of lack ofsupporting evidence. atheism as a working definition is NOT belief that god as a concept is impossible. there's nothing to prove. again, unless you're making a huge pointless philosophical stretch it does not take faith to lack belief in something.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"God" and "the scientific method" are mutually exclusive.
Well, not in principle really. It's entirely possible that the evidence could have pointed to the existence of some sort of being like that described in the religious texts.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."
That definition is incorrect. Score one for descriptivists. If you refuse to acknowledge that faith involves belief absent evidence (especially in the instant context), you're being purposefully difficult.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If people want to believe 100% in god, intelligent design, etc., that's fine. There will ALWAYS be holes in our knowledge of the universe and life itself that will allow for religious people to point to god as an explanation, and that's fine too. But comparing that kind of faith to the version of faith that you're trying to apply to science is insulting to both sides. As much as brvheart might argue that someone like me can be no more sure about my beliefs than he can be about his, I can't imagine he'd argue that our methods of decision making for these big questions are very similar.
The methods for decision making differ but belief in the methods require faith in the methods.
Also, you don't need to prove a negative, this means we also need to disprove the theory that the universe was created by the fart of a 4th dimension intergalactic ManBearPig, etc. Atheism (no, I'm not an atheist) isn't faith in the non-existence of god any more than it's the faith in the non-existence of the MBP fart.
A negative can be presented as a postive.are you sure the universe was not created by the fart of a 4th dimension intergalactic ManBearPig? Perhaps it was created by a StrawManBearPig.
Link to post
Share on other sites
you're again using a definition almost nobody uses in practice (except people trying to make the point that atheism requires faith).as a working definition used by the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists, atheism is simple lack of belief based oninsufficient evidence. it's belief that gods are improbable (some versions much more improbable than others) because of lack ofsupporting evidence. atheism as a working definition is NOT belief that god as a concept is impossible. there's nothing to prove. again, unless you're making a huge pointless philosophical stretch it does not take faith to lack belief in something.
Please put forth a definition from a credible reference/source. I may be willing to accept it. I am using Wikipedia's definition and have expanded it for you.SO the atheist have a higher threshold does that mean they have achieved critical mass for truth?It may not take faith to lack belief. But it is a reality of belief.
Link to post
Share on other sites
as indicated i'm not talking about superficial definitions. i'm talking about how the faith-based religious mind operates, and it is completely different from how science works.religious faith as defined by the vast majority of religious people themsleves is independant from objective science-like evidence. science does not deal in absolutes and isalways free to change. religious faith deals in absolutes and is not free to change. you have to make a massive pointless philosophical stretch to draw any parallels betweenthem. it's not like this isn't an obvious point.
What would be your credible source/reference definition? It seems like you believe that the scientific mind is superior to the relgious mind.I was not questioning the systems. I was observing the belief in the systems. The Mormon church is very dynamic and has shown a willingness to change and adapt to the times.......I am sure there are many examples of change in religion. I am not trying to compare the methods of belief. I was just observing belief in the methods/systems.
Link to post
Share on other sites
you're again using a definition almost nobody uses in practice (except people trying to make the point that atheism requires faith).as a working definition used by the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists, atheism is simple lack of belief based oninsufficient evidence. it's belief that gods are improbable (some versions much more improbable than others) because of lack ofsupporting evidence. atheism as a working definition is NOT belief that god as a concept is impossible. there's nothing to prove. again, unless you're making a huge pointless philosophical stretch it does not take faith to lack belief in something.
Honestly, this is what I did. I went to ask.com and entered faith. The first defintion that came up was from wikipedia. I consider wikipedia a credible reliable source. So I went with it. When this upset ppl. I went back to wiki an Websters and expanded the definition to include something i thought would help your argument.That is what I did. no agenda. no conspiracy. no hope to help my myself or argument.I see you are trying to define faith yourself and validated it by saying, "the vast majority of ppl." please just use a definition from a credible resource/source.I said earlier, "It may not take faith to lack belief. But it is a reality of belief.' but this debates is making me realize that faith is everywhere in everything and that "nothing is true, everything is permitted"-Hassan-i Sabbah
Link to post
Share on other sites
Please put forth a definition from a credible reference/source.
published definitions are irrelevant. i've been doing this for decades and i've never actually met or read anything byanyone who thinks god as a general concept is actually impossible. the hard atheism necessary for your argumentseems to be pretty much a myth created by the religious to validate their own straw men.
SO the atheist have a higher threshold does that mean they have achieved critical mass for truth?
there is no critical mass for truth, at least not in the sense you're talking about.
It may not take faith to lack belief. But it is a reality of belief.
it doesn't take faith to believe the earth revolves around the sun, unless you're using impractical philosophy to makean irrelevant point.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What would be your credible source/reference definition?
don't need a credible source to state the obvious.
It seems like you believe that the scientific mind is superior to the relgious mind.
i don't differentiate types of minds since most religious people are "scientific" minded in most other aspects of their life. the difference is a question of whether a person decides "faith" should exempt religious belief from everyday rationalityor not.
I was not questioning the systems. I was observing the belief in the systems.
and drawing parallels that aren't there.
The Mormon church is very dynamic and has shown a willingness to change and adapt to the times
faith is only useful for filling gaps in scientific knowledge, and those gaps are getting smaller.
Link to post
Share on other sites
published definitions are irrelevant.
I guess what ever you say is fact then? That is very convenient for you, Crow. It must be god like to be able to validate your own assertions. Sorry, I am not going to accept assertions as valid.
i've been doing this for decades and i've never actually met or read anything byanyone who thinks god as a general concept is actually impossible.
the hard atheism necessary for your argumentseems to be pretty much a myth created by the religious to validate their own straw men.
*Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the assertion that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]Am I missing the part where atheism becomes agnosticism?
there is no critical mass for truth, at least not in the sense you're talking about.
I am glad you agree with me. I was commenting on your assertion about atheism; "atheism is simple lack of belief based oninsufficient evidence." becuase that is still validation of a point.....
it doesn't take faith to believe the earth revolves around the sun, unless you're using mpractical philosophy to makean irrelevant point.
Neo.......I think it is relevant to point out that faith plays a real role in ppls lives....Take the redpill.*wikipedia
Link to post
Share on other sites
don't need a credible source to state the obvious.
You do if this is a debate and you want it to be valid.
i don't differentiate types of minds since most religious people are "scientific" minded in most other aspects of their life. the difference is a question of whether a person decides "faith" should exempt religious belief from everyday rationalityor not.
good. You do realize I am observing faith in the structural sense? *"the Faith that is the belief in the trustworthiness of an idea." or *"Faith as in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true" fwiw; The *"Bible itself actually condemns illogical, unfounded credulity ("A simple man believes every word he hears; a clever man understands the need for proof")"
Link to post
Share on other sites
and drawing parallels that aren't there.
I think there is a valid parallel in the initial acceptance of beliefs/systems. Something makes us take that first leap.
faith is only useful for filling gaps in scientific knowledge, and those gaps are getting smaller.
Interesting point in regards to Scientific knowledge. My initial statement, "The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground." perhaps you are looking to much at the systems themselves and not just that initial leap that is made to accept something. Btw. I never intended to be profound and grand in my statement. I am not commenting on religious faith or scientific good faith. I am just commenting on how we accept the way things are. Just in case one day I wake up in a pod with tubes plugged into my eyes and body that feed me nutrients and a manufactured reality. We are moving into an age where reality can be manufactured.
Link to post
Share on other sites
He was commenting on your definition of faith. I agree with him that the definition you copied and pasted is not a sufficient definition of faith (see my post on this earlier). But please, personal insults are not going to help your argument. It's really important that we don't go there. If we degrade these threads to that, there will be no point in discussing anything. You have to give the benefit of the doubt that the other posters are arguing in good faith. ( Well, except Loismustdie, he's just angry. )Some of the people who I disagree with most on this forum are the same people I respect most. That makes for good discussion. You're not gaining much respect with this kind of thing.
Naw, I'm more or less indifferent at this point. Those that will believe,will believe. Little can be done by me about it, so now I just make my point, get in an get out. Angry is so 2007.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Naw, I'm more or less indifferent at this point. Those that will believe,will believe. Little can be done by me about it, so now I just make my point, get in an get out. Angry is so 2007.
man, I aaaalmost believed in jesus until you gave up. now? I'm a vishnu man.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess what ever you say is fact then? That is very convenient for you, Crow. It must be god like to be able to validate your own assertions. Sorry, I am not going to accept assertions as valid.
i was pointing out that you are using defintions to make your point that don't apply to real life,except on a superficial irrelevant level.
Am I missing the part where atheism becomes agnosticism?
in practice there is no real distinction, only a matter of degree.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there is a valid parallel in the initial acceptance of beliefs/systems. Something makes us take that first leap.Interesting point in regards to Scientific knowledge. My initial statement, "The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground." perhaps you are looking to much at the systems themselves and not just that initial leap that is made to accept something. Btw. I never intended to be profound and grand in my statement. I am not commenting on religious faith or scientific good faith. I am just commenting on how we accept the way things are. Just in case one day I wake up in a pod with tubes plugged into my eyes and body that feed me nutrients and a manufactured reality. We are moving into an age where reality can be manufactured.
this is where i think you're using philosophy to be impractical about your definitions. in real life basing a belief system on science doesn't require the kind of leapyou imply. people accept science because it has consistently led to useful predictions and truth for practical purposes - operational truth. they don't accept itbecause they think it leads to any form of absolute truth, and if they wake up tomorrow in a tube that would just be new evidence.you can define that as faith if you want, but there is no relevant parallel there with faith in the religious sense.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I missing the part where atheism becomes agnosticism?
Both terms are somewhat misleading. Many "atheists" do not define themselves as such (me included) since it doesn't really make sense to define yourself in terms of that which there is not sufficient evidence to believe. If I am an atheist I have to also be a an a-santaclausist, an a-lochnessmonsterist, an a-balloonguyist and a whole host of other things. Also most religious people are atheists with respect to all the other religions. "Agnostic" is also misleading. From a scientific point of view there is always some degree of uncertainty about everything (unless you have faith like religious people do!). The truth of religious propositions is not special in this regard.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Naw, I'm more or less indifferent at this point. Those that will believe,will believe. Little can be done by me about it, so now I just make my point, get in an get out. Angry is so 2007.
Yeah but really who else can I make that joke about? It was a forced move.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i was pointing out that you are using defintions to make your point that don't apply to real life,except on a superficial irrelevant level.
I am using a definition from a credible reliable unbiased source. i never claimed to be deeper than the definitions I was using to illustrate my statement.If you want to consider my statement superficial and irrelevant. I will not try to sway you from that opinion.
in practice there is no real distinction, only a matter of degree.
The Agnostic refrains from judgment due to insufficient or lack of evidence. The Atheist makes a judgment on insufficient evidence or lack of evidence. I would say there is a very clear distinction..You are a character.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Both terms are somewhat misleading. Many "atheists" do not define themselves as such (me included) since it doesn't really make sense to define yourself in terms of that which there is not sufficient evidence to believe. If I am an atheist I have to also be a an a-santaclausist, an a-lochnessmonsterist, an a-balloonguyist and a whole host of other things. Also most religious people are atheists with respect to all the other religions.
For the sake of debate if your an atheist you should be an atheist. Atheist -One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Aqnostic-1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something. There is a difference between a belief in no God and no belief in God? no matter how casual you are about it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
this is where i think you're using philosophy to be impractical about your definitions. in real life basing a belief system on science doesn't require the kind of leapyou imply. people accept science because it has consistently led to useful predictions and truth for practical purposes - operational truth. they don't accept itbecause they think it leads to any form of absolute truth, and if they wake up tomorrow in a tube that would just be new evidence.you can define that as faith if you want, but there is no relevant parallel there with faith in the religious sense.
I am not talking about basing a belief system on faith. I am talking about accepting a belief system as valid takes faith.
Link to post
Share on other sites
For the sake of debate if your an atheist you should be an atheist. Atheist -One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Aqnostic-1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something. There is a difference between a belief in no God and no belief in God? no matter how casual you are about it.
You're really attached to these definitions! lol.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...