User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 130

Thread: Blind faith

  1. #101
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I find Dawkins to be a poor spokesman for the cause of atheism due to his pathological hatred of believers. Letting him speak for atheists is like letting Fred Phelps speak for believers.
    I've got to say that that rings absolutely true to me, that statement about evidence seems fine when its considered in the total abstract but in fact you couldnt even carry out a simple transaction or have a straightforward relationsip on that premise, you certainly couldnt have love on that basis either.

    It just seems totally myopic and blinkered, perhaps a necessary counter balance to its equal and opposite but that is all and that is weak praise indeed.

  2. #102
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    It should also be noted that Dawkins vigorously contests ill-founded theories and the thinking that is derived from them, not the adherents.

    Christians, I've noted, pay no more than lip service to the notion of "hat[ing] the sin, not the sinner".

    The only thing Dawkins has in common with his opponents is the strength of his convictions. Dawkins' convictions are founded on demonstrable premises. His opponents demand you take their views on "faith".
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  3. #103
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    I am God.

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    We speak Shakespearean English
    Nay! Fie upon thee, thou liest!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Faith basically means trust. So I guess one can ask why is trust so important, or such a positive concept?
    Trust must be justified for it to be positive. Misplaced trust is a terrible thing, and society would be better off without it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Is faith blind? Justice is anyway, at least the statue has a blindfold.
    False analogy- blind faith is precisely the opposite of blind justice. Justice is described to be blind because she (personified) is supposed to be impartial and her judgement is supposed to be fair- based not on appearances or individual prejudices, but on clear evidence.

    Blind faith, on the other hand, is based on negligible evidence- and is hardly impartial, fair or free from prejudices.

    Quote Originally Posted by peterk View Post
    You're confounding "right" with good or moral and they are not always the same. Hitler did some "right" things to help his economy and some of them were not good or necessary things. But it was all very transitory and he turned out to be Dead wrong.
    This is a very convoluted statement. So what's right is subjective, but what's wrong is objective? I'm sorry if I got your message wrong, but it's really not clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    God is a necessary being, he's the unmoved mover or first cause of the universe. Santa Clause isn't.
    How do you know this for sure? What if Santa Claus WAS the unmoved mover or first cause, and everything about the Abrahamic faiths that we know is in fact the way it is because Santa Claus decided that it was to be so? His reasons for doing so, I remind you, are probably beyond human comprehension.

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I find Dawkins to be a poor spokesman for the cause of atheism due to his pathological hatred of believers. Letting him speak for atheists is like letting Fred Phelps speak for believers.
    Forgive my ignorance, but can you please point me to an instance where Dawkins expressed his "pathological hatred of believers"? In exchange, I could perhaps offer you historical examples where "believers" of all varieties have expressed their pathological hatred of non-believers through rape, pillage and slaughter.
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  5. #105
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    28

    Default

    I'll give my peace

    I believe in God. I used to be Catholic but I have no need to affliate myself with religion anymore. Religion is useless to me, but I am spiritual (take that how ever you like)

    So I've read most of the thread, and it seems that people are talking about "evidence" needed to prove god exist. That seems to be the jist from what i've read so far.

    The problem with this is that there is no way to say exactly what god is, and whether we have a "device", so to speak, that can "get evidence" to prove his existence.
    Asking to prove that god exist is the same as asking to prove that god doesn't exist. You can't prove either. To prove he does exist you would have to collect physical evidence on a being no one know what is. To try and prove he doesn't exist would mean that you know a way to prove he does exist, but when you did try to prove he does exist, it failed/returned negative results, which verified that he didn't exist.
    So in the end, both questions of whether he does or does not exist are contradictory.

    Also, asking for proof of "faith" or "god", is the same as asking "How do you prove you love someone", "How do you prove an emotion". What "evidence" is there to prove any of these
    1. I love you
    What does that mean? How do you prove it? I buy you flowers, kiss you and make you breakfast in the morning, I'm there for you when you need me, etc
    -That doesn't prove anything, I can do the same for a homeless bum on the street that doesn't mean I love him.
    2. How do you prove you are angry/sad/happy/jealous
    I'm angry when someone punches me in the face and i get violent with them and display a certain facial expression
    -false, i can get violent with a random stranger on the road and display that same facial expression, that doesn't mean I'm angry.
    3.Evidence shows that when you're happy the brain releases a certain chemical
    -The brain also releases the same chemicals when you eat chocolate, that doesn't mean you are happy.
    Can someone prove to me or provide evidence of love? Also, how do you provide evidence for an emotion? How do you prove you are angry/jealous/sad?
    No matter what you say, I can and will always come up with another scenario in which the same thing happened, but with a different effect.

    QUESTION
    So does that mean that love/anger/jealousy/sadness/etc don't exist because we can't prove them or provide evidence?

    I think the problem most people in this thread don't seem to understand is that logic/science can't explain everything

    How do you explain EVPs, electronic voice phenomena? If we use purely logic here, it makes no sense. How can you take a tape recorder into an empty room, ask a couple questions, play back the tape and hear someone answering the questions you asked?
    Can someone explain that to me using logic?

    Faith's answer for these are ghost, spiritual beings that are not of the physical world.

    How do you explain psychics? Science has acknowledged their "abilities", and when they give readings they aren't taking random guesses, so how are they able to do what they do?
    Can someone explain that to me using logic?

    How do you prove that we weren't put on earth for a certain purpose? How do you prove that we were put on earth for a certain purpose?

    Faith is there to try and answer questions science/logic deems as phenomena or has no way of providing evidence to prove. WHY is this happening? Is there a reason for all this? etc

    Faith is what it is, faith. Just like an emotion, you can't prove it, nor can you disprove it. An attempt would only condradict itself.

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soujiro View Post
    I think the problem most people in this thread don't seem to understand is that logic/science can't explain everything
    Nope. I will readily admit that there will always be things that we cannot explain, and so will any other intelligent person. Have you met anybody here who claims that they can explain everything with logic/science? Even established scientists would never dare make that claim. Richard Feynman, the Nobel prize-winning physicist- approached this topic beautifully.

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0"]Richard Feynman on Uncertainty[/YOUTUBE]
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soujiro View Post
    Asking to prove that god exist is the same as asking to prove that god doesn't exist.
    Nope, it isn't. You can never prove that something does not exist. The most you can do is to assert that it is highly unlikely or improbable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soujiro View Post
    Also, asking for proof of "faith" or "god", is the same as asking "How do you prove you love someone", "How do you prove an emotion". So does that mean that love/anger/jealousy/sadness/etc don't exist because we can't prove them or provide evidence?
    This is a large can of worms- I'll deal with this in a separate post afterwards.

    How can you take a tape recorder into an empty room, ask a couple questions, play back the tape and hear someone answering the questions you asked?
    That's never happened in my experience! There are all sorts of possible things- tampered tapes, white noise...

    How do you explain psychics? Science has acknowledged their "abilities", and when they give readings they aren't taking random guesses, so how are they able to do what they do?
    Personally I believe that "psychics" are people who are highly experienced in the art of reading other people. Malcolm Gladwell describes this beautifully in his book "Blink: The power of thinking without thinking".

    How do you prove that we weren't put on earth for a certain purpose?
    Again, you can't prove that something didn't happen, unless you are given a very, very specific context.

    Faith is there to try and answer questions science/logic deems as phenomena or has no way of providing evidence to prove. WHY is this happening? Is there a reason for all this? etc

    Faith is what it is, faith. Just like an emotion, you can't prove it, nor can you disprove it. An attempt would only condradict itself.
    We DO know that faith exists- our point, generally, is that it is outdated and unnecessary.
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  8. #108
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post
    Nay! Fie upon thee, thou liest!
    Only when I can get away with it.

  9. #109
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,538

    Limning

    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post
    Nope. I will readily admit that there will always be things that we cannot explain, and so will any other intelligent person. Have you met anybody here who claims that they can explain everything with logic/science? Even established scientists would never dare make that claim. Richard Feynman, the Nobel prize-winning physicist- approached this topic beautifully.
    Scientists love not knowing. They inhabit the land between knowing and not knowing. They are liminal creatures.

    For a million years we limned the edge of the forest and the savanna, safe in the forest venturing forth onto the unknown savanna to forage. Liminality is encoded in our genes.

    But so are mystics so encoded such as the medieval mystic, Anonymous, who wrote, "The Cloud of Unknowing".

    And so is each poet encoded, disovering each word, one by one, line by line until the whole world becomes a poem.

    And so am I, who abjures the taken-for-granted for ecstasy.

  10. #110
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soujiro View Post
    I'll give my peace

    I believe in God. I used to be Catholic but I have no need to affliate myself with religion anymore. Religion is useless to me, but I am spiritual (take that how ever you like)

    So I've read most of the thread, and it seems that people are talking about "evidence" needed to prove god exist. That seems to be the jist from what i've read so far.

    The problem with this is that there is no way to say exactly what god is, and whether we have a "device", so to speak, that can "get evidence" to prove his existence.
    Asking to prove that god exist is the same as asking to prove that god doesn't exist. You can't prove either. To prove he does exist you would have to collect physical evidence on a being no one know what is. To try and prove he doesn't exist would mean that you know a way to prove he does exist, but when you did try to prove he does exist, it failed/returned negative results, which verified that he didn't exist.
    So in the end, both questions of whether he does or does not exist are contradictory.

    Also, asking for proof of "faith" or "god", is the same as asking "How do you prove you love someone", "How do you prove an emotion". What "evidence" is there to prove any of these
    1. I love you
    What does that mean? How do you prove it? I buy you flowers, kiss you and make you breakfast in the morning, I'm there for you when you need me, etc
    -That doesn't prove anything, I can do the same for a homeless bum on the street that doesn't mean I love him.
    2. How do you prove you are angry/sad/happy/jealous
    I'm angry when someone punches me in the face and i get violent with them and display a certain facial expression
    -false, i can get violent with a random stranger on the road and display that same facial expression, that doesn't mean I'm angry.
    3.Evidence shows that when you're happy the brain releases a certain chemical
    -The brain also releases the same chemicals when you eat chocolate, that doesn't mean you are happy.
    Can someone prove to me or provide evidence of love? Also, how do you provide evidence for an emotion? How do you prove you are angry/jealous/sad?
    No matter what you say, I can and will always come up with another scenario in which the same thing happened, but with a different effect.

    QUESTION
    So does that mean that love/anger/jealousy/sadness/etc don't exist because we can't prove them or provide evidence?

    I think the problem most people in this thread don't seem to understand is that logic/science can't explain everything

    How do you explain EVPs, electronic voice phenomena? If we use purely logic here, it makes no sense. How can you take a tape recorder into an empty room, ask a couple questions, play back the tape and hear someone answering the questions you asked?
    Can someone explain that to me using logic?

    Faith's answer for these are ghost, spiritual beings that are not of the physical world.

    How do you explain psychics? Science has acknowledged their "abilities", and when they give readings they aren't taking random guesses, so how are they able to do what they do?
    Can someone explain that to me using logic?

    How do you prove that we weren't put on earth for a certain purpose? How do you prove that we were put on earth for a certain purpose?

    Faith is there to try and answer questions science/logic deems as phenomena or has no way of providing evidence to prove. WHY is this happening? Is there a reason for all this? etc

    Faith is what it is, faith. Just like an emotion, you can't prove it, nor can you disprove it. An attempt would only condradict itself.
    I've heard arguments like this a hundred times before. They don't impress me.

    You can bet that if God were readily falsifiable, religion would be all over the scientific method of analysis to assert their particular deity. It just so happens that there is no present way to scientifically conclude one way or another, beyond casting a profound shadow on the inherent likelihood, given what we presently know of the physical world.

    Oh, and emotions like "love" and "hate" are social constructions reinforced by neurochemical release. It's the individual expression that is subjective to the user, as each individual recreates past experience to fit what their particular rendition of each emotion "feels" like.

    As far as EVPs and the like, I don't see how pseudoscience relates to the premise at hand.

Similar Threads

  1. Faith of a Rationalist
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 09:16 PM
  2. Faith vs Faithfulness
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-01-2007, 07:10 AM
  3. Derail from "On Spiritual Gifts": Determining faith-fact from faith-fiction
    By sassafrassquatch in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-28-2007, 03:52 PM
  4. Mother Teresa's crisis of faith
    By Sahara in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-25-2007, 12:18 AM
  5. Survey on faith in America
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-22-2007, 03:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO