|
|
TC
Editor-in-Chief
Join date: May 1998
Location:
Posts: 6017
|
|
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another.—Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
 |
|
|
DBCooper
Level 0
Join date: Mar 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 6409
|
|
"Many confuse blind belief with faith. But blind belief eliminates the possibility that you may be wrong, whereas faith is to accept that you may be wrong, but to continue to believe despite this possibility."
-DB Cooper
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
IronSmithy
Level 1
Join date: Jul 2009
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 97
|
|
By definition ~ Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
ThePerfectDrug
Level 0
Join date: May 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1765
|
|
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
TheTick42
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2011
Location: British Columbia, CAN
Posts: 107
|
|
Faith is belief without proof, not in spite of it.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Pwrbldr4life
Level 0
Join date: Jan 2011
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 2610
|
|
Blind faith - I respect one's discipline in a belief but I also find blind faith (belief) to be the breeding ground of lunacy and fanaticism.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
TheTick42
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2011
Location: British Columbia, CAN
Posts: 107
|
|
Pwrbldr4life wrote:
Blind faith - I respect one's discipline in a belief but I also find blind faith (belief) to be the breeding ground of lunacy and fanaticism.
Nice.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Deorum
Level 0
Join date: Oct 2009
Location:
Posts: 1136
|
TheTick42 wrote:
Pwrbldr4life wrote:
Blind faith - I respect one's discipline in a belief but I also find blind faith (belief) to be the breeding ground of lunacy and fanaticism.
Nice.
x2
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Iron Dwarf
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 12881
|
|
I believe in the blind, and they believe in me... even though they can't see me.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
gurbob
Level 0
Join date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas, USA
Posts: 99
|
|
Blind faith - The breeding ground of lunacy and fanaticism.
edited it for ya, and made it describe my mother in law.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
rambodian
Level 0
Join date: Jun 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 209
|
|
Blind faith: because we live on a rock floating in space, so alone, it's no wonder there is want for more.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
ReformedRicky
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2012
Location: California, USA
Posts: 16
|
|
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.
I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.
this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
pgtips
Level 0
Join date: Aug 2011
Location: England
Posts: 694
|
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.
I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.
this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...
I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*
I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
americaninsweden
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 247
|
|
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."- Nietzsche.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
ReformedRicky
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2012
Location: California, USA
Posts: 16
|
pgtips wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.
I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.
this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...
I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*
I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")
you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.
if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING.
Richard Dawkins can't even believe in his own existence without borrowing a Theist's (namely Christian) worldview.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
ReformedRicky
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2012
Location: California, USA
Posts: 16
|
pgtips wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.
I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.
this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...
I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*
I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")
you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.
if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING.
Richard Dawkins can't even believe in his own existence without borrowing a Theist's (namely Christian) worldview.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
americaninsweden
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 247
|
ReformedRicky wrote:
pgtips wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.
I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.
this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...
I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*
I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")
you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.
if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING.
Richard Dawkins can't even believe in his own existence without borrowing a Theist's (namely Christian) worldview.
I haven't read Dawkins, i generally don't align with atheism and definitely not with theism. However, I think your concept of knowing is a bit odd. How can you know (truly, absolutely) a person (omnipotent or otherwise) without first having absolute knowledge in your scenario? It's flawed from the inception. Theology and Atheism, equally illogical.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
pgtips
Level 0
Join date: Aug 2011
Location: England
Posts: 694
|
ReformedRicky wrote:
pgtips wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.
I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.
this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...
I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*
I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")
you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.
if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING.
Richard Dawkins can't even believe in his own existence without borrowing a Theist's (namely Christian) worldview.
"you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.
if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING."
I think that is a very unbalanced view.
I think it totally depends on the topic.
In basic life. I need water to survive. I know this. call it instinct or common sense.
but on a mpre philosophical/religious vs science level
"The more you know, the less you know" springs to mind as a very tangible and relevant quote.
Humans as a species know nothing. Even though we know alot. Paradoxical but true.
With religion, I dont believe in anything divine, I believe we, life and the universe happened through perfect chance. I don't believe in any divine creator or builder.
So my original point is still valid. Nobody knows what is true, but everyones opinion is valid to a certain extent. Just my view swings more towards the scientific side.
sorry to ramble on
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
pgtips
Level 0
Join date: Aug 2011
Location: England
Posts: 694
|
americaninsweden wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
pgtips wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.
I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.
this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...
I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*
I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")
you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.
if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING.
Richard Dawkins can't even believe in his own existence without borrowing a Theist's (namely Christian) worldview.
I haven't read Dawkins, i generally don't align with atheism and definitely not with theism. However, I think your concept of knowing is a bit odd. How can you know (truly, absolutely) a person (omnipotent or otherwise) without first having absolute knowledge in your scenario? It's flawed from the inception. Theology and Atheism, equally illogical.
Dawkins is an interesting read. He's quite militantly atheist, which I don't particualy agree with, but he does make valid points none the less. I'd suggest reading at least one of his books.
What I was trying to get at is nobody knows anything on a deeper more profound level.
I'm atheist, to the extent that I really do believe there is no God and this is due to my interest and my limited knowledge in science.
I can say "look science proves this, proves that and also this." but even science doesnt know how the universe began. There is only theories. Just like religion is only a bunch theories, but rather outdated and quite illogical theories.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
americaninsweden
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 247
|
pgtips wrote:
americaninsweden wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
pgtips wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.
I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.
this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...
I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*
I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")
you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.
if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING.
Richard Dawkins can't even believe in his own existence without borrowing a Theist's (namely Christian) worldview.
I haven't read Dawkins, i generally don't align with atheism and definitely not with theism. However, I think your concept of knowing is a bit odd. How can you know (truly, absolutely) a person (omnipotent or otherwise) without first having absolute knowledge in your scenario? It's flawed from the inception. Theology and Atheism, equally illogical.
Dawkins is an interesting read. He's quite militantly atheist, which I don't particualy agree with, but he does make valid points none the less. I'd suggest reading at least one of his books.
What I was trying to get at is nobody knows anything on a deeper more profound level.
I'm atheist, to the extent that I really do believe there is no God and this is due to my interest and my limited knowledge in science.
I can say "look science proves this, proves that and also this." but even science doesnt know how the universe began. There is only theories. Just like religion is only a bunch theories, but rather outdated and quite illogical theories.
I think your science vs religion theory is a bit off. Theories in science are tested thousands of times and are essentially true, except that scientists can possibly test in all areas of the universe or in all circumstances. However, you are right that there is that shred of doubt in anything they say. See Einstein and the speed of light and relativity of time and now speed of light is no longer the constant (still under testing). They got some particle to travel faster, everything is fallible in science. However, Religion and its theories have none of that testing. God exists not because there have been 14,000 tests done and he is consistent but because of belief. It's a much much weaker starting point.
I don't bother with trying to know things absolutely or arguing things absolutely. My goal, in the spirit of relativists around the world (Dewey), is trying to obtain the best arguments and facts (using facts loosely) that our society can provide us through science and reason.
I am a firm agnostic, sounds ironic right? I was raised in a very religious household but that has lead me to the belief that the Christian God, in his biblical form, does not exist. However, another higher being's existence wouldn't altogether surprise me.
Sorry for the length and sporadic train of thought.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
pgtips
Level 0
Join date: Aug 2011
Location: England
Posts: 694
|
americaninsweden wrote:
pgtips wrote:
americaninsweden wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
pgtips wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.
I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.
this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...
I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*
I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")
you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.
if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING.
Richard Dawkins can't even believe in his own existence without borrowing a Theist's (namely Christian) worldview.
I haven't read Dawkins, i generally don't align with atheism and definitely not with theism. However, I think your concept of knowing is a bit odd. How can you know (truly, absolutely) a person (omnipotent or otherwise) without first having absolute knowledge in your scenario? It's flawed from the inception. Theology and Atheism, equally illogical.
Dawkins is an interesting read. He's quite militantly atheist, which I don't particualy agree with, but he does make valid points none the less. I'd suggest reading at least one of his books.
What I was trying to get at is nobody knows anything on a deeper more profound level.
I'm atheist, to the extent that I really do believe there is no God and this is due to my interest and my limited knowledge in science.
I can say "look science proves this, proves that and also this." but even science doesnt know how the universe began. There is only theories. Just like religion is only a bunch theories, but rather outdated and quite illogical theories.
I think your science vs religion theory is a bit off. Theories in science are tested thousands of times and are essentially true, except that scientists can possibly test in all areas of the universe or in all circumstances. However, you are right that there is that shred of doubt in anything they say. See Einstein and the speed of light and relativity of time and now speed of light is no longer the constant (still under testing). They got some particle to travel faster, everything is fallible in science. However, Religion and its theories have none of that testing. God exists not because there have been 14,000 tests done and he is consistent but because of belief. It's a much much weaker starting point.
I don't bother with trying to know things absolutely or arguing things absolutely. My goal, in the spirit of relativists around the world (Dewey), is trying to obtain the best arguments and facts (using facts loosely) that our society can provide us through science and reason.
I am a firm agnostic, sounds ironic right? I was raised in a very religious household but that has lead me to the belief that the Christian God, in his biblical form, does not exist. However, another higher being's existence wouldn't altogether surprise me.
Sorry for the length and sporadic train of thought.
Don't apologize. It's interesting toread.
"I think your science vs religion theory is a bit off. Theories in science are tested thousands of times and are essentially true, except that scientists can possibly test in all areas of the universe or in all circumstances. However, you are right that there is that shred of doubt in anything they say. See Einstein and the speed of light and relativity of time and now speed of light is no longer the constant (still under testing). They got some particle to travel faster, everything is fallible in science. However, Religion and its theories have none of that testing. God exists not because there have been 14,000 tests done and he is consistent but because of belief. It's a much much weaker starting point."
^ This I agree with and its almost what I was trying to get at.
With science... something that is a fact one minute, can become wrong, as new more efficient theories crop up. Science is run through testing theories and proving them "RIGHT" OR "WRONG" whereas religion is based of speculation, with no testng.
Science = Belief (theory) + Testing = conlusion
Religion = Belief (theory) = Conclusion
Both come to a conclusion, just one is much more reliable and rational than the other.
Just because science tests, and retests to come to a conclusion, it does not mean what we know currently take as fact is in actuality fact, because at any time new ideas can spring up and totaly change perception and concepts.
Science is constantly evolving, where religion seems to be stuck in a time warp that it can't get itself out of.
This is why I lean very heavily to the science side of thought, and why I'm very skeptical of a "God" figure in any form.
Why, God could even be a scientist working on a Hadron collider in an alternate universe, and we could be part of a Miniature big bang, that lasts seconds for that scientist in another dimension, but it could last eons for us.. haha
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
bcingu
Level 0
Join date: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 672
|
|
americaninsweden wrote:
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."- Nietzsche.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
jmm14da
Level 0
Join date: Dec 2011
Location:
Posts: 97
|
|
''Man wasn't meant to live in a cubical, he was meant to walk 60 miles a day and hunt sabertooth tigers with his bare hands.''
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
ReformedRicky
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2012
Location: California, USA
Posts: 16
|
|
"Science = Belief (theory) Testing = conlusion
Religion = Belief (theory) = Conclusion
Both come to a conclusion, just one is much more reliable and rational than the other."
This begs the questions: is the religion true or not?
If the religion is true, than that religion is millions of times more reliable than science because it is coming from an infinite all knowing being who has revealed truth to His creation. This kind of knowledge cannot be wrong and is not subject to human judgment.
of course this all come down to epistemology, the theory of knowledge. How does one obtain knowledge? or course pgtips knows that he needs water to survive. but why does he know this? is this, as he says "instinct"? did the instinct come before the need for water or after? how does he know, using a naturalistic worldview that if he doesn't drink water he will die. based on induction, he cannot make this statement because it has never happened to him before. sure we have cases of others who have died without water... but pgtips has never died without water. this is the problem with induction.
we know what we know because we are made in the image of God. atheists borrow the christian worldview to make absolute statements such as "i need water to survive". without borrowing the Christian worldview, you can only say "it was true that in the past people needed water to survive" but you cannot know if this will be true in the future or even true for you.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
pgtips
Level 0
Join date: Aug 2011
Location: England
Posts: 694
|
|
"This begs the questions: is the religion true or not?"
This brings me back to what I said earlier. Nobody knows. In my opinion, this is what makes it such an interesting topic. Theres so much possibility.
"If the religion is true, than that religion is millions of times more reliable than science because it is coming from an infinite all knowing being who has revealed truth to His creation. This kind of knowledge cannot be wrong and is not subject to human judgment."
Yes, if that happened (how/what/when/why?) it would be more reliable than science, but it hasn't and I highly doubt that it would ever happen, but thats not to say it will not happen. Which again leads me back to the "nobody knows" point.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
