CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › Christian right disrupts first Hindu prayer in the Senate.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Christian right disrupts first Hindu prayer in the Senate. - Page 5

post #201 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:34pm
When I wrote: If you believe that God doesn't exist now based on the evidence, and there will never be such evidence of God's existence, that means your atheism has elements of faith.

You (Guttenburg) replied: No, it doesn't. Oy.

Which is different from what you just stated above (post 105).
Reply
post #202 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:34pm
When I wrote: If you believe that God doesn't exist now based on the evidence, and there will never be such evidence of God's existence, that means your atheism has elements of faith.

You (Guttenburg) replied: No, it doesn't. Oy.

Which is different from what you just stated above (post 105).
Reply
post #203 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
he apparently does it just as a sort of intellectual exercise.
I guess you could call it that, but understand that I'm not just playing Devil's Advocate. There's a lot that religion and religious people have to offer, even if I don't buy some of the unifying principles underlying a given belief system.

Also, I don't like to let ignorance dictate the terms of any conversation. Most atheists (me included) don't know shit about the history of and philosophy behind religion. This tends to make wholesale dismissals laughable.
Reply
post #204 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
he apparently does it just as a sort of intellectual exercise.
I guess you could call it that, but understand that I'm not just playing Devil's Advocate. There's a lot that religion and religious people have to offer, even if I don't buy some of the unifying principles underlying a given belief system.

Also, I don't like to let ignorance dictate the terms of any conversation. Most atheists (me included) don't know shit about the history of and philosophy behind religion. This tends to make wholesale dismissals laughable.
Reply
post #205 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette
Yes, it does. It does not, however, take faith to believe that the big bang occurred, and that its ultimate cause is still unknown.

Seriously, you do NOT KNOW the difference between faith and belief, and you're not doing yourself any favors by continually proving that.
When you believe in something that is unprovable that is faith. So if you believe with certainty in any aspect of existence before the big bang ie:that there is no God and he had no hand in the creation of the universe, you have faith.

"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. "
-big-bang-theory.com

The big-bang is the effect. It is impossible to know what sparked existence, but I prefer to believe that sentience was the cause.
Reply
post #206 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette
Yes, it does. It does not, however, take faith to believe that the big bang occurred, and that its ultimate cause is still unknown.

Seriously, you do NOT KNOW the difference between faith and belief, and you're not doing yourself any favors by continually proving that.
When you believe in something that is unprovable that is faith. So if you believe with certainty in any aspect of existence before the big bang ie:that there is no God and he had no hand in the creation of the universe, you have faith.

"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. "
-big-bang-theory.com

The big-bang is the effect. It is impossible to know what sparked existence, but I prefer to believe that sentience was the cause.
Reply
post #207 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:44pm
nekerbee, if you don't believe in God, why would you believe that there will be a God in the future? That's not faith, that's logic. That doesn't mean if God came down from Heaven and showed his ID badge to prove who he is, they wouldn't change their mind.

Faith would be if God did prove his/her/its existence and Atheists denied it based solely on the fact that they don't believe in the thing standing/floating/doing keg stands in front of them.
Reply
post #208 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:44pm
nekerbee, if you don't believe in God, why would you believe that there will be a God in the future? That's not faith, that's logic. That doesn't mean if God came down from Heaven and showed his ID badge to prove who he is, they wouldn't change their mind.

Faith would be if God did prove his/her/its existence and Atheists denied it based solely on the fact that they don't believe in the thing standing/floating/doing keg stands in front of them.
Reply
post #209 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:48pm
Does anyone have "faith" that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?
Reply
post #210 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:48pm
Does anyone have "faith" that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?
Reply
post #211 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaPabLe
When you believe in something that is unprovable that is faith. So if you believe with certainty in any aspect of existence before the big bang ie:that there is no God and he had no hand in the creation of the universe, you have faith.
No, you don't.

It is a fundamental understanding that the onus of proof is on someone to prove something DOES exist, not that it doesn't exist. If you say you can fly, and I say you can't, it's not a matter of faith on my part to believe that you can't, it would be a matter of faith to believe that you could.
Reply
post #212 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaPabLe
When you believe in something that is unprovable that is faith. So if you believe with certainty in any aspect of existence before the big bang ie:that there is no God and he had no hand in the creation of the universe, you have faith.
No, you don't.

It is a fundamental understanding that the onus of proof is on someone to prove something DOES exist, not that it doesn't exist. If you say you can fly, and I say you can't, it's not a matter of faith on my part to believe that you can't, it would be a matter of faith to believe that you could.
Reply
post #213 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:49pm
Noooooooooooooo!
Reply
post #214 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:49pm
Noooooooooooooo!
Reply
post #215 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaPabLe
When you believe in something that is unprovable that is faith. So if you believe with certainty in any aspect of existence before the big bang ie:that there is no God and he had no hand in the creation of the universe, you have faith.

"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. "
-big-bang-theory.com

The big-bang is the effect. It is impossible to know what sparked existence, but I prefer to believe that sentience was the cause.
You seriously, seriously don't know what you're talking about. There's evidence that supports the big bang. Loads of it. There are quantifiable principles directly related to and derivative of the big bang. We can safely say that it occurred because we have observable phenomena to back it up. I'm not a physicist. I don't know how the big bang started.

But fuck it, by your reasoning, it was me. I did it. I caused the big bang. I whipped my giant cock out and waved it around a naked, swirling void of nothing, then farted real loud and squirted an ever expanding universe out of my holy, pulsating rectum. You can't prove it didn't happen. It's unprovable.
Reply
post #216 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaPabLe
When you believe in something that is unprovable that is faith. So if you believe with certainty in any aspect of existence before the big bang ie:that there is no God and he had no hand in the creation of the universe, you have faith.

"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. "
-big-bang-theory.com

The big-bang is the effect. It is impossible to know what sparked existence, but I prefer to believe that sentience was the cause.
You seriously, seriously don't know what you're talking about. There's evidence that supports the big bang. Loads of it. There are quantifiable principles directly related to and derivative of the big bang. We can safely say that it occurred because we have observable phenomena to back it up. I'm not a physicist. I don't know how the big bang started.

But fuck it, by your reasoning, it was me. I did it. I caused the big bang. I whipped my giant cock out and waved it around a naked, swirling void of nothing, then farted real loud and squirted an ever expanding universe out of my holy, pulsating rectum. You can't prove it didn't happen. It's unprovable.
Reply
post #217 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaPabLe
"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. "
-big-bang-theory.com
Nice cherry picking of quotes. Also from the site:

"So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we."

If the singularity existed, then something DID exist before the big bang. Besides, science has updated theory since the late 60's. Read Surge's post.
Reply
post #218 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaPabLe
"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. "
-big-bang-theory.com
Nice cherry picking of quotes. Also from the site:

"So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we."

If the singularity existed, then something DID exist before the big bang. Besides, science has updated theory since the late 60's. Read Surge's post.
Reply
post #219 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
I guess you could call it that, but understand that I'm not just playing Devil's Advocate. There's a lot that religion and religious people have to offer, even if I don't buy some of the unifying principles underlying a given belief system.

Also, I don't like to let ignorance dictate the terms of any conversation. Most atheists (me included) don't know shit about the history of and philosophy behind religion. This tends to make wholesale dismissals laughable.
What I meant is that your arguments for the merits of faith are not motivated by actual faith, but by intellectual honesty.

But you're often arguing for some hypothetical religious moderate's views, saying "I don't see anything wrong with believing X." And it's usually perfectly reasonable, I just would like to see someone who actually believes X argue for X.
Reply
post #220 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
I guess you could call it that, but understand that I'm not just playing Devil's Advocate. There's a lot that religion and religious people have to offer, even if I don't buy some of the unifying principles underlying a given belief system.

Also, I don't like to let ignorance dictate the terms of any conversation. Most atheists (me included) don't know shit about the history of and philosophy behind religion. This tends to make wholesale dismissals laughable.
What I meant is that your arguments for the merits of faith are not motivated by actual faith, but by intellectual honesty.

But you're often arguing for some hypothetical religious moderate's views, saying "I don't see anything wrong with believing X." And it's usually perfectly reasonable, I just would like to see someone who actually believes X argue for X.
Reply
post #221 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
Also, I don't like to let ignorance dictate the terms of any conversation. Most atheists (me included) don't know shit about the history of and philosophy behind religion. This tends to make wholesale dismissals laughable.
To be fair, you can know a great deal about religion and know almost nothing about it in the grand scheme of things. EDIT: I meant this as a compliment to you and to several other people in this thread who do seem to have a grasp on what we're talking about without resorting to wild generalizations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaPable
"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. "
-big-bang-theory.com
Come on. I'm all for debate, but if we're going to quote from elementary school textbooks, we're never going to get anywhere.
Reply
post #222 of 364
7/18/07 at 4:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
Also, I don't like to let ignorance dictate the terms of any conversation. Most atheists (me included) don't know shit about the history of and philosophy behind religion. This tends to make wholesale dismissals laughable.
To be fair, you can know a great deal about religion and know almost nothing about it in the grand scheme of things. EDIT: I meant this as a compliment to you and to several other people in this thread who do seem to have a grasp on what we're talking about without resorting to wild generalizations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaPable
"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. "
-big-bang-theory.com
Come on. I'm all for debate, but if we're going to quote from elementary school textbooks, we're never going to get anywhere.
Reply
post #223 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:04pm
What about Of Pandas and People? We'd at least all have a nice laugh.
Reply
post #224 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaPabLe
When you believe in something that is unprovable that is faith. So if you believe with certainty in any aspect of existence before the big bang ie:that there is no God and he had no hand in the creation of the universe, you have faith..
The Big Bang is not unprovable; in fact, it's pretty much been proven. Wikipedia "Big Bang" or "Hubble" to get the Cliff Notes version.

Also, the question of what existed "before" the Big Bang is much more complicated than you acknowledge, as most models posit that in addition to matter, it also created time. So there actually wasn't a "before". Or something. The implications are confusing, to say the least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaPabLe
The big-bang is the effect. It is impossible to know what sparked existence, but I prefer to believe that sentience was the cause.
You say it's impossible to know what caused the Big Bang, but you only say that to force the equivalency to your definition of God as "unknowable". Actually, there are several theories as to what caused it, which may be tested and proven or disproven when technology catches up with theory (which may not be for a very, very long time). Until then, if you choose to believe one explanation over the other, it's a matter of opinion, not faith.
Reply
post #225 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaPabLe
When you believe in something that is unprovable that is faith. So if you believe with certainty in any aspect of existence before the big bang ie:that there is no God and he had no hand in the creation of the universe, you have faith.

"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. "
-big-bang-theory.com

The big-bang is the effect. It is impossible to know what sparked existence, but I prefer to believe that sentience was the cause.
As GFC pointed out, the theory has been updated quite a bit, and "Nothing existing before" has never really been a part of the theory, as that assumes an asynchronous time scale outside of Space/Time that's integral to our universe to begin with (Whoa...Head Rush!) Again, try reading about M-Theory multi universe membranes as a possible scientific non-faith based solution to your "what existed before" dilemma.


Although after reading Brad's post, I'm now starting to lean towards the theory that Millette was responsible for everything.
Reply
post #226 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:09pm
I also created the Niagara Falls so I'd have a place to wash my gigantic socks.
Reply
post #227 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:11pm
Thing is, any theoretical physicist will tell you that the science is always changing. Steven Hawking has famously changed his mind on some of his own theories. You may see this as a weakness, but it's actually the strength of the fundamental difference between science-based belief and faith. Science is always looking for the answer, faith has already found it.
Reply
post #228 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:15pm
Since you're here, God (can I call you that?), I've always wondered: What's up with the Grand Canyon?
Reply
post #229 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:18pm
You know how in winter, some guys get drunk and write their names in the snow?

I write my name in the EARTH.

It just so happens that my name is an unpronounceable squiggle.
Reply
post #230 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:18pm
Millette isn't God, he's Loki.
Reply
post #231 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Thing is, any theoretical physicist will tell you that the science is always changing. Steven Hawking has famously changed his mind on some of his own theories. You may see this as a weakness, but it's actually the strength of the fundamental difference between science-based belief and faith. Science is always looking for the answer, faith has already found it.
I don't trust flip-floppers.
Reply
post #232 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:19pm
Ooohhh... remind me to never go swimming in the Colorado, then.
Reply
post #233 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:19pm
Guttenberg: Ultimately, I'm picking nits. I'm saying that predicting what will come tomorrow always has some element of faith, however small. Reason, history and experience tells me the sun will rise tomorrow. There is a tiny, tiny chance a wayward asteroid will obliterate the Earth at some point today, in which case the sun will not rise, at least from my (and the Earth's) perspective. So even though I'm confident the sun will rise tomorrow, and that confidence is almost entirely reasonable and logical, there's a wee bit of faith mixed in my confidence because I don't know for certain it will.

It's a trivial argument, so I don't really know why I bother.

For the record (if it matters), I'm not a person of faith at all. I'm agnostic, leaning so far towards God's non-existence I'm practically an atheist, and I believe in the supremacy of science and reason over faith and passion. But I used to be a "hard atheist", and it's the recogition that there is so much I, and mankind, just don't know that softened my position and opened me to at least seeing possibilities, even if they are extreme improbabilities.
Reply
post #234 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekkerbee
Guttenberg: Ultimately, I'm picking nits. I'm saying that predicting what will come tomorrow always has some element of faith, however small. Reason, history and experience tells me the sun will rise tomorrow. There is a tiny, tiny chance a wayward asteroid will obliterate the Earth at some point today, in which case the sun will not rise, at least from my (and the Earth's) perspective. So even though I'm confident the sun will rise tomorrow, and that confidence is almost entirely reasonable and logical, there's a wee bit of faith mixed in my confidence because I don't know for certain it will.

It's a trivial argument, so I don't really know why I bother.

For the record (if it matters), I'm not a person of faith at all. I'm agnostic, leaning so far towards God's non-existence I'm practically an atheist, and I believe in the supremacy of science and reason over faith and passion. But I used to be a "hard atheist", and it's the recogition that there is so much I, and mankind, just don't know that softened my position and opened me to at least seeing possibilities, even if they are extreme improbabilities.
In that case, the sun would still rise, we just wouldn't be here to see it. I don't think faith is implicated there. The real faith is that cause-and-effect and our physical laws are the laws of the universe, simply because they have always proven reliable before. We're taught (almost necessarily) by conditioning and a linear perception of time that this is the case, even though there's no reason that any of this is necessarily true. However, this sort of argument reduces all arguments to dust, and really takes us nowhere in this debate.
Reply
post #235 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:24pm
I don't know why the future has to play into it. Being an Atheist today doesn't take faith, and assuming you're doing to continue to be an Atheist in the future is just a logical conclusion from it.
Reply
post #236 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekkerbee
Guttenberg: Ultimately, I'm picking nits. I'm saying that predicting what will come tomorrow always has some element of faith, however small. Reason, history and experience tells me the sun will rise tomorrow. There is a tiny, tiny chance a wayward asteroid will obliterate the Earth at some point today, in which case the sun will not rise, at least from my (and the Earth's) perspective. So even though I'm confident the sun will rise tomorrow, and that confidence is almost entirely reasonable and logical, there's a wee bit of faith mixed in my confidence because I don't know for certain it will.

It's a trivial argument, so I don't really know why I bother.

For the record (if it matters), I'm not a person of faith at all. I'm agnostic, leaning so far towards God's non-existence I'm practically an atheist, and I believe in the supremacy of science and reason over faith and passion. But I used to be a "hard atheist", and it's the recogition that there is so much I, and mankind, just don't know that softened my position and opened me to at least seeing possibilities, even if they are extreme improbabilities.
It's not faith if you acknowledge that there is a miniscule chance that it won't happen. It's an empirical prediction with an extremely high but <100% accuracy. This is why I call myself an atheist when asked instead of an agnostic, although I'd be happy to be proven wrong about the existence of God. I don't have faith that God doesn't exist, but I see no evidence for it and assign it a very, very low probability of it being the case. "Agnostic" makes me sound more wishy-washy in my opinion than I am.
Reply
post #237 of 364
7/18/07 at 5:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
I don't know why the future has to play into it. Being an Atheist today doesn't take faith, and assuming you're doing to continue to be an Atheist in the future is just a logical conclusion from it.
I am, among many things, a husband, an American citizen, a libertarian, a homeowner, not blind, not crippled, etc. The probability that I will still be all these things tomorrow, next month, and till the day I die is (I hope) very high. But given everything that might possibly occur between now and when I cease to exist, to think I will definitely be all these things allows for a degree of faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwatrz
I don't have faith that God doesn't exist, but I see no evidence for it and assign it a very, very low probability of it being the case.
But you do assign a non-zero possibility that you're wrong.
Reply
post #238 of 364
7/18/07 at 6:08pm
Here it is as simply as possible...

If belief in God requires faith, then that means the alternative is to not have faith. Atheism is the absence of faith by its very definition.

Whether or not at some point in the future - which may or may not even exist, stoners - God is proven to be real, then everything flips and those who believe in God do not have faith and those who still deny his existence do have it.
Reply
post #239 of 364
7/18/07 at 6:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekkerbee
I am, among many things, a husband, an American citizen, a libertarian, a homeowner, not blind, not crippled, etc. The probability that I will still be all these things tomorrow, next month, and till the day I die is (I hope) very high. But given everything that might possibly occur between now and when I cease to exist, to think I will definitely be all these things allows for a degree of faith.
It's not faith to assume you won't be crippled or blind in the future.
Reply
post #240 of 364
7/18/07 at 6:18pm
I'm pretty sure everyone who is blinded or crippled today, and who thought for sure they would be able-bodied tomorrow, would disagree.
Reply
post #241 of 364
7/18/07 at 6:20pm
No they fucking wouldn't. Because a great many of them could recognize the difference between faith and just thinking something.
Reply
post #242 of 364
7/18/07 at 6:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekkerbee
I'm pretty sure everyone who is blinded or crippled today, and who thought for sure they would be able-bodied tomorrow, would disagree.
Thinking you'll be able-bodied for the rest of your life isn't faith, it's an assumption based on odds.
Reply
post #243 of 364
7/18/07 at 6:30pm
Let's just define the term (although it's already been done in this thread): Faith is the belief in something that is inherently unprovable.

Although your paralysis tomorrow is unprovable today, it will be very provable tomorrow, and is not an article of faith.
Reply
post #244 of 364
7/18/07 at 6:41pm
If you believe in the certainty of something without proof (proof, not just evidence), there is an element of faith involved.

Your arguments haven't made me think any differently. My arguments haven't made you think any differently. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. This ain't gonna change.

It's a beautiful day. Let's agree to disagree and go have a beer.
Reply
post #245 of 364
7/18/07 at 6:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekkerbee
If you believe in the certainty of something without proof (proof, not just evidence), there is an element of faith involved.
You're the only one who's talking about certainty. The rest of us are saying that we think the sun will rise and we probably won't be too crippled or blind to see it. In fact, it's so probable that we say we believe it will be the case.

That's all this is; two different contexts of the word "believe". It's not a philosophical or metaphysical point, it's a semantic one, and you're objectively wrong about it.
Reply
post #246 of 364
7/18/07 at 7:04pm
Argument time is over. Beer time now.
Reply
post #247 of 364
7/18/07 at 7:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekkerbee
Argument time is over. Beer time now.

He knows how much you've been drinking recently, nekkerbee.
Reply
post #248 of 364
7/18/07 at 7:15pm
Awesome. Y'know, I've always thought it would be cool to create images like that and sell them to true believers. For example, burn an image of Christ onto a piece of toast using a creme brulee torch, then sell it on eBay.
Reply
post #249 of 364
7/18/07 at 7:31pm
Something or Someone sparked existence(pre big bang,pre-radiation that caused big bang,whatever). I think God did it. What do you guys think?
Reply
post #250 of 364
7/18/07 at 7:35pm
Quote:
Something or Someone sparked existence
Why do you think this is true?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religion A-Z
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › Christian right disrupts first Hindu prayer in the Senate.