hello TheAtheistPaladin I just watched this video and wanted to clear up a few things. 1. my original intent in conversing with CapnOrdinary was to find out the benefit of atheism, he was unable to provide aby!! 2. I reject abiogenesis because I dont believe that inanimate matter can just come to life and start thinking on its own (call me crazy)!! 3. If someone had a gun to your head would you demand proof of a bullet in the chamber before you ducked?? By being atheist that is what you're doing
2. I would disbelieve in a such a thing too but that is not abiogenesis. Matter just got up and started thinking. Overall it is just a lack of imagination. Just because you can not conceive it too be true does not negate that it is.
3. All you have done is make god sound like a rapist. Second, if hell is what I deserve and I believe in personal accountability then I must go there. Third, I don't think hell is just so I will not worship a god that made it.
Abiogenesis is the idea that innate matter started thinking (basically) wiki it!!!!
what you wish does not affect the truth, you can wish that you were a millionaire, but without hard word u aint never gonna get there brother!!! trust me u want to go to heaven if there is one!!
"Third, I don't think hell is just so I will not worship a god that made it."
I mean how does being atheist benefit you personally??
trust me u want to go to heaven and avoid hell if they are real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"what you wish does not affect the truth"
You're telling me?!? Same goes for you kiddo!"
kiddo, Im a 26 year old econ student at SDSU!!!! being that we cant affect the truth do you think it is wise to go with the choice that seems most likely to give you a positive result (with anything in life)????
"I mean how does being atheist benefit you personally?"
I can get to all the good things without religious baggage. Like charity for example. Instead of giving money to a church where less than 3% on average goes to something other than expenses and helps someone. I could give to an organization that has little overhead cost. Second, doubt wouldn't be a "sin" thus allowing free inquiry. Third, self worth. No matter how you spin it the doctrine of "original sin" is a negative view on self.
"the truth do you think it is wise to go with the choice that seems most likely to give you a positive result (with anything in life)?"
The MORE I have to invest my life, the LESS I rely on "positive results" and MORE on the one that is more likely. If I simply relied on "positive results" then I would have bankrupted my-self with lotto tickets. So there is a obvious flaw in such strategies.
actually Christians are responsible for much of the good in the world think about all the soup kitchens, and aid to foreign countries, even MLK!!! plus most of the great scientists have been theists including newton and einstein!!.
so Youre sayin given the coice u actually prefer hell, than I cant help u?????
how does buying lotto tickets give you a positive result???????????????????
I didn't say they DON'T do any good. I just saying I can do the same things without the religious agenda i.e. "evangelism" and without wasting money on a building that all it does is take up space 6 days a week i.e. church. Secondly, Einstein was a pantheist or deist. Nothing like you at all. Third, name a 20th century noble prize winner that believes in all the tenets of Christianity. I don't think you can.
But where they creationists? Did they not ridicule the church in anyway? Did they take everything on blind faith? No. That is what I meant by ALL the tenets.
"But where they creationists? Did they not ridicule the church in anyway? Did they take everything on blind faith? No. That is what I meant by ALL the tenets."
some were creationists, heck no, they didnt ridicule the church, and believe it or not a lot were actually very religious. look it up all the info you seek is at your fingertips!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Max Planck, This is what wiki said: "but he was very tolerant towards alternative views and religions, and so was discontented with the church organizations' demands for unquestioning belief."
So that is a no. As for the rest I found very little of anything.
thats cool, good research my friend, but to answer your question, there are plenty of nobel prize winners from the 20-21st centuries that followed the tenets of christinaity...just google it and like hundreds pop up!!
Holding something as 'provisionally true' is still faith. Faith is simply trusting. You are trusting this 'theory' to be an accurate reflection of reality. Being 'provisionally true' just tells me how fast (and by what conditions) you are willing to change this trust.
My faith is similar to yours. After examining historical, scientific, philosophical, and moral/ethical data, I have concluded that Christianity is the most rational and reasonable faith.
No that is not faith in the slightest. Faith by definition is believing in something without or in spite of evidence. And what you many have faith in may not explain anything at all. When theist talk about faith it is in religious context. Nobody is denying that they trust anything but rather that they have "faith" in it. So,By placing conditions you completely destroy "faith". Faith is a tricky word which can have many meanings under the context. That is why it is better to define before hand.
I never said faith is a theory. I don't understand where you got that, or what you mean. Trust in anything (including a scientific theory) is faith. And yes, believing a theory is true does require faith. If you study philosophy at all, you will learn nothing is absolutely provable. This is why science is full of postulates, laws and axioms--unprovable presuppositions. For instance, quantum mechanics has four axioms upon which it stands. We must trust their validity.
I am sorry, I misread your comment. I still hold that you must trust (have faith in) the validity of the foundational presuppositions of a theory. Evidence only supports the theory, but it does not remove trusting its validity. It does make it more reasonable to believe that theory is true, though.
We can reasonably prove things, yes. But we cannot prove things absolutely. Within PoS, there are criteria for calling a theory proven. Your claim is a philosopher's nightmare.
Again, who believes that they have a 100% certainty? Nobody, but even in the lack of "absolutes" why is it reasonable to assert "god-did-it" just because of that lack? I do not think that is reasonable at all.
Dictionary [dot] com, for example, gives 1) confidence or trust in a person or thing, 2) believe without PROOF, and many others. However, none of them say "belief without evidence."
Proof is not the same as evidence. You are incorrect.
Evidence SUPPORTS a theory. Proof is a systematic method of saying a theory is true. Many false theories have evidences [e.g. Phlogisten, Newtonian Mechanics]. Science, as a practice, gets more evidence IN ORDER to DISPROVE theories.
noun 1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence 2. unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets, etc. 3. a religion or a system of religious beliefs 4. anything believed 5. complete trust, confidence, or reliance 6. allegiance to some person or thing; loyalty
You guys are leaving out a significant factor in this discussion I think. That is, fact.
Facts are proven. That gravity exists is a fact. The theory of how and why gravity works is not a fact, it is not proven. Those words simply don't apply to scientific theories any more than faith applies to facts (or theories).
I have already defined the type of faith we are talking about. I am talking about MORE than just trusting. Trust that is base on some justification is reasonable, therefore a justified belief but not the same a religious belief or "faith". So your equating of a belief in validity of a scientific theory verses faith in a creator is different by comparison. Specially when you get down to the brass tacks of WHY each believes in it.
But I disagree! As a Christian, I arrive at my faith by careful inspection of the historical, scientific, philosophical, theological, and moral/ethical data (i.e. evidence). So there might be a difference for some, but not for me. Your statement "So your equating of a belief in validity of a scientific theory verses faith in a creator is different by comparison." is therefore not absolutely true, only true for some. I believe Christianity's claims BECAUSE it is most reasonable and rational.
Heb 11:1 and 2 Cor. 5:7, faith has nothing to do with evidence or justifications. Therefor you do not have the faith that I am talking about. Just because you believe you arrived to christianity threw you reason and intellect, it does not negate my points on religious faith is not the same. YOU DON'T have religious faith, again you have a justified belief. Its not the same thing!
Both of those passages talk about how faith is not sight. This does not preclude faith from being a justified belief (using your terminology). Certainly my justified belief is not sight. I have not seen God. I have not touched Jesus' hands, nor seen their markings. I have faith that this is all true, though I have arrived at this faith by logical deduction. Yes, faith can have something "to do with evidence or justifications".
Then I would have to end the discussion here. If we can not agree on definitions then there is no point in arguing. I think Hebrews makes it clear that faith is not based on the outside world or evidence, but if you disagree again the is no more point in arguing.
Many scientists in this area have become frustrated because there is just a dearth of reasonable ideas how abiogenesis could have happened on earth. Crick (DNA discoverer) has decided that life must have come to Earth as seeds or spores, because it just couldn't have happened here. he thought maybe in some other solar system more time and more favorable circumstances allowed it. To me, that takes as much faith as believing God, since we have zero evidence of such spores or seeds.
hello TheAtheistPaladin I just watched this video and wanted to clear up a few things. 1. my original intent in conversing with CapnOrdinary was to find out the benefit of atheism, he was unable to provide aby!! 2. I reject abiogenesis because I dont believe that inanimate matter can just come to life and start thinking on its own (call me crazy)!! 3. If someone had a gun to your head would you demand proof of a bullet in the chamber before you ducked?? By being atheist that is what you're doing
tonybonez 3 years ago
1. define "benefit of atheism"
2. I would disbelieve in a such a thing too but that is not abiogenesis. Matter just got up and started thinking. Overall it is just a lack of imagination. Just because you can not conceive it too be true does not negate that it is.
3. All you have done is make god sound like a rapist. Second, if hell is what I deserve and I believe in personal accountability then I must go there. Third, I don't think hell is just so I will not worship a god that made it.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
benefit---An advantage, help or aid!!
Abiogenesis is the idea that innate matter started thinking (basically) wiki it!!!!
what you wish does not affect the truth, you can wish that you were a millionaire, but without hard word u aint never gonna get there brother!!! trust me u want to go to heaven if there is one!!
"Third, I don't think hell is just so I will not worship a god that made it."
dont try to use mans logic to judge god!!
GOD IS NOT A RAPIST!!!!!!!!!!
tonybonez 3 years ago
1. Sorry, I still don't know what you are looking for.
2. Your lost cause. That is not on wiki.
3. I say again. I will not under any circumstances worship a god that made hell. PERIOD.
"what you wish does not affect the truth"
You're telling me?!? Same goes for you kiddo!
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
I mean how does being atheist benefit you personally??
trust me u want to go to heaven and avoid hell if they are real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"what you wish does not affect the truth"
You're telling me?!? Same goes for you kiddo!"
kiddo, Im a 26 year old econ student at SDSU!!!! being that we cant affect the truth do you think it is wise to go with the choice that seems most likely to give you a positive result (with anything in life)????
tonybonez 3 years ago
"I mean how does being atheist benefit you personally?"
I can get to all the good things without religious baggage. Like charity for example. Instead of giving money to a church where less than 3% on average goes to something other than expenses and helps someone. I could give to an organization that has little overhead cost. Second, doubt wouldn't be a "sin" thus allowing free inquiry. Third, self worth. No matter how you spin it the doctrine of "original sin" is a negative view on self.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
"trust me u want to go to heaven and avoid hell if they are real!"
Oh just in case you missed it here it is again: I will not under [b]any circumstances[/b] worship a god that made hell. PERIOD.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
"the truth do you think it is wise to go with the choice that seems most likely to give you a positive result (with anything in life)?"
The MORE I have to invest my life, the LESS I rely on "positive results" and MORE on the one that is more likely. If I simply relied on "positive results" then I would have bankrupted my-self with lotto tickets. So there is a obvious flaw in such strategies.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
actually Christians are responsible for much of the good in the world think about all the soup kitchens, and aid to foreign countries, even MLK!!! plus most of the great scientists have been theists including newton and einstein!!.
so Youre sayin given the coice u actually prefer hell, than I cant help u?????
how does buying lotto tickets give you a positive result???????????????????
tonybonez 3 years ago
I didn't say they DON'T do any good. I just saying I can do the same things without the religious agenda i.e. "evangelism" and without wasting money on a building that all it does is take up space 6 days a week i.e. church. Secondly, Einstein was a pantheist or deist. Nothing like you at all. Third, name a 20th century noble prize winner that believes in all the tenets of Christianity. I don't think you can.
Thank you for finally realizing that.
What you don't know what the lotto is?
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
Max Planck, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Arthur Schawlow, William D. Phillip......i could go on all day look it up for yourself duhhhh!!!!!!
tonybonez 3 years ago
But where they creationists? Did they not ridicule the church in anyway? Did they take everything on blind faith? No. That is what I meant by ALL the tenets.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
"But where they creationists? Did they not ridicule the church in anyway? Did they take everything on blind faith? No. That is what I meant by ALL the tenets."
some were creationists, heck no, they didnt ridicule the church, and believe it or not a lot were actually very religious. look it up all the info you seek is at your fingertips!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tonybonez 3 years ago
Max Planck, This is what wiki said: "but he was very tolerant towards alternative views and religions, and so was discontented with the church organizations' demands for unquestioning belief."
So that is a no. As for the rest I found very little of anything.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
thats cool, good research my friend, but to answer your question, there are plenty of nobel prize winners from the 20-21st centuries that followed the tenets of christinaity...just google it and like hundreds pop up!!
tonybonez 3 years ago
Followed some of the tenets but never all. That is what I am getting at. So there are some flaws to say the least.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
yeah the bible probably has some flaws!!!! so I can undersand that position!!!!!!!!!
tonybonez 3 years ago
Appreciate the commentary. I guess you already know I agree with you ;o)
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
Theist are very frustrating. They ask you for a 100% certainty, yet they are willing to live their lives by faith... very confusing.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
Holding something as 'provisionally true' is still faith. Faith is simply trusting. You are trusting this 'theory' to be an accurate reflection of reality. Being 'provisionally true' just tells me how fast (and by what conditions) you are willing to change this trust.
My faith is similar to yours. After examining historical, scientific, philosophical, and moral/ethical data, I have concluded that Christianity is the most rational and reasonable faith.
Look2Logic 3 years ago
No that is not faith in the slightest. Faith by definition is believing in something without or in spite of evidence. And what you many have faith in may not explain anything at all. When theist talk about faith it is in religious context. Nobody is denying that they trust anything but rather that they have "faith" in it. So,By placing conditions you completely destroy "faith". Faith is a tricky word which can have many meanings under the context. That is why it is better to define before hand.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
look2logic
i dont see what you are saying here: faith in a theory?
a scientific theory by definition: is a combination of laws, facts, tested hypothesis and a lot of other stuff,
believing a theory is true does not require faith, because the theory has supporting evidence
naomi94 3 years ago 2
I never said faith is a theory. I don't understand where you got that, or what you mean. Trust in anything (including a scientific theory) is faith. And yes, believing a theory is true does require faith. If you study philosophy at all, you will learn nothing is absolutely provable. This is why science is full of postulates, laws and axioms--unprovable presuppositions. For instance, quantum mechanics has four axioms upon which it stands. We must trust their validity.
Look2Logic 3 years ago
i never said that you said faith IS a theory
one does not need trust in a theory - a theory has evidence - ERGO - faith is not needed
i have studied philosophy of science, and things are provable, we do it all the time, every day
naomi94 3 years ago 2
I am sorry, I misread your comment. I still hold that you must trust (have faith in) the validity of the foundational presuppositions of a theory. Evidence only supports the theory, but it does not remove trusting its validity. It does make it more reasonable to believe that theory is true, though.
We can reasonably prove things, yes. But we cannot prove things absolutely. Within PoS, there are criteria for calling a theory proven. Your claim is a philosopher's nightmare.
Look2Logic 3 years ago
Again, who believes that they have a 100% certainty? Nobody, but even in the lack of "absolutes" why is it reasonable to assert "god-did-it" just because of that lack? I do not think that is reasonable at all.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
Who said anything about asserting "god-did-it" as an argument. God did do it, but there are ACTUAL arguments that people use.
I agree that this is not a reasonable response at all. It is barely a response. But also, no one has used this argument here.
Look2Logic 3 years ago
"But also, no one has used this argument here."
Maybe not "here" but I stated in my video where I am commenting on others that do.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
faith = belief without evidence
scientific theories = have evidence
ergo: faith not needed to find scientific theories are correct
naomi94 3 years ago
If that is how you define faith, then yes. But it disagrees with a lot of dictionaries.
Look2Logic 3 years ago
that is the definition of faith
you can not change a word just to suit your own agenda
you are wrong on this point
humility is an admiral quality, a hero admits when they are wrong
a hero does not try to change the meaning of words because it is convienent to them at the moment
naomi94 3 years ago
Find a dictionary that uses your definition, and I will concede.
Look2Logic 3 years ago
Dictionary [dot] com, for example, gives 1) confidence or trust in a person or thing, 2) believe without PROOF, and many others. However, none of them say "belief without evidence."
Look2Logic 3 years ago
without proof is without evidence
naomi94 3 years ago
Proof is not the same as evidence. You are incorrect.
Evidence SUPPORTS a theory. Proof is a systematic method of saying a theory is true. Many false theories have evidences [e.g. Phlogisten, Newtonian Mechanics]. Science, as a practice, gets more evidence IN ORDER to DISPROVE theories.
Look2Logic 3 years ago
in the sense in which you are using it, regarding the definition of faith, that is what it is
faith = belief without evidence
you are trying to play a game with words
faith= belief without evidence
naomi94 3 years ago
faith (fāt̸h)
noun 1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence 2. unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets, etc. 3. a religion or a system of religious beliefs 4. anything believed 5. complete trust, confidence, or reliance 6. allegiance to some person or thing; loyalty
naomi94 3 years ago
Ok. Which dictionary is that from, if I might ask?
Look2Logic 3 years ago
yourdictionary(dot)com
naomi94 3 years ago
You guys are leaving out a significant factor in this discussion I think. That is, fact.
Facts are proven. That gravity exists is a fact. The theory of how and why gravity works is not a fact, it is not proven. Those words simply don't apply to scientific theories any more than faith applies to facts (or theories).
Brianswers 3 years ago
I have already defined the type of faith we are talking about. I am talking about MORE than just trusting. Trust that is base on some justification is reasonable, therefore a justified belief but not the same a religious belief or "faith". So your equating of a belief in validity of a scientific theory verses faith in a creator is different by comparison. Specially when you get down to the brass tacks of WHY each believes in it.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
But I disagree! As a Christian, I arrive at my faith by careful inspection of the historical, scientific, philosophical, theological, and moral/ethical data (i.e. evidence). So there might be a difference for some, but not for me. Your statement "So your equating of a belief in validity of a scientific theory verses faith in a creator is different by comparison." is therefore not absolutely true, only true for some. I believe Christianity's claims BECAUSE it is most reasonable and rational.
Look2Logic 3 years ago
Heb 11:1 and 2 Cor. 5:7, faith has nothing to do with evidence or justifications. Therefor you do not have the faith that I am talking about. Just because you believe you arrived to christianity threw you reason and intellect, it does not negate my points on religious faith is not the same. YOU DON'T have religious faith, again you have a justified belief. Its not the same thing!
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
Both of those passages talk about how faith is not sight. This does not preclude faith from being a justified belief (using your terminology). Certainly my justified belief is not sight. I have not seen God. I have not touched Jesus' hands, nor seen their markings. I have faith that this is all true, though I have arrived at this faith by logical deduction. Yes, faith can have something "to do with evidence or justifications".
Look2Logic 3 years ago
Then I would have to end the discussion here. If we can not agree on definitions then there is no point in arguing. I think Hebrews makes it clear that faith is not based on the outside world or evidence, but if you disagree again the is no more point in arguing.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
You also are mischaracterizing the arguments for God. It isn't just a dearth of scientific arguments.
74BobLilly 3 years ago
Many scientists in this area have become frustrated because there is just a dearth of reasonable ideas how abiogenesis could have happened on earth. Crick (DNA discoverer) has decided that life must have come to Earth as seeds or spores, because it just couldn't have happened here. he thought maybe in some other solar system more time and more favorable circumstances allowed it. To me, that takes as much faith as believing God, since we have zero evidence of such spores or seeds.
74BobLilly 3 years ago
As long as, he would refused to change his mind if something showed other wise, then yes.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago