Author Topic: Any comments are welcome  (Read 3402 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eddie Schultz

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
  • Darwins +5/-0
Any comments are welcome
« on: May 25, 2009, 01:00:28 PM »
I sent my Christian brother some quotes from nobeliefs dot net to ponder...this was the first one which I feel suits all believers in "a god". His response follows.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."

--Carl Sagan


Hey bro, I read most of the quotes and checked some links.
  
When I send you some quotes I'm sure that you will laugh, as I did reading the ones you sent, not to disrespect you or the ones who made the quotes, and course you and I know that when we find and send this info we really don't know if they are all accurate.
  
The quote by Senaca on Religion, (To the believers it is true. To the wise it is false. To the leaders it is useful.. Senaca, on religion) If I were an Atheist or Evolutionist (which takes a lot of faith) I would not shy away from mentioning that millions more people were murdered in the name of Atheism/Darwinism then all religions combined. To name a few: Pol-pot, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, (hated Christianity), and had Atheist by his side when ordering the slaughter of millions of Jews, hating and killing minorities, those w/o light colored hair with green or blue eyes. He may have been raised Catholic but held to the Darwinian Theory of  "Survival of the fittest", hence killing of the Jews.
  Margaret Sanger is another who held to the Darwinian Theory of "Survival of the fittest". Instrumental in the creation of  "Planned Parenthood" who have many abortion clinics in the ghetto's and poor neighborhoods that are highly populated by blacks and people of color. 40,000,000 + babies slaughtered thus far.
  When I mentioned Liberals (w/ haste) while talking to you the other night it was because there are extreme groups who want it to be legal for Children under 18 maybe as young as 14 to be able to have an abortion w/o their parents consent (knowing), what is your thought about that?. Woman or girls who have an abortion (sometimes when the child can survive out of the womb, 6,7,8 months plus in the womb, having it's skull crushed, so that it will be easier pulled from the mothers vagina).
  Studies show that the females chances are higher that she will develop breast cancer, and have trauma through out her life knowing that she gave permission for a doctor ($) to murder her baby ($). Abortion = Murder, there's no denying that.
   And as you know, an Atheist / Evolutionist believes that all of the complex life and the Eco-system that we see here on this privileged planet, (you can't deny because our precise location in our solar system).With the other planets this is not the case, no life.
   With evidence of information (w/o an Informer) in DNA, Life of all animals and humans obvious intricate bodily functions and life being able to reproduce. Atheist say that this all has no reason, but a mere Accident. What's the odds of that?. 1 in x million. Check a mathematicians odds on us evolving from lower life forms.
    If you thought for a minute, that (just maybe) the NKJV bible could be true you would see what it says. The same spirit that you saw and felt (your evidence) when Isabella was acting out, etc.and that was showing me michele's #'s 444 sometimes several times a day, and the Psychic that some how knew we were having a baby girl in 3 months from the time I received the call.
   This is what it says:
   "Whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them". 2 Cor 4:4.
    The god of this age is the father of all lies, roaring as a lion, trying to steal, kill and destroy, (marriages, families etc.) You may not believe the bible, and this is why (it's spiritual, I think you believe in spirituality) many don't until they humble themselves and cry out to the one who dad and mom called on. Don't let the devil get his way on you not seeing dad again. If you are too proud and all knowing than you may never call on Jesus.
   And we do talk to ourselves, usually silent. if that's crazy, then why can't you say "are you real" can you put someone in my life so that I know, or give me discernment for what ever you want me to discern.  
   If you wish to believe that you do not have a soul or spirit than you are believing the lie and will miss out on seeing loved ones who did not reject, but believed in Jesus and that he took our sins, ransom paid in full.
   A Creationist or someone who believes in a supreme God or god, not from this realm or dimension,
   A belief often taught but also experienced, A faith and reality because of what is seen, the same today, yesterday and the forever. Science as you said " is suppose to be wrong, and or tends to be wrong. often changing. Real Science must be real examinable or it's just a hypothesis or theory..
     I love you and you all. I do love the one that took my sins first and foremost, I see nothing wrong with that. I love all even Bin Laden. Hate is a detriment to society/world.

I'm looking for someone to break it down, so I can send him your responses. I have been over this with him for the past three years, and from what I've learned, his belief is that we can't be moral without a belief in "a god" But he is also a YEC, doesn't believe carbon dating is reliable, or accurate, doesn't see enough links in the evolutionary chain....you get the picture.

Thanks in advance,
Eddie





« Last Edit: May 25, 2009, 01:46:06 PM by Eddie Schultz »

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2009, 01:32:48 PM »
Your brother is really a bit dim isn't he.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline PinkMilk

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2009, 01:44:30 PM »
The quote by Senaca on Religion, (To the believers it is true. To the wise it is false. To the leaders it is useful.. Senaca, on religion) If I were an Atheist or Evolutionist (which takes a lot of faith) I would not shy away from mentioning that millions more people were murdered in the name of Atheism/Darwinism then all religions combined. To name a few: Pol-pot, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, (hated Christianity), and had Atheist by his side when ordering the slaughter of millions of Jews, hating and killing minorities, those w/o light colored hair with green or blue eyes. He may have been raised Catholic but held to the Darwinian Theory of  "Survival of the fittest", hence killing of the Jews.
The first mistake in this response is that no one has ever killed anyone and claimed that it was for atheism or Darwinism.  That's absurd.  As far as those he lists as atheists, while it has been proven they are not atheists, it still does not mean they acted in the name of atheism.  He seems to really like the Hitler example, so let's go with that one.  He never said once, not even in his final solution, that it was in the name of atheism or Darwinism. Your brother is also misrepresenting "survival of the fittest".  Hitler committed genocide, which means even the most fit person stood no chance. Survival of the fittest implies that in nature, weaker creatures are less likely to create future generations (for a number of reasons, one being that they won't survive long enough to reproduce).  I'd also like to know how evolution requires faith, when it is observable and is extensively documented through fossil records and DNA?  And how does atheism require faith?  Atheism by definition is an absence of faith.
Quote
  Margaret Sanger is another who held to the Darwinian Theory of "Survival of the fittest". Instrumental in the creation of  "Planned Parenthood" who have many abortion clinics in the ghetto's and poor neighborhoods that are highly populated by blacks and people of color. 40,000,000 + babies slaughtered thus far.
Again a gross misrepresentation of Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest. 
Quote
  When I mentioned Liberals (w/ haste) while talking to you the other night it was because there are extreme groups who want it to be illegal for Children under 18 maybe as young as 14 to be able to have an abortion w/o their parents consent (knowing), what is your thought about that?. Woman or girls who have an abortion (sometimes when the child can survive out of the womb, 6,7,8 months plus in the womb, having it's skull crushed, so that it will be easier pulled from the mothers vagina).
This gets into a whole debate about abortion.  I am personally pro-choice, but I am against (though would not stop anyone from getting) late term abortions outside of medical reasons.  This is just a set up for a huge debate over rather abortions are right or wrong.  You can obviously tell he is pro-life as he takes many of the cliche tactics when presenting the idea of abortion, such as describing a grotesque process.
Quote
  Studies show that the females chances are higher that she will develop breast cancer, and have trauma through out her life knowing that she gave permission for a doctor ($) to murder her baby ($). Abortion = Murder, there's no denying that.
Those studies have actually been dissproven.  If you look on the thread called Morality of IVF and abortion, etc.  or something like that, on the last page there are links to the study that stated a link and then links to the more recent studies that disprove the earlier findings.  As far as abortion = murder, there is denying that because I do.  And unless I don't exist, then there is denying that.
Quote
   And as you know, an Atheist / Evolutionist believes that all of the complex life and the Eco-system that we see here on this privileged planet, (you can't deny because our precise location in our solar system).With the other planets this is not the case, no life.
   With evidence of information (w/o an Informer) in DNA, Life of all animals and humans obvious intricate bodily functions and life being able to reproduce. Atheist say that this all has no reason, but a mere Accident. What's the odds of that?. 1 in x million. Check a mathematicians odds on us evolving from lower life forms.
This is another cliche argument made by religious people. Simply because the odds are not small does not dictate a creator.  The simple fact is that the conditions on earth were conducive to and allowed for living creatures to develop.  We as humans exist as we currently do through the process of evolution.  I'd highly suggest you find some sources explaining evolution as it really is, as he seems to have misunderstanding about what evolution is and what it says.  Evolution does not explain how life began, simply how it adapts to time and environment.  I also have to question what he means by our "precious location in our solar system"?  There is evidence of water on Mars.  While this is not proof of life nor a claim of life on Mars, it does show that Mars is/was conducive for supporting life figures, however it did not happen. I also think it is illogical to think that Earth is the only planet in the universe that sustains life. Atheists don't say anything about how life came about, the only thing being an atheist means is that they do not accept or believe in a God.  That's it.
Quote
 
    If you thought for a minute, that (just maybe) the NKJV bible could be true you would see what it says. The same spirit that you saw and felt (your evidence) when Isabella was acting out, etc.and that was showing me michele's #'s 444 sometimes several times a day, and the Physic that some how knew we were having a baby girl in 3 months from the time I received the call.
   This is what it says:
   "Whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them". 2 Cor 4:4.
I'm not entirely sure of the context relating to this response, so I'm not going to respond to this as I do not want to make an assumptions about what is trying to be said here.
Quote
    The god of this age is the father of all lies, roaring as a lion, trying to steal, kill and destroy, (marriages, families etc.) You may not believe the bible, and this is why (it's spiritual, I think you believe in spirituality) many don't until they humble themselves and cry out to the one who dad and mom called on. Don't let the devil get his way on you not seeing dad again. If you are too proud and all knowing than you may never call on Jesus.
This just sounds like a bunch of rubbish.  I'm again not too sure what it is he is trying to say.  But I can say this, I do not believe in spirituality.  Nor would I ever plan on calling on Jesus.
Quote
   And we do talk to ourselves, usually silent. if that's crazy, then why can't you say "are you real" can you put someone in my life so that I know, or give me discernment for what ever you want me to discern.
What would asking this prove?  How would you know that what happens is truly a "sign from God"?  It is all about what you believe, what you are likely to believe, and it reflects in how you interpret events.
Quote

   If you wish to believe that you do not have a soul or spirit than you are believing the lie and will miss out on seeing loved ones who did not reject, but believed in Jesus and that he took our sins, ransom paid in full.
I do not believe in this, so I do not feel I am missing out on anything.  That is your brothers opinion on the subject based on his beliefs.
Quote
   A Creationist or someone who believes in a supreme God or god, not from this realm or dimension,
   A belief often taught but also experienced, A faith and reality because of what is seen, the same today, yesterday and the forever. Science as you said " is suppose to be wrong, and or tends to be wrong. often changing. Real Science must be real examinable or it's just a hypothesis or theory..
Science is not meant to be wrong.  It is meant to evolve as we develop a better understanding of issues.  As far as making the comment about theories, I think your brother misunderstands what it means to be a scientific theory.  I'd again recommend you find some sources to recommend to him that show what a scientific theory really is.
Quote
     I love you and you all. I do love the one that took my sins first and foremost, I see nothing wrong with that. I love all even Bin Laden. Hate is a detriment to society/world.
Is it detrimental to hate someone? I personally do not like to use the word hate in regards to people as the social connotations that go along with it are rather strong.  How is it detrimental to society for the parents of a murder victim to say that they hate the person who killed their child?  It's not wrong for your brother to choose to love God first and to say he loves him more than all others, but that is his opinion based on his belief.  That does not make it true, nor does it make it right.  Simply because there is nothing wrong with something does not automatically make it right. 

To go back over a bit of things I've mentioned above:

-The term atheist simply means that someone does not accept or believe in a God.  That's it.  To make a statement that says atheists believe this or think that is ridiculous.  The only thing you can say about an atheist definitively is that they do not believe in God.

-The term survival of the fittest is in regards to natural selection.  It is not applicable to Hitler or Sanger. 

-Evolution does not explain where life came from.  It explains how creatures change in order to adapt to their environment and what is more beneficial for the species. 

-Neither evolution or atheism requires faith.  Something that can be observed and something that can be proven through extensive evidence does not require faith as it can be observed, the changes can be seen, and the theory still holds true as we continue to discover more fossils and DNA similarities in animals.

-A theory in science is not the same as someone who has a theory about what will happen in the last season of LOST.  A theory in science is based on empirical evidence.  There is a difference between scientific theory and philosophical theory which wiki has done a great job of explaining.

-Someone's belief in something does not make it true or fact. 

I'd also advise that your brother does some more research into topics before commenting on them.  He has fallen into cliche arguments that religious people often make, but these cliches have been disproven numerous times.  If he wants to try to argue for his claims he is going to need to go about them in a different sense.

That's just a little bit of what I'd say back to your brother's response.  Hope you found any of it useful and I hope it was intelligible.  I tend to ramble on a bit, so I apologize if I did so.
I can see where your coming from but on the other hand i dont want my kid to learn about evolution or see homosexualisom talked about in a scince classs ethier. <-- From Youguysarepathetic

At least I have a mother. Have you? (serious question) <---From Skylark889

Offline Eddie Schultz

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
  • Darwins +5/-0
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2009, 02:11:40 PM »
"Science is not meant to be wrong."
    
This is what I was trying to tell him, but I worded it wrong that night...had a couple drinks. ;D

"A scientific experiment always has the potential to be falsified, and that is essentially the goal in a scientific experiment. In science, it is far more useful to falsify incorrect models than to predict true ones."

Thank you for your reply, it was indeed helpful to me....but not sure it will move my brother in the least. All I can do is keep trying.

Eddie

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2009, 03:22:41 PM »
Hello Schultz...

I didn't read your entire article and so I'm not sure what you were driving at... but when I saw this quote from Sagan:
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."
--Carl Sagan


I couldn't help but notice first of all, that Sagan makes absolutely no sense because a "believer" can be convinced of SOME THINGS.  For example, you can convince a "believer" that he is alive... or that the universe exists, etc, etc, etc.

So Sagan doesn't make much sense in that quote.

But nonetheless...

I can't help but ask why couldn't a Christian turn it around and ask it of an atheist:

"You can't convince an atheist (or non believer) of the Resurrection of Christ; for their belief (or non belief) is not based on evidence (or even lack of evidence), but it's based on their deep-seated prior belief in complete materialism".

Just thinking.  

Take Care

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11862
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2009, 04:02:28 PM »
Fran, that's the whole point, isn't it? That anything can be turned around on someone else. That's what I do to val all the time. val makes these stupid phrases that mean absolutely nothing but to val, and those who think like val, and a person like me can come along and just put the exact opposite in it, and throw it back in their face knowing I won't get a response, or at least an intelligent one.

The whole point of it is to make the other person see that what they said doesn't hold any weight but to the person who said it (and those who believe like they do), and to everyone else it just falls through the rabbit hole.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2009, 04:06:11 PM »
bm
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2009, 04:23:55 PM »
Fran, that's the whole point, isn't it? That anything can be turned around on someone else. That's what I do to val all the time. val makes these stupid phrases that mean absolutely nothing but to val, and those who think like val, and a person like me can come along and just put the exact opposite in it, and throw it back in their face knowing I won't get a response, or at least an intelligent one.

The whole point of it is to make the other person see that what they said doesn't hold any weight but to the person who said it (and those who believe like they do), and to everyone else it just falls through the rabbit hole.

-Nam


Hello Nam...

Didn't my post show what you are saying?  Didn't my post make the point you're making?  When a person makes sweeping and open ended generalizations with no supporting facts, doesn't that IN ITSELF invite the other side to turn the unsupported, hasty generalization around?

When an atheist say that Christians are blind... or that their beliefs are based on faith, etc... and that is the extent of their comment (and observation), then why can't the Christian say the same things about the atheist?   Atheists (and Christians at times) are always making these kinds of sweeping and generalized statements.  And in fact, most political parties do the same as well.   We as a nation do not seem to be very careful in our words, and it shows in the kind of remarks made by people like Sagan.... as I thought I had demonstrated in my post.

I want to get past mere rhetoric and assertions.

But then, maybe I didn't understand your post.

Take Care.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2009, 04:26:19 PM by Fran »

Offline bahramthered

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3140
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2009, 06:55:53 PM »
Quote
A Creationist or someone who believes in a supreme God or god, not from this realm or dimension,
   A belief often taught but also experienced, A faith and reality because of what is seen, the same today, yesterday and the forever. Science as you said " is suppose to be wrong, and or tends to be wrong. often changing. Real Science must be real examinable or it's just a hypothesis or theory..

Do I have to even make the point about how much religion has changed over the last few thousand years? I mean things that where considered godly and just not even so long ago would get you on death row today. So how about those experiences?

Or about the teachings of religion that has changed radically over the centuries for convenience. Frequently seems to me that religion changes more than scientific theory. But at least science has something called evidence for it.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11862
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2009, 07:47:17 PM »
Hello Nam...

Didn't my post show what you are saying?  Didn't my post make the point you're making?  When a person makes sweeping and open ended generalizations with no supporting facts, doesn't that IN ITSELF invite the other side to turn the unsupported, hasty generalization around?

No, it didn't. It implied something of that accord but didn't say it.

Quote
When an atheist say that Christians are blind... or that their beliefs are based on faith, etc... and that is the extent of their comment (and observation), then why can't the Christian say the same things about the atheist?

Because Atheists "beliefs" aren't based on Faith. Faith is void of truth unless that truth is solely for that person and what they believe. An Atheist needs proof or sufficient evidence that aligns with reality, and not fantasy. Faith equates to Fantasy.

Quote
Atheists (and Christians at times) are always making these kinds of sweeping and generalized statements.

All people make generalizations, especially in concern to what they feel is true to what they feel isn't.

Quote
And in fact, most political parties do the same as well.   We as a nation do not seem to be very careful in our words, and it shows in the kind of remarks made by people like Sagan.... as I thought I had demonstrated in my post.

Sagan was telling a truth based on his observations and opinions of what he knew and saw around him. Does it make it any less of a truth? No, to him it is a truth. To those who agree with the statement it is a truth; to those who disagree with it find it to be false. However, the way he worded it can be taken out of context by anyone looking to state the obvious and to counter such a statement. It's all a run-around and therefore empty words. Should be stated in a way that can't be used in that manner by the "other side" however since almost any phrase can be what makes truth reality? By taking that phrase stated and comparing it or aligning it with what is actually proven to be true based on what is said. Usually the opposition isn't able to do this especially if their beliefs are based solely on Faith and Fantasy.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2009, 08:17:05 AM »
Hello Nam...

Quote
No, it didn't. It implied something of that accord but didn't say it.

At least you were able to see the implication.  That's a relief.


Quote
Because Atheists "beliefs" aren't based on Faith. Faith is void of truth unless that truth is solely for that person and what they believe. An Atheist needs proof or sufficient evidence that aligns with reality, and not fantasy. Faith equates to Fantasy.

I would gently encourage you to look up the word "faith" in the dictionary.  An atheist has faith in their position.  My only dispute is that i believe that atheists have to have more faith for their position than a Christian needs for theirs.

But then, that goes to the heart of what the word "faith" means... correct?  Which is why I gently encourage you to look up the meaning of the word.

Quote
All people make generalizations, especially in concern to what they feel is true to what they feel isn't.

Exactly... and this is why I pointed out Sagan's generalization.


Quote
Sagan was telling a truth based on his observations and opinions of what he knew and saw around him.

And this is simply untrue.  Because if Sagan was basing "his observations and opinions of what he knew and saw around him" as you claim... then he would not have made a hasty generalization and would have noted that ""believer" can be convinced of SOME THINGS.  For example, you can convince a "believer" that he is alive... or that the universe exists, etc, etc, etc." as I noted in my first post.

Sagan's hasty generalization makes no logical sense.  Hasty generalizations are logical fallacies.



Take care
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 10:30:12 AM by Fran »

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11862
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2009, 05:04:24 PM »
I would gently encourage you to look up the word "faith" in the dictionary.

Faith[1]

Quote
"Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim."

How does this apply to an Atheist?

Quote
"(Christian theology) Belief and trust in the Christian God's promises revealed through Christ in the New Testament."

How does this apply to an Atheist?

Quote
"A feeling or belief, that something is true, real, or will happen."

How does this apply to an Atheist?

Quote
"A trust in the intentions or abilities of a person, object, or belief in spite of a lack of knowledge in the person, object, or belief."

I can see an Atheist having faith in a person without knowing in total who or what that person is or about however they'd be more in-lined with knowing more about the person than not; which relates more to trust than "faith".

Quote
"(countable) A system of religious belief."

How does this apply to an Atheist?

Quote
"An obligation of loyalty or fidelity."

This could apply to an Atheist.

Quote
"The observance of such an obligation."

How does this apply to an Atheist?

Quote
An atheist has faith in their position.

Going by the definitions of "faith" above -- how does this apply to an Atheist? 

Quote
My only dispute is that i believe that atheists have to have more faith for their position than a Christian needs for theirs.

You still have not yet shown me how Atheists have "faith". So such a statement is irrelevant for the time being. Your "belief" in such regard is irrelevant even if you did 'cause that's your opinion based on what you believe to be true to what may or may not actually be true.

Quote
But then, that goes to the heart of what the word "faith" means... correct?

Again: irrelevant 'til you tell me what definition of "faith" you're speaking about. If you're speaking from your viewpoint, which is a religious one, then it holds no water. If you're speaking about a non-religious viewpoint, you're going to have to point out to me which definition that is non-religious above that deals solely with Atheists in such a view.

Quote
Which is why I gently encourage you to look up the meaning of the word.

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'cause you seem to only apply it to your particular definition and not all of them.

Quote
And this is simply untrue.  Because if Sagan was basing "his observations and opinions of what he knew and saw around him" as you claim... then he would not have made a hasty generalization and would have noted that ""believer" can be convinced of SOME THINGS.  For example, you can convince a "believer" that he is alive... or that the universe exists, etc, etc, etc." as I noted in my first post.

Sagan's hasty generalization makes no logical sense.  Hasty generalizations are logical fallacies.

It makes sense to him, it makes sense to those who think like him, and agree with what he stated. Just like the Bible makes sense to you. It doesn't make sense to many people but it does to you and therefore it's logical, it's rational, it's truthful.

-Nam
 1. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 05:30:45 PM by Nam »
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline subtleinspiration

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2009, 05:16:10 PM »
You still have not yet shown me how Atheists have "faith". So such a statement is irrelevant for the time being. Your "belief" in such regard is irrelevant even if you did 'cause that your opinion based on what you believe to be true to what may or may not actually be true.

I believe Fran (and others like her) believe that it takes faith to be an Atheist because they have fallen so far down the rabbit hole that they absolutely cannot conceive having a belief system that does not take into account the existence of a deity.

But just try it, Fran. It's nowhere near as difficult as you might imagine it is.
"As a God fearing Christian,  you should never ever date an Atheist. One night alone with an atheist is enough for you to lose your faith and to be converted into one of the spiritually dead."

Offline Cynic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 741
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Agnostic atheist (Secular Humanist)
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2009, 05:56:38 PM »
Hello Schultz...

I didn't read your entire article and so I'm not sure what you were driving at... but when I saw this quote from Sagan:
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."
--Carl Sagan


I couldn't help but notice first of all, that Sagan makes absolutely no sense because a "believer" can be convinced of SOME THINGS.  For example, you can convince a "believer" that he is alive... or that the universe exists, etc, etc, etc.

So Sagan doesn't make much sense in that quote.

But nonetheless...

I can't help but ask why couldn't a Christian turn it around and ask it of an atheist:

"You can't convince an atheist (or non believer) of the Resurrection of Christ; for their belief (or non belief) is not based on evidence (or even lack of evidence), but it's based on their deep-seated prior belief in complete materialism".

Just thinking.  

Take Care

I can't speak for other atheists, however I would believe in Christ if there was substantial  evidence of
First :A) His existence
Then :B) Divinity

As is stands there is no substantial proof that him or Yahweh exist/existed.
Quote
At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols.
Aldous Huxley

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4587
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2009, 08:01:13 PM »
In terms of killing nothing comes close to the god loving christians
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2009, 10:25:41 PM »
You still have not yet shown me how Atheists have "faith". So such a statement is irrelevant for the time being. Your "belief" in such regard is irrelevant even if you did 'cause that your opinion based on what you believe to be true to what may or may not actually be true.

I believe Fran (and others like her) believe that it takes faith to be an Atheist because they have fallen so far down the rabbit hole that they absolutely cannot conceive having a belief system that does not take into account the existence of a deity.

But just try it, Fran. It's nowhere near as difficult as you might imagine it is.

The word faith in the English language is never one-dimensional.  That is why we put adjectives in front of the word "faith" to help the listener understand what kind of "faith" the speaker is speaking of.

There is reasonable faith and blind faith.  There is a LOT of faith.. a LITTLE faith... NO faith... and TOTAL faith.  All these descriptions are trying to convey WHAT KIND OF FAITH is being spoken of.

But the fact is, it is logically impossible for an atheist to PROVE that God does not exist... just as it is equally true that it is logically impossible for a Christian to PROVE that God does exist... just as it is logically impossible to prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist... or that there is life after death... or there is no life after death... etc. etc.

All these positions are ultimately faith positions.  BUT THEY ARE NOT EQUAL in the amount of faith needed.  Some of the positions are FAR MORE REASONABLE than the other positions.  Some of the positions need FAR LESS or FAR MORE faith than the opposite position.

This is where logic and evidence and reason and common sense and open minded and honest all come into play as we try and figure out which position requires more faith and is less reasonable than another position.

Take care.

Offline PinkMilk

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2009, 10:28:01 PM »
Faith by definition is blind.  Faith requires belief without proof. 
I can see where your coming from but on the other hand i dont want my kid to learn about evolution or see homosexualisom talked about in a scince classs ethier. <-- From Youguysarepathetic

At least I have a mother. Have you? (serious question) <---From Skylark889

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2009, 10:30:26 PM »
Hello Cynic...

Quote
I can't speak for other atheists, however I would believe in Christ if there was substantial  evidence of
First :A) His existence
Then :B) Divinity

As is stands there is no substantial proof that him or Yahweh exist/existed.

For me, such reasoning is far to vague and far too easy for manipulation and full of loopholes.

What is "substantial proof" in your eyes?  And how do you demonstrate that your idea of what constitutes "substantial proof" is fair for an honest mind that is truly open?  How do you measure these things?  How do you prove such things?

To me, everyone's idea of "substantial proof" lies completely in the realm of personal and subjective opinion... which means it can be constantly shifted to change to suit the needs and biases of the person speaking of them.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2009, 10:32:46 PM »
Faith by definition is blind.  Faith requires belief without proof. 

Faith by definition IS NOT BLIND.  Read the definition in the dictionary again.  You can have faith in someone or some institution because your past and repeated observations of that person or institution has given you a firm opinion that you can trust in that person... that you can have faith in that person or institution... even though they may ultimately let you down at times.

Look up the word again.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11862
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2009, 10:35:38 PM »
The word faith in the English language is never one-dimensional.  That is why we put adjectives in front of the word "faith" to help the listener understand what kind of "faith" the speaker is speaking of.

There is reasonable faith and blind faith.  There is a LOT of faith.. a LITTLE faith... NO faith... and TOTAL faith.  All these descriptions are trying to convey WHAT KIND OF FAITH is being spoken of.

But the fact is, it is logically impossible for an atheist to PROVE that God does not exist... just as it is equally true that it is logically impossible for a Christian to PROVE that God does exist... just as it is logically impossible to prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist... or that there is life after death... or there is no life after death... etc. etc.

All these positions are ultimately faith positions.  BUT THEY ARE NOT EQUAL in the amount of faith needed.  Some of the positions are FAR MORE REASONABLE than the other positions.  Some of the positions need FAR LESS or FAR MORE faith than the opposite position.

This is where logic and evidence and reason and common sense and open minded and honest all come into play as we try and figure out which position requires more faith and is less reasonable than another position.

Nothing is impossible. Highly improbable? Sure...but nothing is impossible. And that is your fallacy. When you speak of "faith" you speak solely of "religion", and you're stating that an Atheists "faith" (well, implying, you never say anything) is from a religious standpoint. Atheism requires no "faith". Atheism is the belief in no god or gods. That's it. Nothing else. Everything else added to that is nonsense. Evolution is not Atheism. Not all Atheists believe in Evolution; a great deal many do but not all of them do. Atheists do not agree on everything. Some believe they have souls and some do not. Some believe in this that and the other thing, and some do not. They are not universal on any one subject but the fact that the do not believe in a god or gods. That's it. Christians on the other hand they disagree on many things but they all agree on the basics of their religion no matter if they disagree on the various ways of performing such worship, praise, or what not -- they still agree with it. Atheists do not have that. Nor do I feel they wish for it or would want it. There is no "faith" in Atheism. However, an individual person, who may be an Atheist, can have "faith" in certain things (such as what I pointed out by the definitions of "faith" above -- which I note you ignored) but none of them have to do with religious things or things that religious people would consider to be religious etc., and I also think you confuse "faith" and "hope", they are not synonymous with each other though I think you are making them to be just that.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11862
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #21 on: May 26, 2009, 10:41:46 PM »
Faith by definition IS NOT BLIND.  Read the definition in the dictionary again.  You can have faith in someone or some institution because your past and repeated observations of that person or institution has given you a firm opinion that you can trust in that person... that you can have faith in that person or institution... even though they may ultimately let you down at times.

Look up the word again.

Going with what I put above: Faith:

"Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim."

And: Blind Faith[1]:

"belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination"

Not much different, are they?

-Nam
 1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blind+faith
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline kevyrat69

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1209
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • oh rats.
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2009, 11:05:03 PM »
Fran I don't believe in creationism and I don't believe in evolution either.  I am learning more about both and I lean towards evolution more than being created for sure.  Have you any better proof than what you have from the bible that God just snapped his noodley fingers to make us become humans?
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

whatever people are experiencing when they experience God, it's not something they're perceiving in the external world. It's something their brains are making up.
Greta Christina

Offline PinkMilk

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2009, 11:14:55 PM »
Faith by definition IS NOT BLIND.  Read the definition in the dictionary again.  You can have faith in someone or some institution because your past and repeated observations of that person or institution has given you a firm opinion that you can trust in that person... that you can have faith in that person or institution... even though they may ultimately let you down at times.

Look up the word again.
Aside from your use of faith referring to a person or institution, the definition of the word does not change.  Faith means trust without proof.  That means that if i had a reputation for speaking truthfully in the past and I then decided to make a comment like there is a neon panda in my closet who poops skittles must therefore be true, as I have a history which dictates truth is absolutely ridiculous. I personally don't accept anything, not even by a reputable institution without looking into all the facts. What I don't ignore is an overwhelming amount of facts, or a significant amount of facts that logically point towards a conclusion.  It is not placing faith as there are facts involved.  If you had facts that proved something, then it would not be called faith.

I can see where your coming from but on the other hand i dont want my kid to learn about evolution or see homosexualisom talked about in a scince classs ethier. <-- From Youguysarepathetic

At least I have a mother. Have you? (serious question) <---From Skylark889

Offline Night Train

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2009, 01:31:31 AM »
Hello Schultz...

I didn't read your entire article and so I'm not sure what you were driving at... but when I saw this quote from Sagan:
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."
--Carl Sagan


I couldn't help but notice first of all, that Sagan makes absolutely no sense because a "believer" can be convinced of SOME THINGS.  For example, you can convince a "believer" that he is alive... or that the universe exists, etc, etc, etc.


That there is no reason to believe that the universe exists is one of the most common Christian apologetic arguments.

Quote from: Fran
So Sagan doesn't make much sense in that quote.

But nonetheless...

Sagan is simply using the definition from Hebrews 11:1--you know, faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen".


Quote from: Fran
I can't help but ask why couldn't a Christian turn it around and ask it of an atheist:

"You can't convince an atheist (or non believer) of the Resurrection of Christ; for their belief (or non belief) is not based on evidence (or even lack of evidence), but it's based on their deep-seated prior belief in complete materialism".

Of course you can convince an atheist of the Resurrection. Produce an argument that doesn't depend on special pleading.
 
Quote from: Fran
Just thinking.  

Take Care
So, little by little, time brings out each several thing into view, and reason raises it up into the shores of light--Lucretius

Offline ksm

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1592
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2009, 05:32:11 AM »
But nonetheless...

I can't help but ask why couldn't a Christian turn it around and ask it of an atheist:

"You can't convince an atheist (or non believer) of the Resurrection of Christ; for their belief (or non belief) is not based on evidence (or even lack of evidence), but it's based on their deep-seated prior belief in complete materialism".

Except that you get it quite wrong.

You can convince an atheist of the resurrection of Jesus; by providing some evidence that is not based on circular claims or wishful thinking.

Just thinking.  

Are you sure?

Offline subtleinspiration

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2009, 09:18:50 AM »
But the fact is, it is logically impossible for an atheist to PROVE that God does not exist... just as it is equally true that it is logically impossible for a Christian to PROVE that God does exist...

Proof is for mathematics. However, I do have evidence that God does not exist. And that would be the fact that there is no evidence that God exists. For there to be no evidence that a being who is supposedly all powerful, all present, and all knowing exists, that is in and of itself evidence that such a being does not exist.
"As a God fearing Christian,  you should never ever date an Atheist. One night alone with an atheist is enough for you to lose your faith and to be converted into one of the spiritually dead."

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2009, 11:00:21 AM »
Fran I don't believe in creationism and I don't believe in evolution either.  I am learning more about both and I lean towards evolution more than being created for sure.  Have you any better proof than what you have from the bible that God just snapped his noodley fingers to make us become humans?


The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Offline PinkMilk

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Any comments are welcome
« Reply #28 on: May 27, 2009, 11:03:19 AM »
Can you prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually occurred? It seems to me that if a man came back from the dead that there would be more than one book about it.  I mean, seriously, he came back from the dead and the only book about it is the Bible? 
I can see where your coming from but on the other hand i dont want my kid to learn about evolution or see homosexualisom talked about in a scince classs ethier. <-- From Youguysarepathetic

At least I have a mother. Have you? (serious question) <---From Skylark889