Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Sorginak]

Correct, but I am willing to accept that the faith is real, misguided or not.  Not for all theists, of course.  Some are just little shit's pretending to have faith, but some actually do have faith, and I believe it can offer comfort.  I disagree with the philosophy of course, but I don't find it offensive if it is sincere.

When theists drift away from faith, which I see as the most reasonable defense, and instead try to twist and/or attack logic and science to justify the usual creationist flim flam, they abandon their faith, which is their strongest asset, and instead, make a shambles trying to redefine logic and the legitimate acquisition of knowledge to suit their needs.

I can understand this concept, even if my rational faculties disagrees with choosing the comfort of the lie over the harshness of the truth. 

[Baruch]

God and Jesus being one and the same, except not quite, would be God sacrificing himself for three days.  Think about that.  And at the end, God turns out not to be dead at all.  <Ta Daah!>  God takes a step forward and offers a grandiose bow to the Roman audience, who are all looking at each other asking, "Did that really happen, or not?"  It would have been a theatrical production that topped even Orson Welles' radio broadcast of  "War of the Worlds," where listeners started dumping their stocks in anticipation of the end of times.

Miracle and mystery plays of the Middle Ages ... told this story to illiterate Europeans (as did stained glass windows).  Originally the Church only had to guard the Bible against literate clergymen (most of whom were also illiterate).  This is where drama comes from ... Athens and the festival of Dionysius.  Drinking, carousing, and rioting.  Theater allowed the authorities to channel this undirected energy into a collective catharsis.  So yes ... the actual fact of comedy, is the unexpected happy ending.  That is what the Resurrection represents ... ta da ... G-d isn't dead.  Puny Romans and Jewish collaborators can't kill Him.  Of course once you know the story, the surprise is ruined, and hence the comic relief is already expended.  Dionysus also had his own mystery play ... when he goes down to Hades, and comes back again.  Same as Jesus.

[Drew_2017]

If you are that obtuse, you will be demanding your retraction until the second coming.

Great excuse for being full of shit...the only reason your eyes aren't brown is you're a quart low.

[Drew_2017]

I think its odd how many atheist-naturalists have such disdain for the word faith (when it means believing in something regardless of evidence or facts). Most of the atheists in this board have complete faith in the belief we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces that without plan or intent created a universe, life and sentience. If this belief wasn't based on faith I'm sure I'd be beaten over the head with countless facts, data and evidence that would show its not faith its fact!

[SGOS]

Great excuse for being full of shit...the only reason your eyes aren't brown is you're a quart low.

That was more intelligent than usual.

[sdelsolray]

I think its odd how many atheist-naturalists have such disdain for the word faith (when it means believing in something regardless of evidence or facts). Most of the atheists in this board have complete faith in the belief we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces that without plan or intent created a universe, life and sentience. If this belief wasn't based on faith I'm sure I'd be beaten over the head with countless facts, data and evidence that would show its not faith its fact!

This one is now adding a strawman fallacy to his recipe.

[Sorginak]

Science is not faith. 

Science is the veritable antecedent to faith.

How would one be capable of understanding science and applying it to a natural environment if science did not already exist?

The theist claims that god has always existed, yet there is no evidence of this god.

Science has proven that science has always existed, and that it took smart minds to look past the theistic wall that kept rising higher and higher than the tower of babel.

Science proves our existence with facts, while theism ignores those facts for its own delusional gains.

[Baruch]

Newton existed for all eternity?  Einstein is a heretic?  They both can't be "eternally" right.

Experimental science makes measurements, at the behest of theoretical science.  How much does an elephant weigh?

Theoretical science draws curves thru the data, and tries to guess why it curves the way it does.  What is the relationship between elephant weight vs age?

Simple cases ... linear/linear plot or log/linear plot.  I would think animal weight is log/linear ... it approaches a maximum with age, doesn't continue going up.

If the current theory doesn't adequately describe the measurements, then the theory is adjusted.  Are African and Asian elephants different?

Experimental science takes note of changes in theoretical science, and redoes the measurements, or tries all new measurements if suggested by theoretical science.

Otherwise, you are a Platonist, not a scientist.  Or at least a Kantian.  The measurements are facts, the interpretation of the measurements (which is a dialectic, not a deduction, because theory and measurement are co-dependent) is not a fact.  Otherwise we burn Einstein at the stake (as the Nazis tried to do).

Notice .. questions are asked, partially answered, then re-asked or better questions are generated.  Science doesn't provide eternal answers.  Just pragmatic ones, at least if you are in charge of cleaning up the elephant pins at the zoo ;-)

[Sorginak]

Newton existed for all eternity?  Einstein is a heretic?  They both can't be "eternally" right.

Experimental science makes measurements, at the behest of theoretical science.  How much does an elephant weigh.

Theoretical science draws curves thru the data, and tries to guess why it curves the way it does.  What is the relationship between elephant weight vs age.

Simple cases ... linear/linear plot or log/linear plot.  I would think animal weight is log/linear ... it approaches a maximum with age, doesn't continue going up.

If the current theory doesn't adequately describe the measurements, then the theory is adjusted.  Are African and Asian elephants different?

Experimental science takes note of changes in theoretical science, and redoes the measurements, or tries all new measurements if suggested by theoretical science.

Otherwise, you are a Platonist, not a scientist.  Or at least a Kantian.  The measurements are facts, the interpretation of the measurements (which is a dialectic, not a deduction, because theory and measurement are co-dependent) is not a fact.  Otherwise we burn Einstein at the stake (as the Nazis tried to do).

Your logic is ill due to the fact that no two elephants are going to weigh the same any more than two individuals will have the same DNA.

If you want to talk science, at least understand it rather than going off on an ignorant tangent.

Science existed before Einstein was born.  All Einstein did was have the brain to understand the world in a way that others could not before then. 

That is science.

[Baruch]

Your logic is ill due to the fact that no two elephants are going to weigh the same any more than two individuals will have the same DNA.

If you want to talk science, at least understand it rather than going off on an ignorant tangent.

Science existed before Einstein was born.  All Einstein did was have the brain to understand the world in a way that others could not before then. 

That is science.

Clearly a statement by a dogmatic philosopher ... I rest my case.  Take a simple lab class in HS.  They show you how to take measurements and plot graphs.

[Sorginak]

Clearly a statement by a dogmatic philosopher ... I rest my case.  Take a simple lab class in HS.  They show you how to take measurements and plot graphs.

Why be a clone when I can be different?

[Drew_2017]

This one is now adding a strawman fallacy to his recipe.

I think its odd how many atheist-naturalists have such disdain for the word faith (when it means believing in something regardless of evidence or facts). Most of the atheists in this board have complete faith in the belief we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces that without plan or intent created a universe, life and sentience. If this belief wasn't based on faith I'm sure I'd be beaten over the head with countless facts, data and evidence that would show its not faith its fact!

That must be a new ingredient, I've heard of a straw-man argument (See Sorginak) for a full explanation. I haven't heard of a straw-man fallacy but I like it.

So this in your mind is a bogus argument are you suggesting atheists are actually skeptical of the claim we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces that without plan or intent created a universe, life and sentience? I have never seen a modicum of doubt that mindless, lifeless unguided forces could and did cause a universe, life and mind to exist have you? What other part of the argument is bogus?

[sdelsolray]

I think its odd how many atheist-naturalists have such disdain for the word faith (when it means believing in something regardless of evidence or facts). Most of the atheists in this board have complete faith in the belief we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces that without plan or intent created a universe, life and sentience. If this belief wasn't based on faith I'm sure I'd be beaten over the head with countless facts, data and evidence that would show its not faith its fact!

That must be a new ingredient, I've heard of a straw-man argument (See Sorginak) for a full explanation. I haven't heard of a straw-man fallacy but I like it.

So this in your mind is a bogus argument are you suggesting atheists are actually skeptical of the claim we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces that without plan or intent created a universe, life and sentience? I have never seen a modicum of doubt that mindless, lifeless unguided forces could and did cause a universe, life and mind to exist have you? What other part of the argument is bogus?

Gnostic theism
Agnostic theism
Agnostic atheism
Gnostic atheism

Joining knowledge claims with belief claims tends to be more accurate.

[fencerider]

I think its odd how many atheist-naturalists have such disdain for the word faith (when it means believing in something regardless of evidence or facts).

You see Sorginak, you have to have faith that faith exists (takes a bow);-)

[Baruch]

Why be a clone when I can be different?

Brave.  But on average, the innovator fails, because most innovations have already been tried, and have already failed.  See Edison on the electric light filament.  Perseverance is the ticket, not just the first step on your own journey.  You have to not only start the journey, you have to continue until you get to the far end, in spite of bandits and bad weather.