|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 10/10/2006 : 07:52:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Does it take as much faith to believe that there is no invisible polka-dot triceratops in your attic as to believe there is?
your dinosaur example is off base because it references something we know existed in the past and now know are gone--regardless of their color scheme.
So you know that invisible triceratops have been in your attic but you know for sure that they are not there anymore?
This is the first interesting claim you have made... |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 09:31:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Pet peave of mine: Belief in Santa is not a benign concept. It can cause harm.
That's funny, coming from a smurf!
Just be sure to keep your pet peeve on a leash and muzzled. And for god's sake, pick up after it. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 09:34:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Does it take as much faith to believe that there is no invisible polka-dot triceratops in your attic as to believe there is?
your dinosaur example is off base because it references something we know existed in the past and now know are gone--regardless of their color scheme.
So you know that invisible triceratops have been in your attic but you know for sure that they are not there anymore?
This is the first interesting claim you have made...
Doh--I missed the word "invisible" in the original post. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 10:45:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
ergo123 said:
lack of evidence that something exists should never be taken as evidence of that thing being non-existent; because the lack of evidence could be a function of your ignorance.
This is true of course. But there is a difference between not believing in something and disbelieving in something. Of course, in day to day life we dichotomize it for clarity. The intellectually sound position is never to disbelieve. I can't for example ever prove that pink unicorn do not exist, but I certainly do not believe in them because there is no evidence for that belief. Unless I simultaneously search all of the universe (and all others) at once I can never be sure. In fact, even then one could pop into existence as soon as I finish my search. So for the sake of getting on with my life I do not believe in pink unicorns or in any way address them in my day to day. This is the sense that people usually use disbelief (meaning not to believe). But really and functionally non-belief does not mean to disbelieve (or to assert that something does not exist, or is unbelievable).
quote:
ergo, it takes as much faith to assume there is no god as it does to assume there is.
Not true. It takes no faith to not believe. Non-belief is the neutral position. One does not believe for as long as there is no reason to believe. In the case where something is testable (as in the Mark example) I could look and find out if the Mark is on your desk or not and then I would disbelieve if it were not (or believe if it were). In fact, although you have no real reason to lie, I still cannot truly trust your statement until I have evidence to back up my trust.
You are using faith in terms of chance. (heaven / hell wager) But to a non-believer, there is no wager. There is no wager/bet and the outcome is death in either case. There is no reason to suspect otherwise (not anything based on evidence).
Also, there is alot of evidence against the claims of specific religions. In fact, the existance of the soul has evidence against it (none for it). Therefore, the intellectually sound position (even if it is one of ignorance) is still to not believe in the after life. As I already explained that would not be the same as asserting that there is no possible way for the soul to exist, only saying that there is no current reason to believe in the soul. That statement requires no more faith than asserting that the sun is the center of our solar system. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 10/10/2006 10:50:06 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 10:47:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Pet peave of mine: Belief in Santa is not a benign concept. It can cause harm.
I agree also, but I simply meant that it is about as benign as any false belief can be. Of course, to a child who is devastated by the crashing of one of his most charished beliefs this can be very emotionally harmful. I personally am not lying to my children on purpose. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 14:05:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
ergo, it takes as much faith to assume there is no god as it does to assume there is.
quote:
Not true. It takes no faith to not believe. Non-belief is the neutral position. One does not believe for as long as there is no reason to believe. In the case where something is testable (as in the Mark example) I could look and find out if the Mark is on your desk or not and then I would disbelieve if it were not (or believe if it were). In fact, although you have no real reason to lie, I still cannot truly trust your statement until I have evidence to back up my trust.
But I didn't say "it takes as much faith to not believe in god..." I said "it take as much faith to assume there is no god"... To assume is a reasoned action--you can't hide an assumption behind an excuse of 'I never thought about it,' or 'I just haven't decided.'
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 14:24:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
ergo, it takes as much faith to assume there is no god as it does to assume there is.
quote:
Not true. It takes no faith to not believe. Non-belief is the neutral position. One does not believe for as long as there is no reason to believe. In the case where something is testable (as in the Mark example) I could look and find out if the Mark is on your desk or not and then I would disbelieve if it were not (or believe if it were). In fact, although you have no real reason to lie, I still cannot truly trust your statement until I have evidence to back up my trust.
But I didn't say "it takes as much faith to not believe in god..." I said "it take as much faith to assume there is no god"... To assume is a reasoned action--you can't hide an assumption behind an excuse of 'I never thought about it,' or 'I just haven't decided.'
Actually, an assumption precedes the thought process. We must make assumptions in order to reason foreward. I am saying that we must assume that there is no god, or pink elphants (or anything else) until there is evidence for these things and that takes no faith at all. No one can blame ancient people for thinking that the Earth was flat because they had no evidence to the contrary. Now any one who thinks that the Earth is flat in the face of evidence should be chastized for that foolish belief (and that belief does take faith)
Also, we have evidence that gods (at least none of the gods that the religions purport) are illogical and most likely do not exist. It does not take faith to assert the most likely position that is supported by evidence. If your defintion of faith is "too assume something true" then everything you believe is faith. Even the fact that you and your world exist, must be taken on faith under that definition. And the word basically is useless because it is now synonomous with assume.
I do not consider myself to have faith that my chair will hold me up. I believe my chair will hold me up based on the evidence that it can and has. If it breaks the next time I sit in it then that occurance does not shatter my faith, as I had none in the first place.
My definition is: faith - to assume something true without any evidence and/or in the face of evidence to the contrary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith (I am using definition #2)
Assuming something to be false does not come under that definition. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 14:27:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But I didn't say "it takes as much faith to not believe in god..." I said "it take as much faith to assume there is no god"... To assume is a reasoned action--you can't hide an assumption behind an excuse of 'I never thought about it,' or 'I just haven't decided.'
Why does it take faith to "assume" something? I don't claim to have absolute knowledge that tomorrow my car will still be where I parked it, yet I assume it will be. Are you seriously implying that I have "faith" in that?
You aren't making any distinction between reasonable and unreasonable assumptions. Faith is when you cling to unreasonable assumptions.
Since there is no evidence god or even anything remotely supernatural exists, it is completely unreasonable to assume it does, and entirely reasonable to assume it does not.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/10/2006 14:29:22 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 17:46:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
you have no evidence, for example, that i have a 1,000,000,000,000 German Mark note on my desk at work. yet, it exists.
faith is belief in the absence of evidence.
But in this case, the 1,000,000,000,000 Mark note is not an extra-ordinary claim, since we know that the inflation was murder in Germany before WW2 and some pretty high notes were made. There were a lot of them, so they aren't worth as much as one would think.
In light of this, your claim is plausible and it's no skin off my nose to accept your word for it.
A claim about the existence of God however have much more profound implications than a Mark note on your desk.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 18:18:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
[quote]Originally posted by Neurosis
[quote]My definition is: faith - to assume something true without any evidence and/or in the face of evidence to the contrary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith (I am using definition #2)
Assuming something to be false does not come under that definition.
Sure, a lot of things work out the way you want when you make up the definitions of the words you use... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 18:21:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Sure, a lot of things work out the way you want when you make up the definitions of the words you use...
Ahaha! He gives you the dictionary link and you still accuse him of making things up. Or were you finally admitting fault?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 18:24:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But I didn't say "it takes as much faith to not believe in god..." I said "it take as much faith to assume there is no god"... To assume is a reasoned action--you can't hide an assumption behind an excuse of 'I never thought about it,' or 'I just haven't decided.'
Why does it take faith to "assume" something? I don't claim to have absolute knowledge that tomorrow my car will still be where I parked it, yet I assume it will be. Are you seriously implying that I have "faith" in that?
You aren't making any distinction between reasonable and unreasonable assumptions. Faith is when you cling to unreasonable assumptions.
Since there is no evidence god or even anything remotely supernatural exists, it is completely unreasonable to assume it does, and entirely reasonable to assume it does not.
It doesn't always. The statement I made can't be generalized to all things. That's why I used the specifics I did... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 18:26:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Sure, a lot of things work out the way you want when you make up the definitions of the words you use...
Ahaha! He gives you the dictionary link and you still accuse him of making things up. Or were you finally admitting fault?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Did you try the link? It's not to his definition. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 18:57:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
[quote]Originally posted by Neurosis
[quote]My definition is: faith - to assume something true without any evidence and/or in the face of evidence to the contrary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith (I am using definition #2)
Assuming something to be false does not come under that definition.
Sure, a lot of things work out the way you want when you make up the definitions of the words you use...
yep I wrote that entry right into the dictionary there. Where is your definition? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 10/10/2006 19:05:06 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 19:04:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Sure, a lot of things work out the way you want when you make up the definitions of the words you use...
Ahaha! He gives you the dictionary link and you still accuse him of making things up. Or were you finally admitting fault?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Did you try the link? It's not to his definition.
It is my definition. I will admit that I added the "in the face of contrary evidence" but that part has yet to come into play anyway. I said that only to cover religious faith which you are talking about. Even you must admit that faith in the Adam and Eve story is to overlook all of our geological and zoological and anthrolological evidence.
Regardless, the definition is accurate in the two cases brought up. And BTW people use words with an implied definition. I was only clarifying what I consider faith for the benefit of this discussion. Can you show my definition to be wrong? Oh, that's right you don't rely on logic or provide evidence for the claims you make. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 10/10/2006 19:05:55 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
