[quote]forlife wrote:
Why?[/quote]
Why not?
Now, since you’ve reduced humanity to biological domino patterns, feel free to think of it as my orientation. My predisposition.
Because if you actually care about believing in facts rather than fantasy, you are a fool to believe in something with no actual evidence for that belief.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Ya’ll looked at the one bad example while ignoring the rest of post… I’m disappointed now :([/quote]
Ok. Define “faith”. [/quote]
faith- belief in that which cannot be proved or belief in that for which there is little to no evidence supporting it.[/quote]
Good definition.
Given that, please explain why someone would believe in something for which there is no evidence? How can you convince yourself that you’re praying to a real person when you know there’s no evidence that this hypothetical person is real? How is that any different from believing in Santa Claus?
I don’t get it.[/quote]
Faith is necessary for meaning and purpose. And we have faith that our loved ones will still love us as they have faith that we will love them. Believing science will answer questions concerning meaning and purpose is faith in science. Yes, I’m saying there is no to little evidence that science can answer those questions.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, since you’ve reduced humanity to biological domino patterns, feel free to think of it as my orientation. My predisposition.[/quote]
You’re confusing me with someone else. I never said there is no free will, only that it’s possible there isn’t.
And even in a deterministic universe, people change their views based on maturity and new insights.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And even in a deterministic universe, people change their views based on maturity and new insights.
[/quote]
And what does this mean in a deterministic universe, to change views? It means your bio-chem software (then hardware) responded as it must to enviromental stimuli. And off goes a chain of dominos so complex, you have the illusion of free will.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Ya’ll looked at the one bad example while ignoring the rest of post… I’m disappointed now :([/quote]
Ok. Define “faith”. [/quote]
faith- belief in that which cannot be proved or belief in that for which there is little to no evidence supporting it.[/quote]
Good definition.
Given that, please explain why someone would believe in something for which there is no evidence? How can you convince yourself that you’re praying to a real person when you know there’s no evidence that this hypothetical person is real? How is that any different from believing in Santa Claus?
I don’t get it.[/quote]
Faith is necessary for meaning and purpose. And we have faith that our loved ones will still love us as they have faith that we will love them. Believing science will answer questions concerning meaning and purpose is faith in science. Yes, I’m saying there is no to little evidence that science can answer those questions.[/quote]
Come on… you’re still trying to attach some quasi-religious importance to perfectly reasonable assumptions. This is the sort of equivocation that allows the religious to place “faith” on equal footing with reason, rational, observation, investigation, etc…
None of us need faith, but most of us desire it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Because if you actually care about believing in facts rather than fantasy, you are a fool to believe in something with no actual evidence for that belief.[/quote]
A fool? In the absence of the religious heterosexual you’d have absence of society. In the absence of the atheistic homosexual…life would simply go on. Now that’s not a call for extermination, or even a call for taunting. Noone deserves bullying. But, if we’re going to dispense with even barely practiced civility, you’ll then have to excuse me if I share–and bluntly–just how little your opinion of me and my brothers-in-faith matters.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Ya’ll looked at the one bad example while ignoring the rest of post… I’m disappointed now :([/quote]
Ok. Define “faith”. [/quote]
faith- belief in that which cannot be proved or belief in that for which there is little to no evidence supporting it.[/quote]
Good definition.
Given that, please explain why someone would believe in something for which there is no evidence? How can you convince yourself that you’re praying to a real person when you know there’s no evidence that this hypothetical person is real? How is that any different from believing in Santa Claus?
I don’t get it.[/quote]
Faith is necessary for meaning and purpose. And we have faith that our loved ones will still love us as they have faith that we will love them. Believing science will answer questions concerning meaning and purpose is faith in science. Yes, I’m saying there is no to little evidence that science can answer those questions.[/quote]
I’m not talking about meaning and purpose. I’m talking about facts vs. fiction. Saying something is true without any evidence for it actually being true makes no sense.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Because if you actually care about believing in facts rather than fantasy, you are a fool to believe in something with no actual evidence for that belief.[/quote]
A fool? In the absence of the religious heterosexual you’d have absence of society. In the absence of the atheistic homosexual…life would simply go on. Now that’s not a call for extermination, or even a call for taunting. Noone deserves bullying. But, if we’re going to dispense with even barely practiced civility, you’ll then have to excuse me if I share–and bluntly–just how little your opinion of me and my brothers-in-faith matters. [/quote]
Just to be clear, I wasn’t referring to you specifically. I was saying that it makes no sense for anyone to claim something is true when there’s no evidence for that claim.
Would you consider it foolish for someone to believe in Vishna, to the point where they insisted that Vishna is a real being whom everyone should worship, and that those who don’t will be damned? You have no more evidence for your beliefs than them, or than any of the millions of other people who worship gods of their own making.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Ya’ll looked at the one bad example while ignoring the rest of post… I’m disappointed now :([/quote]
Ok. Define “faith”. [/quote]
faith- belief in that which cannot be proved or belief in that for which there is little to no evidence supporting it.[/quote]
Good definition.
Given that, please explain why someone would believe in something for which there is no evidence? How can you convince yourself that you’re praying to a real person when you know there’s no evidence that this hypothetical person is real? How is that any different from believing in Santa Claus?
I don’t get it.[/quote]
Faith is necessary for meaning and purpose. And we have faith that our loved ones will still love us as they have faith that we will love them. Believing science will answer questions concerning meaning and purpose is faith in science. Yes, I’m saying there is no to little evidence that science can answer those questions.[/quote]
I’m not talking about meaning and purpose. I’m talking about facts vs. fiction. Saying something is true without any evidence for it actually being true makes no sense.[/quote]
Almost all, except for the insane (I think there’s a spectrum so it can go the other way too) will say something is true without evidence. Nothing is good, nothing is bad without faith of some sort.
Actually, one definition of insanity is believing something to be true which is not true.
If I fervently believe the sun is pulled across the sky by Apollo’s chariot, does that make it so?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
A fool? In the absence of the religious heterosexual you’d have absence of society. In the absence of the atheistic homosexual…life would simply go on. Now that’s not a call for extermination, or even a call for taunting. Noone deserves bullying. But, if we’re going to dispense with even barely practiced civility, you’ll then have to excuse me if I share–and bluntly–just how little your opinion of me and my brothers-in-faith matters. [/quote]
Why are you talking about sexuality? I hope you aren’t one of those revolting religious bigots I’ve read about. But if you are can you explain if, in the absence of religious homosexuals (like Ted Haggard) and pedophiles, would life still go on? What do you make of the ancient Greeks, who gave us democracy, and their practise of pederasty? Did they contribute nothing to society?
In the absence of all you wonderful religious heterosexuals (because Jesus doesn’t love homosexuals, and it’s your place to judge them after all) would we still have had the terrible conflict in Northern Ireland, in Rwanda, or countless religious wars from history? Or was it the homosexuals who caused all the trouble?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Would you consider it foolish for someone to believe in Vishna…[/quote]
No. In the past I’ve voiced my respect for those of faith. For instance, despite your–and even Mak’s–diagnoses (see your most recent statements) of the faithful, I wouldn’t imply that his (Mak’s) hindu mother is insane.
For all of you talking about reason, how are you missing the huge leap you’re taking there?
You can’t reason that you have the ability to reason.
Of course that line of thinking is a dead end, but it illustrates a point.
I’m not saying that I don’t value any particular philosophy over another, but I defy any one of you to come up with a bullet-proof defense of knowledge.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Why are you talking about sexuality?[/quote]
Oh noes. Now that’s untouchable. You must forgive me…
Only read about…you’re in luck, now you get to talk to the real live thing!
[quote]But if you are can you explain if, in the absence of religious homosexuals (like Ted Haggard) and pedophiles, would life still go on? What do you make of the ancient Greeks, who gave us democracy, and their practise of pederasty? Did they contribute nothing to society?
In the absence of all you wonderful religious heterosexuals (because Jesus doesn’t love homosexuals, and it’s your place to judge them after all) would we still have had the terrible conflict in Northern Ireland, in Rwanda, or countless religious wars from history? Or was it the homosexuals who caused all the trouble?[/quote]
Oh, you’d have far worse conflicts without religion. You’d still be working on developing cities, much less nations.
there’s no god called Vishna.
it’s Vishnu.
and the followers of Vishnu aren’t universalist. like most polytheists, they don’t think everyone should worship him, and they don’t try to convert people.(except the recent “Hare Krishna” cult).
they don’t believe in damnation either.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Would you consider it foolish for someone to believe in Vishna…[/quote]
No. In the past I’ve voiced my respect for those of faith. For instance, despite your–and even Mak’s–diagnoses (see your most recent statements) of the faithful, I wouldn’t imply that his (Mak’s) hindu mother is insane.[/quote]
But what basis would you have for insisting your belief represents reality more than hers, since you both lack evidence?
[quote]
Oh, you’d have far worse conflicts without religion. You’d still be working on developing cities, much less nations.[/quote]
as you know, i usually agree with you, but this statement seems quite contradictory to me.
if we “would still be working on developing cities, much less nations”, we would have stone age conflicts.
and stone age conflicts were hardly worst than what we see today.
[quote]kamui wrote:
there’s no god called Vishna.
it’s Vishnu.
and the followers of Vishnu aren’t universalist. like most polytheists, they don’t think everyone should worship him, and they don’t try to convert people.(except the recent “Hare Krishna” cult).
they don’t believe in damnation either.
[/quote]
I just made one up. Is my god less real because fewer people believe in it?
Hail Vishna!