Death Sentence for Sorcery

[Blarg]

an easy way to disprove/seriously question evolution would be to find a series of fossils in the wrong order or have newly evolved forms existing in ancient sedimentary layers.

[Andarvi]

an easy way to disprove/seriously question evolution would be to find a series of fossils in the wrong order or have newly evolved forms existing in ancient sedimentary layers.

Hard to use either of those as evidence when creationists already don't believe in fossils in their correct context.

[Neosutra]

That wouldnt disprove evolution, it would just make us re-evaluate the evolutionary path of that specific species.

[Plow]

Not even necessarily that, there's nothing in evolution that says things couldn't have branched past certain points at more than one time in different places/earth life cycles. In fact I'd say it almost undoubtedly has to have at some point just through sheer quantity of occurrence.


The real issue here is that neither "side" has a positive solution. It's nearly impossible to prove something false at its most basic level if the truth cannot be presented. Once we reach a scientific ability to state "this is what the universe was before/came from, and what happened," we'll simply be moving on to where that came from, etc.

And, clearly, the obvious answer is turtles all the way down.

[Neosutra]

I dont think I can support the "nothing can really be proven true due to never ending origins debate" philosophy. Theories such as evolution describe very finite aspects of development and dont really require any previous basis beyond behavior of base chemicals. One could say "and then god made all the base chemicals on the planet and asked them to seek the highest state of entropy" and it wouldnt do anything to the theory of evolution which only describes behavior after this development.

As for universal origins truth, there will always be "what happened before XXX", but that's where we go back to most probable hypothesis rather than "anything goes" mentality. Not knowing the answer for something doesnt really excuse letting in poorly developed theorems.

But I agree, turtles all the way down is probably correct (if you're refering to the hindu cosmological philosophy).

[Plow]

Well the biggest problem at this point is that even getting to there is a conclusion we can't prove.

I don't disagree that it's an... uh... interesting... jump to decide it's a big omnipotent person behind the curtain, and then it's another jump to state that if we see behind the curtain that doesn't prove the big man isn't behind the next curtain.


But as of now "peeling back the curtain" basically equates to stepping outside the universe and seeing what's there, which may or may not ever happen, let alone during our lifetimes.


It's going to take faith either way, to believe that the answer is "nothing" or "just more shit," to decide it's whatever "God," or to make any conclusion on the topic whatsoever.

Just as Firas has faith that Allah is waiting for him, you have faith that you're living the best you can now because it's all there is.

Just as the homeless man with faith in the Christian God is "just getting by" because that's all he needs to do and Jesus is waiting for him, the homeless atheist man who "has no faith" is "just getting by" because someday there might be a time it was worth it, and it's better than nothing.

It's still some kind of faith in the end.



oh, and, I didn't mean to apply that to evolution at all, it's pretty thoroughly provable at this point, although I can see the argument being made before it was, and of course extrapolated to the idea that "something makes it happen"/"something created evolution"

[Plow]

Basically my only point is that when you can't say factually/provably what the reality is, it's always some kind of faith to come to any conclusion on the subject of existence, particularly with the effect death has on life.

[Jaybar]

A big problem trying to teach reasoning and method to someone raised religiously is that religion is based on "faith" - it's most important concept. In order to have strong faith you are taught to ignore logic and reason, told not to look for evidence or proof of your god's work and instead just "believe". As soon as something is deemed "sacred" then suddenly questioning it's legitimacy is seen as hateful.

Having reasonable doubt in a faith based system is seen as a weakness, just take the bible's story of "doubting Thomas". In the real world however most people are well aware that in day-to-day interactions with other people having a dose of scepticism stops you getting ripped-off, cheated or used.

Faith is like the ultimate shield of ignorance. "I don't need to know the reasons, I just believe because the punishment for not believing is eternity in agony."

Is there any wonder that in the middle-ages the church was richer than kings?

Seems most of you aren't really educated enough about "faith and doubt". It's these two concepts that bring you closer to God. I hate to sound like an evangelist or missionary, but it's true. (It pains me to say, considering the anti-theist grouping on this board)

You place God before all else, true. But that does not mean you should abandon reason all together ( sounds stupid, even to me, being an Age of Reason kind of guy). It's the fanatical that place everything before God, and show their ignorance. Sadly, I have to be lumped with those people on BG for some reason.

I am actually encouraged to question my faith in my biblical study classes. It's really fun to throw some of the rhetoric I see on BG into essays. My teachers actually agree with me on some stances. I had a good conversation with mine about the "wrath" of God (YHWH since it was OT), and how I believed the justification to use any means necessary to stop evil (subjected to opinion) was inherently wrong according to NT teachings.

Faith is beyond Reason, I will agree, but it is not the abandonment of it. Yea, it can be contradictory, but it is a belief. Deal with it, mother fucker *cool-shades*

[Neosutra]

It's going to take faith either way, to believe that the answer is "nothing" or "just more shit," to decide it's whatever "God," or to make any conclusion on the topic whatsoever.

I'm sure we've had this conversation many times before, but there is a huge difference between reasonable hypothesis and blind faith. I dont have "faith" in "the great nothing". I dont allow some persistant belief in any given scientific theory to exist beyond what the evidence supports.

I have the courage to apply a standard to what I call factual, and say "idk" for the rest.

It is a common tactic of theists (and non theists playing devils advocate in this case) to equate scientific probabilities to faith, when they are infact each other's antithesis.

[Plow]

You're not discerning between "faith" and "blind faith."

[Neosutra]

I dont see any difference. "Belief in something without supporting evidence".

Faith = Blind Faith = Gullible = Ignorance.

[Jaybar]

I'm sure we've had this conversation many times before, but there is a huge difference between reasonable hypothesis and blind faith. I dont have "faith" in "the great nothing". I dont allow some persistant belief in any given scientific theory to exist beyond what the evidence supports.

I have the courage to apply a standard to what I call factual, and say "idk" for the rest.

It is a common tactic of theists (and non theists playing devils advocate in this case) to equate scientific probabilities to faith, when they are infact each other's antithesis.

Would you be able to elaborate a little on the first paragraph? Sorry if you had this conversation before, but it seems redundant the way you phrase it. I take it you "idk" the stuff you don't factually understand/know and agree with scientific fact that you do know? I can attest to that. How can you say there's a reasonable hypothesis if you don't know? Or did I read you wrong?

I think blind faith is a little mis-leading, because most blind-faith is tied to Creationism. Creationists aren't as abundant as you would think now-a-days (fucking heretics). Of course, you could be talking about something completely different. Maybe the blind-faith of the Christian teachings? Well, that's not necessarily faith as it is a foundation of social doctrine. Shit, maybe I should define faith.

Edit: You're also making leaps with faith leading into ignorance. Are you saying one cannot lead a faithful life without some reasonable assurance?

[Plow]

Like, even if you want to go with the "worst" definition, "belief that is not based in proof," that means it's not based on direct proof of X. It doesn't mean you haven't come to a conclusion based on evidence, it means you do not have factual proof.

[Neosutra]

Would you be able to elaborate a little on the first paragraph? Sorry if you had this conversation before, but it seems redundant the way you phrase it. I take it you "idk" the stuff you don't factually understand/know and agree with scientific fact that you do know? I can attest to that. How can you say there's a reasonable hypothesis if you don't know? Or did I read you wrong?

I think blind faith is a little mis-leading, because most blind-faith is tied to Creationism. Creationists aren't as abundant as you would think now-a-days (fucking heretics). Of course, you could be talking about something completely different. Maybe the blind-faith of the Christian teachings? Well, that's not necessarily faith as it is a foundation of social doctrine. Shit, maybe I should define faith.

Edit: You're also making leaps with faith leading into ignorance. Are you saying one cannot lead a faithful life without some reasonable assurance?

1. Not quite sure what you're asking in the first paragraph. But to be clear: I dont hold anything to be "universally true". I hold things to be factual only based on the probability of being correct via the evidence that supports it. If something comes along that conflicts with something I hold to be true, I then remove that belief to be true. There is no belief or assumption of fact that isnt directly based on the evidence/reproducibility of said premis.

2. What do you consider a faithful life? Faith = Belief in something with no evidence to back it up, or where evidence directly conflicts with said belief, but you still "choose" to believe. It is inherently against reasonable deduction. Faith is by definition the opposite of reason.

edit:

Plow:

Not necessarily. Because even a premis without supporting evidence can be "reasonably probable" if the basis for that premis is sound. Meaning if you have a theory on the origins of the universe based on mathematical models of current subatomic particle reactions, then that theory is "based on current knowledge and is reasonably acceptable, though not necessarily true", even if you cant provide supporting evidence or proof for that theory. However, theories on creationism offer no basis for development of the original premis beyond "well because".

[Plow]

Faith = Belief in something with no evidence to back it up, or where evidence directly conflicts with said belief, but you still "choose" to believe. It is inherently against reasonable deduction. Faith is by definition the opposite of reason.

This is just plain wrong. Faith has a *lot* of meanings, and the closest one is believing in something without direct indisputable proof.


edit: dictionary.com lists 9

–noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.
Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9.
in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

The usage of the 2nd one is pretty epic.

[Neosutra]

That's probably one of the hardest parts of arguing Faith vs Reason, no one uses the same definition of Faith.

When theist talk about faith, they mean a range of things from "simple trust" to "unyielding belief regardless of evidence".

I obviously am using the 2nd definition.

[Jaybar]

1. Not quite sure what you're asking in the first paragraph. But to be clear: I dont hold anything to be "universally true". I hold things to be factual only based on the probability of being correct via the evidence that supports it. If something comes along that conflicts with something I hold to be true, I then remove that belief to be true. There is no belief or assumption of fact that isnt directly based on the evidence/reproducibility of said premis.

2. What do you consider a faithful life? Faith = Belief in something with no evidence to back it up, or where evidence directly conflicts with said belief, but you still "choose" to believe. It is inherently against reasonable deduction. Faith is by definition the opposite of reason.

How do you hold the Bible to be unfactual? It was canonized by a scholarly group of theological candidates. It's not like a bunch of red-neck hillbillies got together and conglomerated on how to bear arms against socialist commies. Note: I'm not holding the Bible to be completely fact. There are few documents that can stand next to OT manuscripts (Stellas and some Babylonian/Syrian tablets, some of which actually coincide with OT scripture). It's "probable" that ... ugh ... God created the Earth 6000 years ago. .... The only problem is that most of the OT isn't a biography. A lot of scholars now-a-days try to think it is.

Not sure if I can elaborate anymore, since I'm not given much to argue with, but for 2.)

It is unsound to agglomerate belief and faith to equate to contradiction of reason. They don't even come close. In fact, they are completely different geneses of thought. I believe in following the path of Christ. That is a completely different life-style choice that I have put aside for myself, but I suppose following this belief contradicts my acknowledgment of evolution or big bang? I don't believe it does.

[Neosutra]

Wait, the bible is factual because theologians said so?

Really?

[Plow]

Yeah it's pretty easy to argue against the people that even those who agree with think are crazy and then pretend they're everyone.

[Jaybar]

Science is factual because scientist say so?

Really?

Pulling strings, but don't take sentences out of context.