Hang on. Faith is not "by definition" believing without logical evidence.
faith (fāth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often FaithChristianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.
^^Taken from dictionary.com. Please note definition 2.
Interesting. To what purpose is evolution directed?
Evolution is directed for the purpose of survival, in a nutshell. Although I understand the concepts, unfortunately I am not wordy enough to explain it properly (alas, for I am not a scientist). The best advice I could give if you wish to understand these things would to read the works of Richard Dawkins, his chapter on evolution in 'The God Delusion' is simple, straightforward, consise and easy to understand. In fact, for a pretty decent understanding of the atheistic postition I would recommend you read the whole book. It is pretty much my own personal beliefs on religion written up and published by someone much more articulate.
As for actual evidence, I guess my first question is -- Why would you think I exist, granted that there's no real evidence I exist? Words on a forum aren't evidence of my existence, are they?
Are you appealing to the 'you cannot disprove' argument? Well...you cannot disprove any number of things (fairies, goblins, greek gods, roman gods, celestial teapots, etc), that doesn't mean we should give them the benifit of the doubt. No your words are not evidence that you exist, you may be someone else for all I know. But for now the evidence in front of me suggests that you do exist. Or we could get all Cartesian and say well, you show evidence of intelligent thought and free will, therefore I can only assume you are a separate entity and not a figment of my imagination (I think therefore I am). For the record though, I never stated that you did exist.
It's just been politics (the philosophical kind), not evidence.
Speaking of philosophy...go to your library or book store and pick up any text on basic philosophy that adresses the question of the existance of god. I have yet to find one that says god can be proved by philosophical logic. For mor info please refer to these books. If you would like suggestions I can give you a list.
As someone alluded to above, why would i settle for a Big Mac when i have a perfectly cooked steak dinner sitting in front of me?
Answer: because the big mac is real, and the steak dinner is not
Well, from my perspective, the Big Mac isn't real - especially when I have eaten of the steak and find it thoroughly delicious and satisfying.
its actually funny that you mention steak dinner because my mind immediately shot to the scene in the matrix where the bad guy (what was his name again?) and agent smith are eating a delicious steak dinner. "ignorance is bliss" i believe is the quote.
What's your point? Is the Matrix movie an important philosophical source for you? I hope not.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often FaithChristianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.
^^Taken from dictionary.com. Please note definition 2.
Please note definition 1.
"faith" is an English word with common usage markings tied to it from the modern period of human culture. Just blanket identifying that with the ancient Greek term "pistis" is not a valid means of determining what this word meant.
That's not what the word meant. Referencing an English dictionary prior to the writing of Kierkegaard's "Either/Or", you find that's not what the English word meant even a few hundred years ago.
Originally Posted by RealityPixie
Evolution is directed for the purpose of survival, in a nutshell.
It's not. The result of evolution within seriously limited parameters, is simply the survival of what survives. When nothing survives, nothing survives. Were the purpose of evolution survival, something would survive.
Evolution is simply an explanation that what's survived, has survived due to variations. It's a statistical observation.
Originally Posted by RealityPixie
Although I understand the concepts, unfortunately I am not wordy enough to explain it properly (alas, for I am not a scientist). The best advice I could give if you wish to understand these things would to read the works of Richard Dawkins, his chapter on evolution in 'The God Delusion' is simple, straightforward, consise and easy to understand. In fact, for a pretty decent understanding of the atheistic postition I would recommend you read the whole book. It is pretty much my own personal beliefs on religion written up and published by someone much more articulate.
I'm sorry, the book is mostly rhetorical hubris. State what you would like to discuss. Quote excerpts if you'd like.
some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.
Anyone who bases truth on his view of how sensible a thought is, how logical, how consistent with what he knows or believes to be true -- such a person as Dawkins has self-expressed his view of truth to be, has to admit his attack is an engagement in some form of megalomania. Let's say I applied Dawkins' principle to, say, Dawkins' most unpleasant opposition. If fundamentalist Christians find their positions "survive the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact." So applying Dawkins' own rule, Christians more closely approach fact.
Originally Posted by RealityPixie
Are you appealing to the 'you cannot disprove' argument? Well...you cannot disprove any number of things (fairies, goblins, greek gods, roman gods, celestial teapots, etc), that doesn't mean we should give them the benifit of the doubt.
No. As Yancey's "Rumors of Another World" points out, there're plenty of things we can't prove, that nevertheless have evidence for their existence. MacIntyre's "After Virtue" makes the same point for the phenomenon of ethics -- in one of the better scholarly books on ethics produced in modern times.
Originally Posted by RealityPixie
No your words are not evidence that you exist, you may be someone else for all I know.
Underestimated scope. My existence -- no matter who or what I am -- my words are not evidence for that. If they were, well, you'd know the continuation of the reasoning.
Originally Posted by RealityPixie
But for now the evidence in front of me suggests that you do exist.
Why? With no proof, you're saying there's evidence, non-proof types of evidence, that would lead you to accept the fact of my existence.
What's the problem with non-proof types of evidence for other forms of existence?
Originally Posted by RealityPixie
Or we could get all Cartesian and say well, you show evidence of intelligent thought and free will, therefore I can only assume you are a separate entity and not a figment of my imagination (I think therefore I am). For the record though, I never stated that you did exist.
Thinking isn't proof of existence. In point of fact, phenomenology has not revealed "thinking" exists. No one can tell if an AI program "thinks", for instance. There's no principle here. Again, "thinking" is an inference for existence, not a proof.
And if we're talking about inferences, that widens the field of discussion remarkably regarding spirituality, existence, God.
Originally Posted by RealityPixie
Speaking of philosophy...go to your library or book store and pick up any text on basic philosophy that adresses the question of the existance of god. I have yet to find one that says god can be proved by philosophical logic. For mor info please refer to these books. If you would like suggestions I can give you a list.
ROFL! Your deprecation doesn't reflect well on your position. Philosophy can't prove your existence by deductive reasoning. It has trouble even defining you.
I took philosophy. Patronizing is not a very good method of argumentation. It reflects Dawkins, though. He's patronizing on issues he really has no clue about. If that's your position, I can tell you right now -- the experts in these fields snicker at his shallow flailing. He's dancing on thin ice. The cold reality hits anyone who breaks through that thin outer crust.
Would I expect you to suddenly jump to my opinions? Nothing of the sort. I'm simply warning ya, Dawkins is not really well-considered. He's the New York Post of philosophy and religion. After 2000 years, Christianity has addressed much of the New York Times of philosophy and religion. But the New York Post is just a belligerent.
I'd suggest you grab a copy of Hayakawa's "Language in Thought & Action", and analyze Dawkins' book. Then you'll at least see the point. Dawkins has violated his own advocated rules of rational value, scientific principle, and observational phenomenology. To do so essentially condemns his view as inconsistent. If Dawkins requires marginalization, tarring & feathering, connotations of evildoing for his opponents -- then Dawkins has rejected science and rationalism on its own principles, and his position collapses under its own weight.
And that's why Dawkins is so often subjected to this consistency test. Because he fails, his position also fails.
__________________ "... not an unconcerned sitting of God in heaven, from which He merely observes the things that are done in the world; but that all-active and all-concerned seatedness on His throne above, by which He governs the world which He Himself hath made." John Calvin
To us, O LORD, belongs open shame, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against you.
Last edited by heymikey80; 6th November 2009 at 09:09 PM.
15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
In your great quest for God, know that this verse only asks the believer to give you the Reason for the hope that resides in him. We are not commanded to give you an answer that satisfies your specific wants or needs for any given topic. In essences we are to simply share the Gospel. To which in the time you have spent here, that has been done.
Also know we are to shake the dust from our feet, and not to throw our pearls of wisdom before swine. So at a time of our choosing, any one of us can simply stop speaking to you about any topic, and remain with in the guidelines that govern our efforts here.
That said I have a question, If you represent a religion that supposed to have no structure or support, then what kind of questions are we supposed to ask?
Anything you say will be a shallow representation of your take on your system of faith.. or lack there of. How will this help any of us to server anyone else but you?
If your presents here is about your quest into Christianity then why don't we stay on point? Why don't you ask and let us answer? That is unless in fact you are here for a reason other than the one you stated.
Just letting you know I havn't forgotten about your questions, but will be unable to answer for a while. I'm currently in the middle of exams, and the points you raise heymikey require much thought.
When I have had time to properly asses these questions and your points I will address them in the Ask an Atheist thread in the NC religion forum out of respect to mods here.
Until then, I may pop in every now and against to answer shorter questions that I know off the top of my head. My exams finish on the 16th so I may not have any well thought out answers for you until then. But don't worry, I havn't forgotten.
In your great quest for God, know that this verse only asks the believer to give you the Reason for the hope that resides in him. We are not commanded to give you an answer that satisfies your specific wants or needs for any given topic. In essences we are to simply share the Gospel. To which in the time you have spent here, that has been done.
Also know we are to shake the dust from our feet, and not to throw our pearls of wisdom before swine. So at a time of our choosing, any one of us can simply stop speaking to you about any topic, and remain with in the guidelines that govern our efforts here.
That said I have a question, If you represent a religion that supposed to have no structure or support, then what kind of questions are we supposed to ask?
Anything you say will be a shallow representation of your take on your system of faith.. or lack there of. How will this help any of us to server anyone else but you?
If your presents here is about your quest into Christianity then why don't we stay on point? Why don't you ask and let us answer? That is unless in fact you are here for a reason other than the one you stated.
you are correct, my sig does not say that you have to give a good answer, only an answer. i, however, thought it would be appropriate for this site.
reguarding what questions you should ask, how should i know? many questions that im asked by people face to face are stuff like whats your purpose, things about morality (i have an intresting morality to begin with), stuff like that. im sure that many christians dont have tons of atheist friends (i know i didnt when i was a christian) so i thought it could be a learning experience for the both of us. also, my take on the "religion" (its not) of atheism will be very shallow, one man in fact with probably no other believing exactly like me.
i have asked a number of questions on the site. i will link them below if you wish to answer them as well.
i also do not get a ton of philosophy from the matrix, i just thought the irony was humerous.
__________________ 15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, (1 peter 3:15)
Linear Mode
