Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am sure that is true in a few cases but it is wrong to take what a small minority may think globally. To do so would be an magnificent example of the common cognitive distortion of magnification.Whodathunkit?
What we call "faith," science calls "intellectual dishonesty."
In Christianity, a highest virtue is Faith.
Belief in that which cannot be " seen" nor
detected in any other way.
Belief despite no evidence. Belief in spite of
all evidence.
In research such bias is recognized as intellectual dishonesty, a disgrace. It is anti science.
A highest value, is to do ones utmost to be
objective.
That some benighted Christians play the
" same evidence, different conclusion" game
and make the grand canyon into flood proof
and "paluxy man tracks" into disproof of
ToE speaks only ill of them and their capacity
for intellectualtual honesty.
Fortunately, they lack the capacity to bring
discredit to all Christians, nor to the noble faith
that they so poorly represent.
Then I take it you don't agree with her?I am sure that is true in a few cases but it is wrong to take what a small minority may think globally. To do so would be an magnificent example of the common cognitive distortion of magnification.
I know it's not about ocd. I just gave that as oneWhat you say is true, but the article is not about OCD or hypertrophy it is about a hypothesis about evolution and what Christians label sin. I am interested in how cognitive distortions (distorted thinking) which are, more often than not, the culprit in both physical and mental illnesses relate to the deadly sins.
I'm going to disagree with you here, chief."Faith" definitely ISN'T "belief despite no evidence" or "belief in spite of all evidence."
I'm going to disagree with you here, chief.
I have faith that God created this earth by speaking it into existence, as stipulated in the Bible.
And believe me, science has ZERO EVIDENCE to that effect.
Oh, my!Well, "Chief" you can feel free to disagree with me about the extent to which you and your church confuse so many issues.
I'm not overly concerned by your disagreement; I'm most definitely NOT threatened by it either. In your own way, you're doing the same thing as Estrid, just from another angle.
So, "chief." You can back off too!!!
That's unfortunately incorrect and reflects a more or less dogmatic position, one that smacks of Logical Positivism and Scientism, which neither atheists nor Christians can epistemologically sustain.
"Faith" definitely ISN'T "belief despite no evidence" or "belief in spite of all evidence."
This is claptrap of the utmost degree, and surely you're a better scientist than what you're expressing with all of this. You're being dishonest and simply presenting a lot of hubris. And you know what? It's getting to be a bit tiresome (and maybe just a little bit tinged with that dredded 'T' word that people aren't supposed to say here...so I won't say it.)
And why do I say that you're dishonest? I say this because like so many here, you refuse to engage so many other fields other than the one that you arbitrarily favor, so you grandstand and facepalm so much of what is presented. (I do understand, however, that AV's views make this a difficult situation to sort out...)
Oh, my!
What tripped your hammer?
No, don't do that. Don't try to backpeddle. Just accept that you're over asserting the epistemic soundness of your claims, Estrid. Just admit that you haven't studied other fields that may have some implied weight upon your current perspective and simply not having an interest in this fails as an excuse, especially for those of us (you and me) who are academically inclined.I did not attempt a treatise on all aspects of faith.
As it relates to the subject I was discussing, regarding "same evidence, different conclusion", that one aspect
of faith, my comment is exactly right on.
The spray of adjectives you directed at me because
you reworked my simple observation about this
one aspect of faith would be better applied to yourself.
post conceived.Only if ones preconcieved ideas means evolution is more valid than the bible.
Tell that to Shoko Asahara, Jim Jones, and the Hindus.I do think one grand purpose for religion in human life is to help us re-mold our motivations and willingly forgo certain impulses that evolved to protect us as strictly animals, which now unchecked hinder our flourishing as reasoning humans.
Many people hold one over the other yet faith in bible and ToE are different in nature from something else of a similar type. There is no inherent need to value one over the other. The need to do so is man made.Only if ones preconcieved ideas means evolution is more valid than the bible.
Religion can also be used for nefarious purposes. But I think its purpose in the mainstream is pretty much as I described.Tell that to Shoko Asahara, Jim Jones, and the Hindus.
"Now faith is the substance of thingsNo, don't do that. Don't try to backpeddle. Just accept that you're over asserting the epistemic soundness of your claims, Estrid. Just admit that you haven't studied other fields that may have some implied weight upon your current perspective and simply not having an interest in this fails as an excuse, especially for those of us (you and me) who are academically inclined.
There goes that hubris again. If you want your little claim here to surmount its limited and mistaken application, then start engaging and overcoming viewpoints and scholarly insights of Christian thinkers who don't reflect the idiosyncatic theology of AV.
Otherwise, you're just grandstanding and gaslighting.
Faith as in Hebrews and faith that water willMany people hold one over the other yet faith in bible and ToE are different in nature from something else of a similar type. There is no inherent need to value one over the other. The need to do so is man made.
I have no problem with what people believe. The problem arises when particular religions or their demonetization demand their religious creation stories to be taught in public schools. Imagine what the uproar would be for YECs if Hindus made similar demands that public schools teach that their creator god Brahma emerged from an egg and created the world.Example of Faith that does not involve
intellectual dishonesty? Flood belief, say?
Same here. Believe ye as ye will.I have no problem with what people believe. The problem arises when particular religions or their demonetization demand their religious creation stories to be taught in public schools. Imagine what the uproar would be for YECs if Hindus made similar demands that public schools teach that their creator god Brahma emerged from an egg and created the world.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?