Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
- Thread starter Mathias
- Start date
did...did...you just call creationists stupid? *golf claps*
Which is fine, but misrepresenting the entire concept of faith isn't the best way to make a point on logic and reason.[DOUBLEPOST=1392047374,1392047149][/DOUBLEPOST]
And we've circled back around to the misrepresentation and belittling.
I think its only misrepresented in those who believe, I am with Bowielee, his "opinion" on what faith is in a religious sense seems to be approximate to my and my circle of friends on what it is to have "faith".
This spurred a conversation while I was hanging out with my friends about the semantics of the use of faith and belief. for me personally bowielee's use of faith is right on target for how it is used by myself. I use believe in the sense of evidence for or against. I.G. "I have faith that we will make it out of this thing in one piece, but really I believe that this might be the end for us."
This spurred a conversation while I was hanging out with my friends about the semantics of the use of faith and belief. for me personally bowielee's use of faith is right on target for how it is used by myself. I use believe in the sense of evidence for or against. I.G. "I have faith that we will make it out of this thing in one piece, but really I believe that this might be the end for us."
I didn't misrepresent it in the context of the original video that sparked all this. For many people, faith does mean accepting the bible at face value regardless of evidence to the contrary. Pez asserted that this is no different than the scientific method, which is where this whole go round started from. The problem is that we're mixing multiple discussions, not to mention stretching them across two different threads.
) guys, stop Halforuming shit up!
And that is part of the disconnect. Changing the definition of faith in an effort to belittle those who make use of it. People are often guilty of misrepresenting their faith or overextending their faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, but that isn't faith as much as ignorance.
If I may borrow the use of biblical scripture here for a second, this is as general a concept of religious faith as I can reasonably assume of all Christians, at the least, from Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
If I may borrow the use of biblical scripture here for a second, this is as general a concept of religious faith as I can reasonably assume of all Christians, at the least, from Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Not to mention there's a slight language gap. My English is good and all, but it's still only my third language. This occasionally shows when discussing philosophical/religious topics. Semantics can get very important, and some of the finer points are hard to make when not knowing the exact words.
You keep saying belittling, I'm not belittling anyone, never have. I have no clue where you're getting that from.
No, not you, mostly it's passive-aggressive Gilgamesh over there who thinks anything he doesn't understand is funny.
EDIT: You have, however, twice stated that anyone with religious faith has it despite evidence to the contrary, which is a misrepresentation of faith. As soon as someone tried to explain that, you got defensive immediately and backed off.
Last edited:
I'd just like to add one thing to this conversation. I've seen many times in this thread people refer to atheism as being close to religion because it's still a belief without hard evidence, either belief that God does exit, or belief that he doesn't.
MOST scientifically minded people who identify as atheists (myself included) are actually agnostic, in that the existence of God cannot be disproven, so the possibility, however faint we might think it is, is there. That sort of acceptance of possibility is a founding corner of science, as any hard proof that might suggest God is real would then be studied and questioned, and new ideas possibly formed.
The reason those agnostics claim to be an atheist instead of agnostic is because while the possibility of God is there, they still lean heavily towards the side of 'probably not.' In the same way, we can't know for certain that we aren't human batteries plugged into the Matrix living a virtual reality world, but we operate under the assumption that the evidence we can find in the natural world is real and that we aren't all just hallucinating.
MOST scientifically minded people who identify as atheists (myself included) are actually agnostic, in that the existence of God cannot be disproven, so the possibility, however faint we might think it is, is there. That sort of acceptance of possibility is a founding corner of science, as any hard proof that might suggest God is real would then be studied and questioned, and new ideas possibly formed.
The reason those agnostics claim to be an atheist instead of agnostic is because while the possibility of God is there, they still lean heavily towards the side of 'probably not.' In the same way, we can't know for certain that we aren't human batteries plugged into the Matrix living a virtual reality world, but we operate under the assumption that the evidence we can find in the natural world is real and that we aren't all just hallucinating.
What Poe said.
Did you know that a lot of people identify as agnostic atheists? The two concepts are 100% compatible.
Gnosticism is about knowledge, about knowing. Theism is about belief in a god or gods.
A gnostic theist knows that there is a god or gods. An agnostic theist does not know if there is a god or gods, but believes so.
Similarly, a gnostic atheist knows that there is no god or gods. An agnostic atheist does not know whether there is a god or gods, but does not believe so.
I'd also like to emphasize that an absence of belief does not equal belief in an absence.
Based on this definition, I'd actually say a lot of you fit the definition of atheists. Don't believe me? Take a sheet of paper, and on it write down the names of all the gods you believe (or know) exist. If the paper remains blank, then you are an atheist. The paper may be blank because you honestly don't know if there's a higher power, and that's fine. The paper may be blank because you are certain there's no higher power, and that's fine too. Either way, you're an atheist.
Last edited:
No, don't do that. We all know how that ends.
figmentPez
Staff member
Yes, I did. Because words do not use all their meanings at the same time. Someone who says that they're going to cleave meat from the bone does not simultaneously mean that they will both adhere closely and split or divide. Just because faith can be used in that manner does not mean that that all faith is of that type.
If you'd would go back and read my posts more carefully, an with less bias, I think you'll find that I did not claim that they are equatable, merely that they have commonality. If I were to compare a wood axe and a two-handed sword by saying that they are both made of steel, have a sharpened cutting edge and are made to be used with two hands on the grip, I would not be saying that the two are equivalent. Despite having many commonalities, a sword is not a good choice for cutting down trees, and a wood axe is less than optimal for combat. The faith that people put in science and the faith that people put in religion have many commonalities, but they are not equivalent.[DOUBLEPOST=1392056014,1392055817][/DOUBLEPOST]
Saying that someone is using a "semantic game to justify his own beliefs" is belittling those beliefs. Especially when you have been battling a strawman argument that does not reflect what I have asserted.
figmentPez
Staff member
Actually, I am using a religious definition of faith. My definition of faith is firmly founded in Protestant theology, and a great number of pastors would affirm that our faith in God is founded on the reliable testimony of witnesses. We believe because we trust those who have seen and given their testimony to us. That is the foundation of the Christian faith.
SOB YOU HAVE BEEN IN MY STASH AGAIN!
to be fair that was some really good "electric kool-aid".[DOUBLEPOST=1392056751,1392056614][/DOUBLEPOST]
so thats what "witnessing" means? seriously?! I was raised Roman Catholic so that was never a thing, and I always wondered why it was called that. thats actually a TIL moment for me.
So then you have trust in those testimonies without any proof to yourself. I see no disconnect in the definition.
And I'm not saying you can't have faith in that. Do whatever you want, man. It's just arguing over definitions of words instead of the actual topic seems a bit pedantic.
figmentPez
Staff member
And how is that different from the majority of the population who will never participate in peer review of science? (there is a difference, I just want you to spell it out, because I'm not sure you've thought this through.)
so the argument is that we should trust that there is a god because others say so, and we should trust that there is gravity because scientist say so. However leaving philosphy out play, we can test experiments ourselves to see the concepts in action for gravity. however we can not test for god, as we yet have a way to sense it. so I have to have faith god is out there, but I can believe in gravity because I can test for it.
this seems to be the ultimate crux as i can understand it so far.
this seems to be the ultimate crux as i can understand it so far.
Because they are repeatable. Because even if someone lacks the resources to recreate an experiment themselves, they can read the report of countless others who have. They can go to a university and witness the experiment in progress. They can go on youtube and watch the same. The outcome of the event can be recreated and reviewed by countless other people, and held to scrutiny by the scientific community at large, without having to rely that someone who is dead was totally telling the truth. "Reliable" testimony in science is only reliable if the event in question can be recreated and observed again, and again, and again.
figmentPez
Staff member
Yes, it's easier to go out and replicate science. You can't intentionally go out and replicate the witness of those who knew Jesus Christ.
However, the average person not only has not gone and and replicated every scientific experiment out there, the average person lacks the ability to replicate every scientific experiment, and many lack the ability to understand the results, even if they did. Even scientists have it well beyond their individual abilities to replicate each and every result that they are expected to believe. The system works, and has checks and balances, but still requires people to put their faith in the testimony of human witnesses.
Duh! I already stated that each person has to decide what they consider reliable, and that a great deal of philosophical debate needs to go into deciding what should be required to believe testimony. If you weren't so quick to dismiss me out of turn, you might have heard that.
Unbunch your panties Gladys, I was kidding.
I think the problem is that you are using Jesus as an example of a god, I am not, I am including all possible universal forces of good and creation. To many mortal men have claimed to be gods and been found charlatans. How do you remedy that the Jewish and Muslim faith only consider him a prophet? is their word any less trustworthy? all three worship the one true god and only one can be right. should I not trust that 2 out of 3 hit it on the head?
So your argument is that what is true should be dictated by popular opinion, then, in the absence of proof?
I mean, the simplest "remedy" is that not everyone agrees about everything, even within the bounds of a single sect of a single denomination of a single religion. Which goes back to the point I mentioned earlier about not assuming because one person says something that everyone thinks the same thing because they are religious.
Last edited:
no I am asking both of you now I guess, how do you remedy that there are 3 major religious branches that believe in the same god, identify the same man, but only one actually thinks he is a god incarnate. if statistics show that 3 people saw him, and only 1 saw god. how do you remedy what the other two saw?
edit: isnt this a simple case of having faith? or does faith only count in your own personal perceptions?
Sorry, edited after you replied.
It's like I said earlier, people disagree about almost everything. Jewish believers are still looking for their Messiah, Christians think it is Jesus, Muslims think Mohammed is God's prophet. It's an oversimplification, but there's no way to generalize believed religious truth through a collaboration of all religions, there are too many disagreements.
So what we're left with in the faith is reading up, deciding for ourselves what we believe, and going with that. That doesn't mean that when we believe something it will never change, or that we hold to things in the opposition to proof elsewhere, it's just a person the same as you deciding something differently when looking at the evidence of life and looking for meaning within.
EDIT: This also doesn't mean we have all the answers about every situation and every minute detail in all aspects of life, the universe, and everything. Everyone is still learning and growing their worldview, or at least they should be.
Religions have disagreements, film at 11. Why is this such a hard thing to comprehend? This is not a binary decision.