Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910
Results 181 to 200 of 200

Thread: Why the belief?

  1. #181
    Trump/Norris - 2012 YoYoPapaya's Avatar
    Posts
    1,039
    lol you dont give up do you?

  2. #182
    Do you know what Winston Churchill's commencement speech was?
    Last edited by wynn; 04-30-11 at 03:05 PM.

  3. #183
    Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Sarkus's Avatar
    Posts
    5,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan Ardena View Post
    You are?
    OK, thought I saw a question mark.
    You did - as a literary device.
    Why?
    "Why?" as in why is Occam's razor an answer? Because it offers what you were asking for... an oriented thinking as to why the idea of God not existing is superior... due to not having the redundancy offered by the idea of God existing.
    I can understand that we have our own personal opinions, but why is ''God did it'' a valueless answer? And to whom exactly is it valueless?
    It is valueless to me in the way that saying my kettle boils water because God does it is valueless.
    And as to whom it is valueless - to people who see no cause to call on the concept of "God" as an explanation.
    Do you side with the many?
    Or do you have your own opinion?
    If my opinions happen to coincide with the many then so be it, but I try not to be swayed by numbers, rather by the arguments put forth.
    You?
    I'm confused.
    Do scientists know what is God?
    Or are they looking for something they call God?
    If someone wishes to posit a definition of God and a means to identify God then they are free to. Science will work with that definition, or any other that is brought forward.
    Some are entirely unscientific, however.
    As nice a guy as you probably are, we weren't talking about you personally.
    In that particular response, the reference to my own position was after the more general point that agnostic atheism is the most rational position for those who do not consider there to be any evidence for the existence of God. i.e. I merely added that I considered myself part of those labelled as agnostic atheists.
    But while we're here;

    Why are you atheist?
    If you say ''lack of evidence'', please explain what is actually lacking which would constitute evidence.
    It is precisely due to lack of evidence... or more accurately it is lack of evidence that can rationally be attributed to "God".
    Evidence that could be attributed to "God" would be something that can never be explained by the underlying laws of the universe.
    If one suggests something that merely currently can not to be explained then unless you can prove that it is actually impossible to explain it with the natural laws then the rational position would be to not assume some additional/redundant concept (God)... until such time as it can be shown to be required.
    Some concepts of God are admittedly beyond the realm of evidence, but then for those how can we be other than agnostic?
    So you're (ag) atheist to ''no specific idea'' of God, and are happy to be (ag)atheist to whatever ideas other bring to the table?
    To most current concepts of God, that have pushed themselves outside the realm of science, I can only be agnostic, and from there atheist (the "no belief" variety). To those that remain within the bounds of science I could possibly be strong-atheist... but would depend upon the precise definition put forward. I have yet to see a definition that is within the realm of science that has been proven as true.

    An explanation of why you think this, would be more of an intelligent move IMHO.
    If you seem to actually understand the meaning intended by someone but seem to then deliberately respond to the most negative interpretation you can come up with, I consider that to be disingenuous.

    I don't know, it doesn't seem that my lifestyle is of the same quality as that of a self-realised soul, like Jesus, or, Mohammad, or any of the great personalities in scripture (and not), who by dint of their great intelligence advance themselves to such lofty heights.
    I guess I could always choose to believe you... that you speak the truth and that God exists and has spoken to you... and to rely on your authority... but then if I was to do that I would surely already have chosen to believe one of those you reference.

    How does one decide one has no evidence of God?
    Begin with the assumption that it is not evidence (the rational position of not assuming something until necessary) and wait until it is necessary to call on "God" as an explanation for the evidence at hand.

    At what point in the investigation is this decision made?
    It (rationally) is (or should be) the default position from the very start until "God" is a necessary explanation for the evidence.
    So far to me it has not become so.
    Again, that is to say God does not exist, but so far I have not seen God as a necessary explanation.

    One can choose either to start with the assumption of God's existence, or the assumption of God's non-existence, and wait until there is no alternative but to change your view.
    The former would lead one also to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the FSM, the Celestial Teapot etc and everything else that people lay claim to without evidence to the contrary.

    The latter, however, is (what I consider to be) the rational position.

  4. #184
    Registered Member praty's Avatar
    Posts
    78
    Look who just joined in...

    It's Stephan Hawking.

  5. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by lightgigantic View Post
    given that faith is the initial prerequisite for any knowledge based claim, I guess the only way for you not to be insulted is to be labeled as ignorant.
    Faith is the opposite of knowledge.

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    Faith is the opposite of knowledge.
    as mentioned earlier, one cannot arrive at any knowledge based claim without initially implementing faith ... and as a further point, one cannot begin to hope to expand one's knowledge base without utilizing faith.

    To do you justice however, I think you have to more properly define the words "faith" and "knowledge" if you want to classify them as opposites, because their broadness places them more succinctly as interactive .

  7. #187
    Valued Senior Member SciWriter's Avatar
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by lightgigantic View Post
    as mentioned earlier, one cannot arrive at any knowledge based claim without initially implementing faith ... and as a further point, one cannot begin to hope to expand one's knowledge base without utilizing faith.

    To do you justice however, I think you have to more properly define the words "faith" and "knowledge" if you want to classify them as opposites, because their broadness places them more succinctly as interactive .
    'Unknown' is the opposite of 'known'.

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by SciWriter View Post
    'Unknown' is the opposite of 'known'.
    and inductive knowledge is ...?

  9. #189
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    Faith is the opposite of knowledge.
    I would say faith is a kind of knowledge.

    Take a look at this long article which goes into what Catholics mean by faith:
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/FTHRT.txt
    I highly encourage you to read it, please!

  10. #190
    Valued Senior Member SciWriter's Avatar
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by lightgigantic View Post
    and inductive knowledge is ...?
    the inference of general laws from particular instances.

  11. #191
    Valued Senior Member SciWriter's Avatar
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Mind Over Matter View Post
    I would say faith is a kind of knowledge.

    Take a look at this long article which goes into what Catholics mean by faith:
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/FTHRT.txt
    I highly encourage you to read it, please!
    I pretty much ignore the strong belief stuff now that goes nowhere.

    Once in a while I may come out of this retirement.

  12. #192
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,205
    closed-minded?

  13. #193
    Valued Senior Member SciWriter's Avatar
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Mind Over Matter View Post
    closed-minded?
    No, it's useless.

    Stolen from FraggleRocker and extended:

    Supernaturalism is (almost certainly) an instinct, plus it can be greatly grooved upon, and you can't reason some people out of an instinct. Very few can inspect and reject their own thoughts. "Knowledge" you are born with feels more true than knowledge you acquire later through reasoning and learning. And when they think of God they will ‘see’ more God and/or mistake felt sensations for it. Bypassing the believer works, though, to save time.

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by Mind Over Matter View Post
    closed-minded?
    Working toward another opportunity for an apology?

  15. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by SciWriter View Post
    the inference of general laws from particular instances.
    Is "inductive knowledge" something that can be classified as "known", or should it be classified as "unknown"?

  16. #196
    Valued Senior Member SciWriter's Avatar
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Signal View Post
    Is "inductive knowledge" something that can be classified as "known", or should it be classified as "unknown"?
    Since it is knowledge it is known.

  17. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by SciWriter View Post
    Since it is knowledge it is known.
    The topic is inductive knowledge.

    "Inductive" means as much as 'on faith' - do you realize that??

  18. #198
    Valued Senior Member SciWriter's Avatar
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Signal View Post
    The topic is inductive knowledge.

    "Inductive" means as much as 'on faith' - do you realize that??
    Deductive reasoning is much stronger, as inductive reasoning extends probability to 100%. (but a black swan was found in Australia). Inductive reasoning is still of observation of the actual; faith is about proposed unknowns and invisibles.

    inductive |inˈdəktiv|
    adjective
    1 characterized by the inference of general laws from particular instances : instinct rather than inductive reasoning marked her approach to life.

  19. #199
    OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Posts
    5,259
    Quote Originally Posted by SciWriter View Post
    Deductive reasoning is much stronger, as inductive reasoning extends probability to 100%.
    i would think inductive would lead to deductive,
    one has to actually decide to devote attention to deductive reasoning,
    inductive is more of a generalized reasoning (see def below)
    (deductive being a specific instance)

    Inductive reasoning is still of observation of the actual; faith is about proposed unknowns and invisibles.
    true enough with respect to definition of the term 'unknowns'
    (unknowable/unknown right now/unknown how to describe?)
    and the term 'invisibles' is only your own prejudice showing through..


    inductive |inˈdəktiv|
    adjective
    1 characterized by the inference of general laws from particular instances :

  20. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by SciWriter View Post
    Deductive reasoning is much stronger, as inductive reasoning extends probability to 100%. (but a black swan was found in Australia). Inductive reasoning is still of observation of the actual; faith is about proposed unknowns and invisibles.

    inductive |inˈdəktiv|
    adjective
    1 characterized by the inference of general laws from particular instances : instinct rather than inductive reasoning marked her approach to life.
    they accepted on faith that all swans were white, no?

    (or are you making the folly of "preserving strong belief" as you outlined in your OP?)

Similar Threads

  1. By ULTRA in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 05-10-11, 06:49 PM
    Replies: 84
  2. By Greatest I am in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 01-16-11, 07:15 PM
    Replies: 63
  3. By Bishadi in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 12-24-09, 05:55 PM
    Replies: 1
  4. By Tht1Gy! in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 05-01-09, 06:26 AM
    Replies: 1323
  5. By Simon Anders in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 08-03-08, 03:38 AM
    Replies: 60

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •