Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 90
  1. #41
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Indeed, there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed outside of the pages of the Bible.
    There's no evidence that Julius Caesar existed outside of Roman scrolls, yet we don't question his existence.


  2. #42
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abeth86 View Post
    There's no evidence that Julius Caesar existed outside of Roman scrolls, yet we don't question his existence.
    False. The existence of Julius Ceasar is recorded in numerous independent contemporary documenatry sources. There's also the supporting physical evidence supplied by contemporary artwork and coins with Caesar's image...

    Sorry, but Julius Caesar's existence is far better documented than Ieshua ben Ioseph's.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  3. #43
    MembersZone Subscriber Dickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,111

    Default

    What does that guy know?

    He can't even talk.
    Jason Knecht
    Assistant Chief
    Altoona Fire Dept.
    Altoona, WI

    IACOJ - Director of Cheese and Whine
    http://www.cheddarvision.tv/
    EAT CHEESE OR DIE!!

  4. #44
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I beg to differ. The rules of logic are independent of personal opinion. Conclusions based on "faith" are, by definition, contrary to rationality. It's not judgement; it's just the meaning of the words.

    Where rationality is concerned, only objective evidence is valid.
    Is the test now "objective evidence"?

    As for the definition of faith, it's merely believing in something for which you have no proof, or an alternate definition is to merely believe in god. I see no requirement in the definition that it's an irrational belief or that faith requires a lack of logic.

    There are many examples in science where there is a lack of "objective evidence" and yet we wouldn't consider their theories irrational. Why are we applying different standards to a belief for which there is no "proof".

    Other comments from the believers is that logic is a limited man-made process being applied to something supernatural. This is especially problematic when we are discussing science that cannot be proven through any replicable experimentation (macro evolution), but is accepted as good logical scientific theory.

    The mere fact that "logic" is not black and white blurs the test you are applying here.

    One can fly on a plane based on rational judgement. Not that everyone bothers to understand or make rational analysis of the relative safety of flight. As there is no objective evidence for the existence of g_d(s) on which to base analyses, any such belief is inherently irrational.
    There is no no objective evidence that the plane will make it safely to your destination, either. Therefore, you rely on faith.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  5. #45
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    There is no no objective evidence that the plane will make it safely to your destination, either. Therefore, you rely on faith.
    But one has a reasonable belief that will happen based upon the history of the plane and the route taken.

    The same can't be said for a supreme being that is not anthropomorphic.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #46
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    But one has a reasonable belief that will happen based upon the history of the plane and the route taken.

    The same can't be said for a supreme being that is not anthropomorphic.
    You are playing odds, really. You have no objective evidence about that flight, that aircraft.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  7. #47
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    You are playing odds, really. You have no objective evidence about that flight, that aircraft.
    No doubt about it. The odds can be predicted with some degree of certainty and the process can be replicated over and over to determine that probability. The same cannot be done for a supreme being.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #48
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    360

    Default

    And what of the dyslexic agnostic, who asked..."Is there a Dog??"

  9. #49
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    It's not "my mind". I don't have that faith.

    Also, I think its a bit immature to write off what a large percentage of the world believes as silliness.
    Immature? Heh...more people smoke cigarettes than there are Christians; does that make that the right thing to do, as well? Attempting to make a point by appealing to the masses must mean you're digging deep in the ol' ammo pouch.

  10. #50
    55 Years & Still Rolling hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Talking Hey Rick!!!............

    Now Look. You Sure stirred the hornets Nest this Time......
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  11. #51
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Immature? Heh...more people smoke cigarettes than there are Christians; does that make that the right thing to do, as well? Attempting to make a point by appealing to the masses must mean you're digging deep in the ol' ammo pouch.
    The comparison to smoking is bizarre.

    I wasn't defending others being christian. I guess this discussion is a bit too philosophical for some on these boards.

    I guess if you are so threatened by a belief in a supreme being that you have to call those beliefs silly, then you have more important issues.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  12. #52
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Is the test now "objective evidence"?
    For logical reasoning aka rationality, yes. It always has been.

    As for the definition of faith, it's merely believing in something for which you have no proof,
    Agreed. Believing in something for which there is no objective evidence, "proof," is contrary to reason or "irrational."

    I see no requirement in the definition that it's an irrational belief or that faith requires a lack of logic.
    It's inherent in the meaning of reason, rationality, and logic. A beleif without logical support is "irrational" by it's very nature. That's not judgment; it's just what the words mean.

    There are many examples in science where there is a lack of "objective evidence" and yet we wouldn't consider their theories irrational.
    Such as? (BTW, theories are by nature speculative anyway. They aren't considered facts but tentative models that seek to connect and explain objective evidence or "facts.")

    Why are we applying different standards to a belief for which there is no "proof".
    "We" aren't.

    Other comments from the believers is that logic is a limited man-made process being applied to something supernatural.
    So? Language is manmade as well. If that's their argument, they shouldn't be concerned that their beleifs are "irrational" since it's a manmade concept.

    science that cannot be proven through any replicable experimentation (macro evolution), but is accepted as good logical scientific theory.
    1) "macro evolution" is a red herring dreamed up by Creationists.
    2) Evolution is accepted as a theory because of the mountains of objective evidence supporting it and the virtual absence of evidence contradicting it. Is it a fact? Of course not, but it's a theory with every reasonable probability of being substantially correct.

    The mere fact that "logic" is not black and white blurs the test you are applying here.
    What's blurry to you? The rules of logic say that faith is irrational. That seems pretty clear and sharp to me.

    There is no no objective evidence that the plane will make it safely to your destination, either. Therefore, you rely on faith.
    Of course there is. SC touched on it already. We know why the plane can fly, we know what factors effect the successful completion of the flight, and we have fair amount of flight experience to make predictive models. Unlike "faith," there are objective facts on which to base our predictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    You are playing odds, really. You have no objective evidence about that flight, that aircraft.
    Specifically? Not many. But we do have ample evidence about the general classes of flights and aircraft and repeated observation supports the theory that we can predict future behavior of flights and aircraft by past behavior. You can't make that statement about "faith."

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    I guess if you are so threatened by a belief in a supreme being that you have to call those beliefs silly, then you have more important issues.
    Taking a defensive posture and assuming that people who dismiss "faith" as silly feel threatened by it is counterproductive, IMHO.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  13. #53
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    There are many examples in science where there is a lack of "objective evidence" and yet we wouldn't consider their theories irrational. Why are we applying different standards to a belief for which there is no "proof".
    "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
    --Mark Twain
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #54
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    For logical reasoning aka rationality, yes. It always has been.

    Agreed. Believing in something for which there is no objective evidence, "proof," is contrary to reason or "irrational."

    It's inherent in the meaning of reason, rationality, and logic. A beleif without logical support is "irrational" by it's very nature. That's not judgment; it's just what the words mean.
    Rational means "governed by reason".

    Reason is our method of developing conclusions based on assumptions. Theologians will tell you that reason alone is insufficient to explain the origins of the universe. In fact, the origins of the universe are only theoretical.

    I think that is a fair assumption, because there is a tremendous amount of information that we do know about the universe and its origins. In fact, I would say that we have only scratched the surface of what will be the ultimate answer (if ever discovered). Even at that point, the answers will still only be theoretical.

    Remember science has been wrong before...

    Such as? (BTW, theories are by nature speculative anyway. They aren't considered facts but tentative models that seek to connect and explain objective evidence or "facts.")
    The theory on the origin of the universe, even the "big bang" is now being questioned..

    2) Evolution is accepted as a theory because of the mountains of objective evidence supporting it and the virtual absence of evidence contradicting it. Is it a fact? Of course not, but it's a theory with every reasonable probability of being substantially correct.
    I'm an evolutionist, let me be clear about that. However, as you point out, it's a theory.

    What's blurry to you? The rules of logic say that faith is irrational. That seems pretty clear and sharp to me.
    The rules of logic do not say that about faith. That is how you are applying the "rules" of logic.

    Taking a defensive posture and assuming that people who dismiss "faith" as silly feel threatened by it is counterproductive, IMHO.
    I think you need to take a step back. Calling a belief in faith "silly" is not only counterproductive but insulting.

    Finally, to deny that you are being judgemental is bizarre. When you state that one must have proof in a belief or it is "irrational" you are then passing judgement on that "proof".

    It's not a matter of definitions, it's how you, as the observer, are judging that proof. Someone else, will have a different opinion of the proof.
    Last edited by ChiefKN; 09-06-2010 at 11:05 PM.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  15. #55
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    Agreed. Believing in something for which there is no objective evidence, "proof," is contrary to reason or "irrational."
    So if someone cannot see, prove, or explan something they have faith, or believe in, they are irrational?


    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    Taking a defensive posture and assuming that people who dismiss "faith" as silly feel threatened by it is counterproductive, IMHO.
    You appear to be very agressively trying to dismiss him as irrational. Why is that?

  16. #56
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
    --Mark Twain
    Here are some more.... although, I'm sure you are familiar with this page.

    http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/twain.htm

    Here is one that didn't make the list:

    “God has put something noble and good into every heart His hand created.”

    Mark Twain
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  17. #57
    MembersZone Subscriber voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acklan View Post
    So if someone cannot see, prove, or explan something they have faith, or believe in, they are irrational?
    According to Dictionary.com there are a few definitions for irrational:
    1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
    2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
    3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
    4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.
    While the underlying concept of the word describes something that it's not based on logic all of the definitions have a negative connotation.

    Faith can be described as irrational since it is not based in logic. That doesn't in and of itself make it a bad thing. Unfortunately doing so also brings the negative connotations with it..
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  18. #58
    Forum Member HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    469

    Default

    I must object to your reasoning and logic on your two points.
    1) macro evolution is not a red herring. It is a way to separate what has been scientifically proven from what is a theory. Call it a classification or subcategory. Micro Evolution would be the other subcategory.
    2) Recent studies done by atheist organizations have shown that more 50% of scientists do not believe in the "accepted" big-bang theory that states the universe and everything came into being approximately 14-15 billion years ago. But again, you are bringing in popular opinion to something that should be based completely on observations and reproducible tests.

    There has been much observed, tested, and reproduced that show "micro-evolution". Speciation, adaptation, and loss of genetic information fit perfectly with entropy and the "laws" of nature. I also have not seen anywhere that this has been disputed. There has never been a test or experiment that reproduced the theory of "macro-evolution".

    To take it one philosophical step further,
    -The big-bang was not observed.
    -The big-bang cannot be reproduced (if it were it would most certainly destroy everything in the massive gravitational collapse leading to the bang)
    -"Macro-evolution defies several accepted "laws" such as entropy, physics (having neighboring galaxies rotate in opposite directions when they were created by the same event), known astro-physics, and other "laws"
    ----Therefore, it does not meet the requirement of true science in that it is not observable, reproducible, or conforming to scientifically proven laws. So let's call it what it is; "Macro-evolution" is as much of a religion (actually called naturalism) as creationism.

  19. #59
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acklan View Post
    So if someone cannot see, prove, or explan something they have faith, or believe in, they are irrational?




    You appear to be very agressively trying to dismiss him as irrational. Why is that?
    There is no God before the athiest looking in his mirror.

  20. #60
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Would that make his point less valid?
    Couldn't say for sure.It would be interesting to see the reaction he'd get by announcing in the middle of one of the biggest religious gatherings in the world that there is no God in any shape,form or name.
    I doubt that wheelchair has that many horses under the hood to allow him to escape.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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