Do Naturalistic Atheists build a worldview around what they consider 'science' and choose to believe what they believe based on their 'faith' and not the evidence all around us? [Edit: bad splling]
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 26 2009, 01:01 PM)
Do Naturalistic Atheists build a worldview around what they consider 'science' and choose to believe what they believe based on their 'faith' and not the evidence all around us?
It sounds like you need to read the definitions of "evidence" and "faith." Why is it that you feel so insecure in your faith that you have to attempt to "level the playing field" by insisting that atheism requires faith? Atheism is the explicit lack of faith. According to the bible: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Does that describe atheists, who only believe in things that can be verified by evidence?
Extremely.
It sounds like you need to read the definitions of "evidence" and "faith." Why is it that you feel so insecure in your faith that you have to attempt to "level the playing field" by insisting that atheism requires faith? Atheism is the explicit lack of faith. According to the bible: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Does that describe atheists, who only believe in things that can be verified by evidence?
QUOTE
[Edit: bad splling]
Extremely.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 26 2009, 05:22 PM)
It sounds like you need to read the definitions of "evidence" and "faith." Why is it that you feel so insecure in your faith that you have to attempt to "level the playing field" by insisting that atheism requires faith? Atheism is the explicit lack of faith. According to the bible: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Does that describe atheists, who only believe in things that can be verified by evidence?
Extremely.
Faith is " the evidence of things not seen..." (Heb.11:1 KJV) What is evidence for seen things called, I wonder?
So faith is an evidence... cool. and it could be true or false faith. Like if I didn't believe in rpenner or Abe Lincoln. I am making this point to try to show that I could be an antimathist and tell people 1+1=6. It's their faith that motivates the Naturalistic Atheist. I can prove that time is nonphysical, logic exists; or 1+1=2.-- And they could choose not to believe it. So we could ramble on and on. Religion: 2 "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion." (Reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion)
Extremely.
Faith is " the evidence of things not seen..." (Heb.11:1 KJV) What is evidence for seen things called, I wonder?
So faith is an evidence... cool. and it could be true or false faith. Like if I didn't believe in rpenner or Abe Lincoln. I am making this point to try to show that I could be an antimathist and tell people 1+1=6. It's their faith that motivates the Naturalistic Atheist. I can prove that time is nonphysical, logic exists; or 1+1=2.-- And they could choose not to believe it. So we could ramble on and on. Religion: 2 "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion." (Reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion)
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 26 2009, 01:16 PM)
Faith is " the evidence of things not seen." What is evidence for seen things called, I wonder?
So faith is an evidence... cool. and it could be true or false faith.
It's a metaphor, dumbass.
By calling faith the "evidence of things not seen" the bible is saying that for those who believe in things they don't see, faith serves in the place of evidence.
It's an either/or proposition.
So faith is an evidence... cool. and it could be true or false faith.
It's a metaphor, dumbass.
By calling faith the "evidence of things not seen" the bible is saying that for those who believe in things they don't see, faith serves in the place of evidence.
It's an either/or proposition.
QUOTE
Like if I didn't believe in rpenner or Abe Lincoln. I am making this point to try to show that I could be an antimathist and tell people 1+1=6. It's their faith that motivates the Naturalistic Atheist. I can prove that time is nonphysical, logic exists; or 1+1=2.-- And they could choose not to believe it. So we could ramble on and on.
You cannot prove that time is nonphysical or that logic exists. If anyone should choose not to believe something which has been well-evinced, then that person is operating on faith.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 26 2009, 06:29 PM)
It's a metaphor, dumbass.
By calling faith the "evidence of things not seen" the bible is saying that for those who believe in things they don't see, faith serves in the place of evidence.
It's an either/or proposition.
You cannot prove that time is nonphysical or that logic exists. If anyone should choose not to believe something which has been well-evinced, then that person is operating on faith.
By calling faith the "evidence of things not seen" the bible is saying that for those who believe in things they don't see, faith serves in the place of evidence.
It's an either/or proposition.
You cannot prove that time is nonphysical or that logic exists. If anyone should choose not to believe something which has been well-evinced, then that person is operating on faith.
"on faith" -- false faith
--It would appear too, that person is lying to themselves. Truth is another nonphysical If you absolutely can't prove all truth exists - thats true.
--It would appear too, that person is lying to themselves. Truth is another nonphysical If you absolutely can't prove all truth exists - thats true.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 26 2009, 06:29 PM)
If anyone should choose not to believe something which has been well-evinced, then that person is operating on faith.
No if they choose to believe something that isn't true -- they are lying deceiving themselves. If I choose not to believe rpenner is the admin (current), I'd be lying. (logic fallacy?) Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb first. People might believe something by faith, but thats not related to whether or not the evidence is real. Joseph Swan http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/edison.asp
No if they choose to believe something that isn't true -- they are lying deceiving themselves. If I choose not to believe rpenner is the admin (current), I'd be lying. (logic fallacy?) Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb first. People might believe something by faith, but thats not related to whether or not the evidence is real. Joseph Swan http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/edison.asp
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 26 2009, 01:35 PM)
"on faith" -- false faith
--It would appear too, that person is lying to themselves. Truth is another nonphysical If you absolutely can't prove all truth exists - thats true.
What an incredibly stupid and ignorant thing to say... At one point, the theory of continental drift was not well evinced. If I told you that I have several tattoos, that claim would not be well evinced. Yet both of those claims are absolutely true. To suggest that believing something despite a lack of significant evidence is lying to yourself, you're an idiot. Knowledge is defined as "a justified, true belief." There was evidence to support the theory of continental drift, but no evidence to speak to a mechanism by which it may occur. Similarly, there is evidence to support the notion that I have multiple tattoos, but an incredibly small amount of un-empirical
evidence. To believe either claim would require faith, but not self-deception. You would have faith that the evidence of continental drift was not produced by some other mechanism, or you would have faith that I am not lying.
Occam's razor applies where evidence is lacking. Simply because there's not a lot of evidence supporting a claim doesn't mean you're lying to yourself.
Oh, and by the way: There's absolutely no evidence that God exists, so you just labelled yourself as dishonest, dumbass.
--It would appear too, that person is lying to themselves. Truth is another nonphysical If you absolutely can't prove all truth exists - thats true.
What an incredibly stupid and ignorant thing to say... At one point, the theory of continental drift was not well evinced. If I told you that I have several tattoos, that claim would not be well evinced. Yet both of those claims are absolutely true. To suggest that believing something despite a lack of significant evidence is lying to yourself, you're an idiot. Knowledge is defined as "a justified, true belief." There was evidence to support the theory of continental drift, but no evidence to speak to a mechanism by which it may occur. Similarly, there is evidence to support the notion that I have multiple tattoos, but an incredibly small amount of un-empirical
evidence. To believe either claim would require faith, but not self-deception. You would have faith that the evidence of continental drift was not produced by some other mechanism, or you would have faith that I am not lying.
Occam's razor applies where evidence is lacking. Simply because there's not a lot of evidence supporting a claim doesn't mean you're lying to yourself.
Oh, and by the way: There's absolutely no evidence that God exists, so you just labelled yourself as dishonest, dumbass.
QUOTE
No if they choose to believe something that isn't true -- they are lying deceiving themselves.
Again, you're saying something incredibly stupid. If I point a gun at you and tell you it's a water pistol and you believe me, you aren't lying to yourself, dumbass. It's only self-deception if contrary evidence exists, such as you watching me load the gun with real bullets.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 26 2009, 07:27 PM)
What an incredibly stupid and ignorant thing to say... At one point, the theory of continental drift was not well evinced. If I told you that I have several tattoos, that claim would not be well evinced. Yet both of those claims are absolutely true. To suggest that believing something despite a lack of significant evidence is lying to yourself, you're an idiot. Knowledge is defined as "a justified, true belief." There was evidence to support the theory of continental drift, but no evidence to speak to a mechanism by which it may occur. Similarly, there is evidence to support the notion that I have multiple tattoos, but an incredibly small amount of un-empirical
evidence. To believe either claim would require faith, but not self-deception. You would have faith that the evidence of continental drift was not produced by some other mechanism, or you would have faith that I am not lying.
Occam's razor applies where evidence is lacking. Simply because there's not a lot of evidence supporting a claim doesn't mean you're lying to yourself.
Oh, and by the way: There's absolutely no evidence that God exists, so you just labelled yourself as dishonest, dumbass.
Again, you're saying something incredibly stupid. If I point a gun at you and tell you it's a water pistol and you believe me, you aren't lying to yourself, dumbass. It's only self-deception if contrary evidence exists, such as you watching me load the gun with real bullets.
Excuse me, I'm getting too confused
I thought you were confusing faith, physical evidence, and truth?
evidence. To believe either claim would require faith, but not self-deception. You would have faith that the evidence of continental drift was not produced by some other mechanism, or you would have faith that I am not lying.
Occam's razor applies where evidence is lacking. Simply because there's not a lot of evidence supporting a claim doesn't mean you're lying to yourself.
Oh, and by the way: There's absolutely no evidence that God exists, so you just labelled yourself as dishonest, dumbass.
Again, you're saying something incredibly stupid. If I point a gun at you and tell you it's a water pistol and you believe me, you aren't lying to yourself, dumbass. It's only self-deception if contrary evidence exists, such as you watching me load the gun with real bullets.
Excuse me, I'm getting too confused
I thought you were confusing faith, physical evidence, and truth?QUOTE
If you absolutely can't prove all truth exists - thats true.
I meant to say something else
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 26 2009, 02:51 PM)
I'm getting too confused I believe right now that oxygen exists.
It figures that the most basic logic would confuse you....
I believe right now that oxygen exists. It figures that the most basic logic would confuse you....
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 26 2009, 06:35 PM)
"on faith" -- false faith
--It would appear too, that person is lying to themselves. Truth is another nonphysical If you absolutely can't prove all truth exists - thats true.
When you false faith, do you mean faith that is not really faith, or do you mean faith in something that is not factually true?
There is no way to know if your faith is accurate or not. If there is then it's not faith.
--It would appear too, that person is lying to themselves. Truth is another nonphysical If you absolutely can't prove all truth exists - thats true.
When you false faith, do you mean faith that is not really faith, or do you mean faith in something that is not factually true?
There is no way to know if your faith is accurate or not. If there is then it's not faith.
It is a stupid question posed by an idiot and it does not deserve the dignity of an answer.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 27 2009, 02:03 AM)
When you false faith, do you mean faith that is not really faith, or do you mean faith in something that is not factually true?
There is no way to know if your faith is accurate or not. If there is then it's not faith.
There is no way to know if your faith is accurate or not. If there is then it's not faith.
Yes I mean faith thats not factually true.
In the context of if I chose to not believe that rpenner was the current moderator that would be a false faith/belief. Your saying because I can't prove it (creation) their is no way to prove weather or not my faith is true or false? What do you mean by faith thats not really faith - something that we know? But then you believe we can't know anything - -- truth isn't knowable? Whats the problem with my faith? You think its not true? ( I'm trying to understand what you mean.)
In the context of if I chose to not believe that rpenner was the current moderator that would be a false faith/belief. Your saying because I can't prove it (creation) their is no way to prove weather or not my faith is true or false? What do you mean by faith thats not really faith - something that we know? But then you believe we can't know anything - -- truth isn't knowable? Whats the problem with my faith? You think its not true? ( I'm trying to understand what you mean.)
The problem with your faith is there is no way to know.
If there was it wouldn't be faith.
You concept of "false faith" is meaningless.
Either you or Mulsims have what you call "false faith". (or both).
Which one has the false faith? (or is is both?)
If there was it wouldn't be faith.
You concept of "false faith" is meaningless.
Either you or Mulsims have what you call "false faith". (or both).
Which one has the false faith? (or is is both?)
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 27 2009, 12:22 PM)
In the context of if I chose to not believe that rpenner was the current moderator that would be a false faith/belief. Your saying because I can't prove it their is no way to prove weather or not my faith is true or false? What do you mean by faith thats not really faith - something that we know? But then you believe we can't know anything - -- truth isn't knowable? Whats the problem with my faith? You think its not true? (I realize I may be making logical fallacies, I'm trying to understand what you mean.)
Faith is an assumption without evidence. If the assumption is backed up by probability, then it is no longer faith. If it is backed up by proof, it is no longer faith.
Faith is an assumption without evidence. If the assumption is backed up by probability, then it is no longer faith. If it is backed up by proof, it is no longer faith.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 27 2009, 04:28 PM)
The problem with your faith is there is no way to know.
If there was it wouldn't be faith.
You concept of "false faith" is meaningless.
Either you or Mulsims have what you call "false faith". (or both).
Which one has the false faith? (or is is both?)
But you don't know if molecules evolved into a life. --You have faith (assuming your a Darwinist) You weren't there (don't know), it happened in the past.
If there was it wouldn't be faith.
You concept of "false faith" is meaningless.
Either you or Mulsims have what you call "false faith". (or both).
Which one has the false faith? (or is is both?)
But you don't know if molecules evolved into a life. --You have faith (assuming your a Darwinist) You weren't there (don't know), it happened in the past.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 27 2009, 04:34 PM)
But you don't know if molecules evolved into a life. --You have faith (assuming your a Darwinist) You weren't there (don't know), it happened in the past.
No, you accept that you don't Know but that the evidence suggests that conclusion.
No, you accept that you don't Know but that the evidence suggests that conclusion.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 27 2009, 12:34 PM)
But you don't know if molecules evolved into a life. --You have faith (assuming your a Darwinist) You weren't there (don't know), it happened in the past.
Why do you think that a self-replicating molecule couldn't form by chance given hundreds of millions of years?
Why do you think that a self-replicating molecule couldn't form by chance given hundreds of millions of years?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 27 2009, 04:53 PM)
Why do you think that a self-replicating molecule couldn't form by chance given hundreds of millions of years?
I tried to explain it before:
if you draw a picture. One line on the left(labeled A), 2 or more on the right(labeled B ). Functions have dependancies,evolution requires energy and if E=mc^2... There weren't just 2 molecules.
http://www.liberalsvsconservatives.com/dr-...alez-t2671.html
I have other reasons as well.
I tried to explain it before:
if you draw a picture. One line on the left(labeled A), 2 or more on the right(labeled B ). Functions have dependancies,evolution requires energy and if E=mc^2... There weren't just 2 molecules.
http://www.liberalsvsconservatives.com/dr-...alez-t2671.html
I have other reasons as well.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 27 2009, 01:19 PM)
I tried to explain it before:
if you draw a picture. One line on the left(labeled A), 2 or more on the right(labeled B ). Functions have dependancies, and if E=mc^2... There weren't just 2 molecules.
Evolution is powered by the sun.
Also, all was needed to kick-start evolution was 1 (one) (uno) self-replicating molecule. This molecule replicated and evolved. This molecule was quite possibly the earliest form of RNA.
if you draw a picture. One line on the left(labeled A), 2 or more on the right(labeled B ). Functions have dependancies, and if E=mc^2... There weren't just 2 molecules.
Evolution is powered by the sun.
Also, all was needed to kick-start evolution was 1 (one) (uno) self-replicating molecule. This molecule replicated and evolved. This molecule was quite possibly the earliest form of RNA.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 27 2009, 05:22 PM)
Evolution is powered by the sun.
Also, all was needed to kick-start evolution was 1 (one) (uno) self-replicating molecule. This molecule replicated and evolved. This molecule was quite possibly the earliest form of RNA.
Its not possible in a computer simulation, from what I've tried?
Also, all was needed to kick-start evolution was 1 (one) (uno) self-replicating molecule. This molecule replicated and evolved. This molecule was quite possibly the earliest form of RNA.
Its not possible in a computer simulation, from what I've tried?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 27 2009, 01:31 PM)
Its not possible in a computer simulation, from what I've tried?
It is possible, it would just take a very long time.
It is possible, it would just take a very long time.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 27 2009, 05:31 PM)
Its not possible in a computer simulation, from what I've tried?
Who wrote the simulation program?
Who wrote the simulation program?
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 27 2009, 06:39 PM)
Who wrote the simulation program?
I just tried to make a quine with 2 steps and played with that, trying to make as simple a program as possible. It only replicates. Your talking RNA replication - its more complicated (directed). On youtube for the Signature in the Cell book, they have a 'model' of RNA Replication, simiilar to HIV Rep. models.
I just tried to make a quine with 2 steps and played with that, trying to make as simple a program as possible. It only replicates. Your talking RNA replication - its more complicated (directed). On youtube for the Signature in the Cell book, they have a 'model' of RNA Replication, simiilar to HIV Rep. models.
Then, apparently, the universe is a better programmer than you are. 
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 27 2009, 06:59 PM)
Then, apparently, the universe is a better programmer than you are.
I'm a horrible programmer
I'm a horrible programmer
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 27 2009, 03:12 PM)
I'm a horrible programmer
Did your program account for the possibility of increasing the length of the copied object?
Did it account for the possibility of non-fatal transcription errors?
Did your program account for the possibility of increasing the length of the copied object?
Did it account for the possibility of non-fatal transcription errors?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 27 2009, 05:19 PM)
I tried to explain it before:
if you draw a picture. One line on the left(labeled A), 2 or more on the right(labeled B ). Functions have dependancies,evolution requires energy and if E=mc^2... There weren't just 2 molecules.
http://www.liberalsvsconservatives.com/dr-...alez-t2671.html
I have other reasons as well.
E=mc^2 is an advanced concept.
The definition of energy you want to use is "the ability(potential) to do work",
and work is "force times distance".
if you draw a picture. One line on the left(labeled A), 2 or more on the right(labeled B ). Functions have dependancies,evolution requires energy and if E=mc^2... There weren't just 2 molecules.
http://www.liberalsvsconservatives.com/dr-...alez-t2671.html
I have other reasons as well.
E=mc^2 is an advanced concept.
The definition of energy you want to use is "the ability(potential) to do work",
and work is "force times distance".
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 27 2009, 09:39 PM)
E=mc^2 is an advanced concept.
The definition of energy you want to use is "the ability(potential) to do work",
and work is "force times distance".
Are you saying there are 2 concepts for energy? Can you explain in the context of what I'm talking about?
The definition of energy you want to use is "the ability(potential) to do work",
and work is "force times distance".
Are you saying there are 2 concepts for energy? Can you explain in the context of what I'm talking about?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 27 2009, 07:30 PM)
Did your program account for the possibility of increasing the length of the copied object?
Did it account for the possibility of non-fatal transcription errors?
Pesky error trapping... I just was trying to grasp the concept/model it... If you do something other than replication, it requires more than 2 variables.
The forum messed up my horrible code, so: http://fearlessfool.wordpress.com/2009/06/...st-replication/
I'm pretty sure all of this stuff is well documented/known anyway?
Did it account for the possibility of non-fatal transcription errors?
Pesky error trapping... I just was trying to grasp the concept/model it... If you do something other than replication, it requires more than 2 variables.
The forum messed up my horrible code, so: http://fearlessfool.wordpress.com/2009/06/...st-replication/
I'm pretty sure all of this stuff is well documented/known anyway?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 28 2009, 02:01 AM)
Are you saying there are 2 concepts for energy? Can you explain in the context of what I'm talking about?
In the context of what you are talking about, forget about E=MC^2.
It has nothing to do with chemical energy.
It explains how the Sun can be still going but other than that it's not relevant to the discussion.
In the context of what you are talking about, forget about E=MC^2.
It has nothing to do with chemical energy.
It explains how the Sun can be still going but other than that it's not relevant to the discussion.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.