That’s not really faith though; that’s trust, and trust based on past evidence and on the self interest of Burger King ( sending a hungry person to the wrong spot doesn’t profit them ). Faith is believing without evidence, or even against it.
You’re right. I stand corrected. Thanks.
Based on what evidence?
It has to do with your understanding of those things, and your competence to comment on them.
I believe that says it all. A, which you know to be false (one assumes), is head and shoulders more plausible than B, which you don’t.
Didn’t say they were wrong, but I do believe that without someone whom you accept as an authority having told you they are a “limited approximation”, you’d hold them up as gospel.
Once again, you have failed to read for comprehension. The word I used was “enemies”, not “entities”.
How do you figure he doesn’t have an understanding of the concepts of the supernatural or that he’s not competent to comment on them? It sounds to me like he understands it just fine; he just doesn’t buy it.
Because I’d have no reason to ?
There’s not much to understand. It’s garbage. You might as well demand my credentials for commenting on people who believe in fairies or the power of healing crystals.
The ether, being a claim of a substance existing in the real word obeying physical laws was far more plausible than a a God that supposedly doesn’t even exist in the world and ignores all physical laws. And is usually given attributes that both contradict themselves and reality.
The people who invented the idea of the ether had no reason to think it wrong at the time. There’s plenty of reasons to consider belief in God incorrect. There’s NEVER, in all of human history been any good reason to believe in God.
Don’t confuse me with yourself; you are the one who thinks that faith and denial of reality are good ideas, not me.
And enemies are entities.
I’m waiting for hologram technology to reach the point where fake ghosts can be created with such ease that stories of “real” ghosts get dismissed out of hand.
Since I’m not much of a philosopher I’ll just quote Hume who expresses it better than I can.
“The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish.”
If you find evidence to match that description let me know, though I won’t be holding my breath.
I’d like to request a clarification, please. Are you challenging Der Trihs’ understanding specifically, or using the general “you” in your assertion to encompass anyone who does not have faith? Either way, what constitutes “understanding and [sic] competence to comment”? A degree in theology? A passing grade of a 200 or higher seminary class?
If we are to take the bible as the literal word of god, then no person can understand or attempt to define god or his works. Nice loophole for god but not really workable for the current discussion.
I also take issue with the idea that only those with faith can understand. Comprehension is not based on belief but ability to grasp certain concepts and exhibit understanding of those concepts.
In addition, the reality of the Burger King remains falsifiable by its physical existence. The building exists in three dimensions and the food sold and the people wearing uniforms inside lend credence to the physical evidence that it is indeed a Burger King which occupies that address. The fact that people can come back the next day and the next and the next and it is still a Burger King proves extensive testing.
For myself, I am not picky. Simply point at the entity calling itself god. So long as it exists in three (or more) dimensions and is able to exhibit the qualities it has claimed to possess consistently over time then we’re all good.
Another important consideration is that IF a supernatural being were proven to exist, you would also have to prove that it had the capabilities attributed to a god. Simply existing as a disembodied entity, interesting as that may be, does not mean it is “all powerful”. If it cannot punish, approve, teach, guide, control, hate, create, or care, would you continue to worship it? There’s another whole level of magic being attributed to god – and existence alone is no big deal, by comparison.
A better analogy to your analogy would be a scientific “proof” that stealing is wrong or that slavery is good or bad. Some scientists have attempted such, but they are operating out of the range of their competence.
If “supernatural” things impact the natural world they or their effect can be examined using natural tools. I don’t care if people want to shift them into the natural category then.
So far we have no confirmed evidence of the effect of anything supernatural. We have lots of people reporting supernatural events, but there are better explanations so far. There have been no StaPuft marshmallow men walking down Broadway. If religions want to argue ethics, fine, but they have no more call on us than the arguments of atheist ethicists.
So scientific examination of supernatural claims is perfectly valid, if a bit frustrating due to the lack of good evidence.
As for DerTrihs, I’ve seen nothing to indicate that he wouldn’t accept relativity given the evidence of its validity presented. He mentioned the excellent example of the neutrino, that ghostlike particle we accept now because evidence of its existence confirming the theory was found. Maybe the problem is not his unwillingness to follow the evidence but rather your lack of evidence worth following.
Well said. However the God<Western, Christian, fundamentalist> hypothesis does tell us where to look for evidence. It tells us to look for evidence of the Flood, of the Davidic Empire, of the wandering in the desert. Any interesting God hypothesis tells us where to look for evidence. The problem is that no evidence backing the hypothesis was ever found.
The Steady State theory told us where to look for evidence also. Once contradictory evidence was found, anyone still holding it was considered sad or a crackpot. But at least even people like Fred Hoyle never got to the “the lack of evidence doesn’t count, believe on faith” phase.
Maybe your temporal lobe sensitivity is extremely low.
What does that have to do with anything?
I understand you’re a person of faith but is there any reason to be this snide and insulting to other posters? You’re not being attacked. I would also appreciate it if you could take the time to respond to my questions in post 68.
Actually I have read other material that suggests a person’s brain make-up is responsible for their susceptability to religion. I hadn’t seen the Dawkins thing until now, but it could certainly account for the fervor with which some people adhere to their beliefs.
It’s interesting isn’t it. I’m going to do a slight hijack here, since it looks like no-one’s posting anymore…
To me, as an atheist, religion is never rational. But IMO it’s usually sane – I understand at least why people follow religions.
But a certain percentage, just like with any group in society I suppose, seem to be mentally ill.
In religion, it tends to be the fundamentalists, the creationists. And they are often the most vocal group.
I describe them as mentally ill because they seem to have awesome powers of self-delusion. For example: Answers in Genesis has a doctor of Astrophysics among their ranks. Some of his essays trying to explain away things like the successful predictions of the big bang…it’s painful reading.
I am certain that God exists, it’s just that some of you fuckwits refuse to recognize me.
Based on articles in Skeptical Inquirer about characteristics of the fantasy prone personality, I am very retarded in that regard. From all evidence many of my ancestors rank low also.
I hardly consider a statement that I am not fantasy prone, but rather like Dawkins, to be an insult. In fact I consider it rather a compliment. And I find it rather more likely that this characteristic either evolved or appeared accidentally and was somewhat successful (priests have always done well) rather than that God set my brain up to be deaf to him.
I was reading it the same way you did (as a compliment), though I suppose a person who has this type of brain function would consider it insult, and I took Liberal’s intent to be just that.