Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 160

Thread: Test of Faith

  1. #81
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post


    Oh, purleese!

    IAlready we know that homosexuality is not a choice made by persons in full and unconstrained exercise of free will, but rather an option that is more or less forced on someone whose DNA is rather different from heterosexuals.

    How would that explain that there are no Homosexuals in Iran ??


    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Well, painters and dancers, yes. Scientists, no. If you enquire re the scientist's speciality, there will be a substantial degree of consensus; if you enquire re any other part of science the reply will be more circumspect.

    No, I'm saying that people whose 'world picture' is based on things about which they haven't the faintest shred of proof should not try and impose their beliefs on everybody else, except to the extent that those beliefs conform with majority opinion.



    Scientist tend to follow the herd it’s also good for their funding


    So yes a 1000 years ago 95% of science would have said the earth was flat based on the evidence to hand


    Today 99.99% would say its round (ish)

    Whets changed? Faith ?


    Of course science imposes its will on everything from PCs to mobile phones and 24hr Tescos

    I can have faith that Tescos will be open when i go there , if I arrive and im in New York in 1765 I kind of need a new faith

    From The Flat Earth Society

  2. #82
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Er... Let's hope your inability to follow logical arguments wasn't passed on...
    The second time you have resorted to personal attack.

    Well, I am asking you to give some justification for what you stated, in your post, were your beliefs. Unless, of course, you were just mentioning them in passing, and didn't expect your readers to consider it a contribution to the discussion in the thread.
    Um, I'll gamble and say I'll be happy with any definition from a respected dictionary. Your definition - which I have snipped - is as useful as defining strawberry jam as 'sticky and red'. (my italics)
    And your unposted definition is ...?

    What do you mean by unit of life? What do you mean by significant? I can't accept, taking the words at their everyday value, that the statement is accurate or useful.
    I was not following your arguments, I was leap-frogging them. The life-form on this planet is the eco-system. The human race, and all of the other species we see around us are just parts of that organism, just as we consider all of the different cells in our body to be part of us. Our cells go about their business unknowing and uncaring about us as a whole, just as we do in the eco-system. The human race will disappear, just as so many other species have done, but the eco-system will go on.

    The rest of your post shows that you do not appear to understand natural selection, nor evolution. If, however, you do understand it then you appear to be suggesting that it is wrong.
    The eco-system regulates itself by natural selection. Too many plants and the extra oxygen they produce leads to more, bigger and better animals to eat them and produce more carbon dioxide. Our bodies use such mechanisms to grow and to limit growth. Our cells compete and evolve too. Some of the ways they evolve are called cancers.

    That will require some argument on your part.
    Not on my part, "standing on the shoulders of giants" and all that. Isaac Asimov introducing himself in his SF magazine first issue :-
    I have published about 40 books of fiction, mostly science fiction, about 140 books of nonfiction, mostly science... I have a Ph. D. in chemistry from Columbia and I am Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Boston School of Medicine."
    Isaac preferred stories from authors who were scientists and were based on, at least some part, on solid science. Of course a lot of it is speculation, unproven and unproveable, but it comes from informed sources, and to my mind, works as a hypothesis.

  3. #83
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    How would that explain that there are no Homosexuals in Iran ??
    Punishments decreed by Sharia law, that's how!
    So yes a 1000 years ago 95% of science would have said the earth was flat based on the evidence to hand
    That's not correct.
    1. There were no scientists and no science, to speak of, 1000 years ago. A handful, no more.
    2. Such as there were would be aware of Greek triumphs in calculating the circumference of the earth 2,000 years before that. [NB didn't we deal with that a few weeks ago?]
    Of course science imposes its will on everything from PCs to mobile phones and 24hr Tescos
    What 'will'? Science doesn't have one. It imposes its consequences, I can agree with that.

  4. #84
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    What 'will'? Science doesn't have one. It imposes its consequences, I can agree with that.

    If you dont pray you will go to Hell ?

    Surely thats a consequence ?

  5. #85
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    The second time you have resorted to personal attack.
    If it is a personal attack, it's rooted in what you have written. Personally I intended it as an observation thereon.
    And your unposted definition is ...?
    Er...any one you like from a respected dictionary. Pick your favourite, and factor it in to your earlier observations.
    I was not following your arguments, I was leap-frogging them. The life-form on this planet is the eco-system. The human race, and all of the other species we see around us are just parts of that organism,
    {snip bunch of nonsense}
    Oh, the Gaia hypothesis. Sorry, I didn't recognise it at first.
    Dismissed now as unhelpful and wrong. There's no mechanism - other than magic - that could lead to this 'self-regulation' and so forth.
    Not on my part, "standing on the shoulders of giants" and all that. Isaac Asimov introducing himself in his SF magazine first issue :-
    Isaac preferred stories from authors who were scientists and were based on, at least some part, on solid science. Of course a lot of it is speculation, unproven and unproveable, but it comes from informed sources, and to my mind, works as a hypothesis.
    Is it your contention that Asimov believed in the Gaia hypothesis? I'd be disappointed if he did. I'm not aware of any serious scientist, let alone evolutionist, who gives it any credit.
    As an aside, by what mechanism do you say natural selection has modified the eco-system?

  6. #86
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    If you dont pray you will go to Hell ?

    Surely thats a consequence ?
    You've lost me. Where's the connection between science and prayer?

  7. #87
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    Having a girlfriend, or more than one, and a wife is a superior reproductive strategy. Rape, of course, is out of the question, but "we were both drunk" works just as well. Murdering your local sexual rivals is a no-no, but buying your mate an extra drink before he drives home is just "thoughtless". The "selfish gene" knows how to act nice. Meanwhile removing a far away despotic government and plunging foereign gene pools into bloody civil wars is good selfish gene strategy too. We are all born containing nasty and nice, and the mechanisms for knowing which to be and when.

    I also doubt that 5% of marital intercourse results in pregnancy.
    I'm sure your thought processes are meaningful to you. Personally, I can't follow what you write.

    Sorry.

  8. #88
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
    {snip the whole thing, otherwise we get too unwieldy}
    Ghost, I apologise if I seem awkward.

    But so far, in several (some lengthy) posts you haven't set out a single word or explanation as to how you personally have decided what bits of the bible you include in your faith and what bits you exclude, and neither have you said that you include it all.

    Is it too difficult to explain? Or what?

    As for science - it used to believe in ether (at least, that was a theory that was widely accepted). And now it doesn't. Reason? Michelsen and Morley carried out an experiment which showed ether does not exist. Any person can duplicate the experiment (given the resources).

    Religion is different. Many believers will tell you what they believe. Most cannot or will not explain why, beyond 'somebody told me' or 'I read it' or (less frequently) 'I was granted a revelation'.

  9. #89
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    What if a Christian asked you to keep YOU'RE beliefs out of politics and education, to stop indoctrinating people with the belief that there is no God and that everything has been created out of nothing and by random chance, and to only practice your beliefs at home or at Richard Dawkins meetings?
    I don't believe that there is no god. It is simply that there is no god. Prove me wrong.

    I don't bring anything to my decision making process in the politcial and social arena other than intellect (such as it is), knowledge, experience, and logic.

    Should we allow stem cell research? Yes. Why? Because it promises incalculable health benefits and important reduction in human suffering and misery, and there are no immediate drawbacks.

    Where are the strangulating, suffocating precepts within that argument? Who is going to suffer if stem cell research continues?

    Can you cite any other area where my stated position is a drawback to making sensible decisions? (No tram problems, please; they are artificial and their main purpose appears to be to give modern philosophers something to talk about over coffee...)

  10. #90
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    You've lost me. Where's the connection between science and prayer?
    Both have consequences

    You would agree science has consequences but prayer may or doesnt ?

    I dont have to believe in the consequences of science but we can both see a mobile phone as would 99.99% of the people on the planet.

    I dont have to believe in Hell maybe 0.01% of people on the planet have said they have seen it

    Its a numbers game thats all

    Some people require more proof then others, it doesnt change wether the phone or hell exist

  11. #91
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    I don't believe that there is no god. It is simply that there is no god. Prove me wrong.
    Ummm, no, that's not really how it works. If you make a strong assertion like that, you pretty much have to back it up.

    You can't just say "There is (not) a God - it's a fact", without backing it up. The same standards of proof should apply to both statements.

  12. #92
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    I don't believe that there is no god. It is simply that there is no god. Prove me wrong.
    I don't believe that there is a God. It is simply that there is a God. Prove me wrong.

  13. #93
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Both have consequences

    You would agree science has consequences but prayer may or doesnt ?

    I dont have to believe in the consequences of science but we can both see a mobile phone as would 99.99% of the people on the planet.

    I dont have to believe in Hell maybe 0.01% of people on the planet have said they have seen it

    Its a numbers game thats all

    Some people require more proof then others, it doesnt change wether the phone or hell exist
    I think what you're trying to say is that evidence is not a sufficient condition to demonstrate the existence of anything.

    First, if that is right, evidence is still very useful in helping each of us determine how we are to arrange our lives. If a savings account statement tells us that there is £372.00 in the account, there may be £3,720 in the account or there may be £37.20. Most of us are going to accept the account statement in the absence of evidence to contradict it.

    Second, I think it's wrong anyway. Sometimes evidence can be a sufficient condition (I would claim it is necessary as well, but 'believers' would disagree.) If the statement tells us that there is only £3.72 in the account, there may be £100,000,000 in the account or there may be nothing. None of us is going to act on either possibility in the absence of strong evidence to contradict the statement.

  14. #94
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    Ummm, no, that's not really how it works. If you make a strong assertion like that, you pretty much have to back it up.

    You can't just say "There is (not) a God - it's a fact", without backing it up. The same standards of proof should apply to both statements.
    My position, I assert, is the default position. I look at the universe around me and see no evidence of the existence of any supernatural guiding hand. The universe, as has been observed by others, looks exactly like it would if there were no deity. I make arrangements to live my life on that basis, and nothing ever happens to suggest that that is a mistake.

    I bump into somebody and they explain to me the Trinity, transubstantiation, immaculate conception, virgin birth, angels, devils, original sin...and you say it's my job to disprove all that nonsense?

    If that person wants me to change the way my life is ordered on the basis of his assertions, it's his job to persuade me.

    It's for the same reason, obviously, that our legal system requires the person making the allegation to provide the proof.

  15. #95
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    ... Er...any one you like from a respected dictionary. Pick your favourite ...
    Wriggling - post your favoured definition.

    ...Oh, the Gaia hypothesis. Sorry, I didn't recognise it at first.
    Dismissed now as unhelpful and wrong. There's no mechanism - other than magic - that could lead to this 'self-regulation' and so forth...
    If the human race race vanished tomorrow there are very few species that would miss us, and a lot more that would be very relieved. If most of the ecosystem vanished we would have a very hard time, and probably could not survive.

    Evolution produces an ecosystem that changes its environment, and then interacts with those changes to produce an environment that better supports life. No magic involved. The ecosystem evolves.

    Is it your contention that Asimov believed in the Gaia hypothesis?
    Nope.

    As an aside, by what mechanism do you say natural selection has modified the eco-system?
    Plants excrete Oxygen. Animals thrive on it, and devour plants, and excrete carbon dioxide. Natural selection works towards preserving the balance and increasing the amounts of both gases in the atmosphere. Beneficial changes prosper. It is the basis on evolution.

  16. #96
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    I don't believe that there is a God. It is simply that there is a God. Prove me wrong.
    In the circumstances of the current thread, viz. making political and social decisions, it's necessary for each side to set out the evidence on which it relies in order to persuade others that its policy is correct. Therefore believers who wish to say 'The decision must be made in this way because our god tells us so' are going to have to prove that their god exists, surely? (Not in practice, obviously, since religion has such a stranglehold.) Otherwise, why should any other side give credence to the believers' argument?

    Non-believers will be saying things like 'we should make the decision in the following way because (it worked in Australia/statistics show that.../the social experiments of the sixties are discredited/technology has moved on since the situation was last reviewed) and so forth. If the response is "well, I'm not sure that's right" then the propounder will have to provide the statistics, eg, and explain their provenance. Not respond by saying "ha! well you prove the statistics wrong, then! betcha can't!"

  17. #97
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    I think what you're trying to say is that evidence is not a sufficient condition to demonstrate the existence of anything.

    First, if that is right, evidence is still very useful in helping each of us determine how we are to arrange our lives. If a savings account statement tells us that there is £372.00 in the account, there may be £3,720 in the account or there may be £37.20. Most of us are going to accept the account statement in the absence of evidence to contradict it.

    Second, I think it's wrong anyway. Sometimes evidence can be a sufficient condition (I would claim it is necessary as well, but 'believers' would disagree.) If the statement tells us that there is only £3.72 in the account, there may be £100,000,000 in the account or there may be nothing. None of us is going to act on either possibility in the absence of strong evidence to contradict the statement.

    I think most non believers would concur that there was £372 in the account

    Believers I think go on Tele and ask for cash donations and hope there is a £100,000 in there regardless of what they see?

    Qu) why do many top scientist believe in the existence of ‘god’ without any evidence?

    Point I making is we all require different degrees of 'evidence'

  18. #98
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    Wriggling - post your favoured definition.
    I'm not wriggling, you cheeky monkey, I'm being charitable!! Your definition of sociopathy is 'disagreeable behaviour' but that doesn't cut it!!
    Natural selection works towards preserving the balance and increasing the amounts of both gases in the atmosphere. Beneficial changes prosper. It is the basis on evolution.
    Your problem, in a nutshell. Natural selection doesn't work towards anything (see note below). It works on individuals (obviously, since I am a Dawkins fan) probably on the gene. This is because one animal has the opportunity to outrun, out-think, out-breed or whatever its competitors (either within its own species or within its own ecological niche). It will, therefore, survive and procreate and its successful genes have a greater probability of showing up in subsequent generations than the less successful genes.
    What is the mechanism by which natural selection can affect the balance of gases in the atmosphere except in so far as it is a by-product of evolutionary success of one or other species, family, kingdom or whatever?
    What you have left out is that if conditions are right, one species or family or kingdom can destroy that balance if it is an evolutionary successful strategy to do so.
    Earth's atmosphere used to have almost no free oxygen. Now it has about 20% oxygen. The sucess of respirating micro-organisms was responsible for that, and it killed off about 99% of all living organisms at the time. You could as well have written to those micro-organisms that Gaia would ensure that there would never be sufficient free oxygen to upset their world, that there would always be a balance. Not so.

    (Note: except in the sense that you can look at the whale and see - in its progenitors - evolutionary changes that were 'working towards' the whale - paws become fins, rear limbs truncated into the flukes, etc. But it's only a 'shorthand'. Evolution simply selected the animals from within the species that were best adapted to the environmental challenges they faced. Natural selection wasn't trying to create a whale.)

  19. #99
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    I think most non believers would concur that there was £372 in the account

    Believers I think go on Tele and ask for cash donations and hope there is a £100,000 in there regardless of what they see?

    Qu) why do many top scientist believe in the existence of ‘god’ without any evidence?

    Point I making is we all require different degrees of 'evidence'
    It is correct that different people are satisfied with different degrees of evidence. What's your point - that non-believers refuse to accept evidence that believers are happy to accept? I think it more accurate to say that believers don't require evidence at all; they simply believe. They only point to 'evidence' to rationalise their belief.

    In response to your Qu. - why is the vast majority of top scientists atheist?

  20. #100
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    In response to your Qu. - why is the vast majority of top scientists atheist?

    About 2/3rds of scientists believe in God


    Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | LiveScience

    FIRST-PERSON: Just because he/she is a scientist doesn't make him/her an atheist - (BP)
    Last edited by stewart38; 2nd-January-2008 at 06:14 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. RNIB Eye Test Action Day
    By Isis in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12th-September-2007, 02:06 PM
  2. Personality Test - Which one are you?
    By Magic Hans in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 17th-June-2007, 04:53 PM
  3. Intelligence test!
    By Katie Kicks Ass in forum Fun and Games
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 7th-December-2006, 09:08 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

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
  •