Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 160

Thread: Test of Faith

  1. #101
    Registered User Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Astral
    Posts
    3,209
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    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?


    OK. First of all I haven't read the whole Bible yet. So it's not possible for me to say I include it all. Neither do I speak much Greek, Latin or Hebrew. Likewise my knowledge of Jewish culture and the other cultural influences on Judaism and Christianity is quite limited.

    I would then add that "understanding the entire Bible" is currently way beyond me. (The fact I haven't finished reading it doesn't exactly help matters). There's no point in my accepting or rejecting parts of it before I get to that point.

    A good example is mixing red and blue to get purple. You don't end up with something that's a bit red here and a bit blue there. You end up with something completely different. So while I may be right in saying now "This red bit here is clearly wrong and so is this blue bit", it may be that with a deeper understanding it becomes possible to see purple and it makes sense. So you could say I take it on faith that it does all make sense, but I accept that I don't have that depth of understanding yet. I also accept that depth of understanding may be beyond me in this life.

    So at the moment I am trying to understand what Christ considered "The most important parts". Once I get that down, then I'll work on everything else.

    What I would add though is that even if you could prove to me that God doesn't exist, I would personally still favour "Love yourself and love others" as a way to live, as I believe do many aethists.

  2. #102
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    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?
    Any evidence that Barry or any atheists in a position to affect "politics and education" are involved in indoctrination ? First I've heard of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Scientist tend to follow the herd it’s also good for their fundingd (ish)
    That'll be why there have been no changes in science for hundreds of years then

    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.
    As Barry would not have made any such assertion without the concept of god being presented in the first place, he has nothing to back up. Even Barry couldn't prove that something that doesnt exist, really doesnt exist. Unless anyone is happy with silence in response to "God are you there?" as proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    I don't believe that there is a God.
    Ah so you're an atheist - you never mentioned it

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    About 2/3rds of scientists believe in God
    "science" is quite a broadly applied label nowadays There is also "evidence" that a high IQ is linked to atheism...here for example...not all scientists are clever of course

  3. #103
    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
    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.
    Absolutely - FWIW I agree.

    But you didn't say "I see no evidence of God", you said "There is no God", so stop shifting the goalposts, you shifty shifter you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    It's for the same reason, obviously, that our legal system requires the person making the allegation to provide the proof.
    Yep - and if you state:
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    It is simply that there is no god.
    Then you need to provide some proof for this allegation.

  4. #104
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oxford, Nantwich
    Posts
    190
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Erm...it seems to me that you aren't reading the posts carefully.

    On the other matter - geneticists and evolutionary biologists talk about a gene 'for' X and Y all the time. It's a standard shorthand. It is well known that most genes have a multiple effect, that some genes have no effect other than to turn other genes on or off, and so forth. But it's just too long-winded to go all around the houses using the grammatically and scientifically unimpeachable version of the phrase 'a gene for X...' every time you need to say it.

    I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Geneticists and evolutionary biologists do NOT talk about a gene for X and Y all the time, and if you believe that it just shows a very distorted view of scientific understanding. It is too long winded to go round the houses but the fact remains that no scientist would ever want to do that because its generally meaningless. For what it's worth, I've spent the last 3 years of my life surrounded by geneticists and evolutionary biologists (and yes that includes Dawkins) and they constantly and consistently despair at the way the media 'interprets' their findings in a way that people like you can grasp.

    Dan

  5. #105
    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
    Oh, bleagh!! For goodness' sake.

    My mistake. Social sciences do not, in this instance, count! I refer to biologists, physicists and chemists and the ilk. I'm not even sure that social sciences really are, despite the name, sciences at all. You can't, for example, carry out experiments to nulify a thesis, and replicate the experiment, and so forth.

  6. #106
    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 stuff for brevity}
    OK, thanks. I like the red-blue>purple analogy, but I don't buy it for a second

    It looks like you feel unable to answer my question, which is perfectly fair. Interstingly, no other believers choose to engage on this matter...

  7. #107
    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
    Absolutely - FWIW I agree.

    But you didn't say "I see no evidence of God", you said "There is no God", so stop shifting the goalposts, you shifty shifter you.
    Coo-eee! Mr Shifter! (One for the oldsters, that...)

    I failed to explain myself. I am not making an assertion, in saying 'There is no god', I am reaching a conclusion.

    If, for example, the accused states 'there was no crime', he doesn't have to prove it. The prosecution still has the burden.

  8. #108
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by gebandemuishond View Post
    I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Geneticists and evolutionary biologists do NOT talk about a gene for X and Y all the time, and if you believe that it just shows a very distorted view of scientific understanding. It is too long winded to go round the houses but the fact remains that no scientist would ever want to do that because its generally meaningless. For what it's worth, I've spent the last 3 years of my life surrounded by geneticists and evolutionary biologists (and yes that includes Dawkins) and they constantly and consistently despair at the way the media 'interprets' their findings in a way that people like you can grasp.

    Dan
    I'm not wrong. I may be only partially right, but I'm not wrong.

    I've read all of Dawkins' books and he frequently writes of a 'gene for...' (or uses very similar language in other ways) and so do the other popular science biologists I've read. I'm aware that the way in which the phrase 'a gene for...' is regurgitated is a matter of concern for biologists because it oversimplifies. However, it simply is not a meaningless phrase. When teaching inheritance, for example, everyone learns about Mendel and his experiments with peas, etc, and we talk of genes 'for' brown eyes or blue eyes, 'for' red hair or blonde hair.

    I don't mix in such hallowed company as your honoured self, of course, but just because of that I don't accept that you are correct.

    Incidentally, who are the 'people like me' to whom you refer?

    [EDIT] Try this web page, which is an extract from the Selfish Gene, press <CTRL> F and search for "gene for".

    After which I expect your apology.
    Last edited by Barry Shnikov; 3rd-January-2008 at 02:26 PM.

  9. #109
    Registered User andystyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glesgae!
    Posts
    582
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Interstingly, no other believers choose to engage on this matter...
    Probably because it's similar to previous faith-based arguments. I'm perfectly happy to discuss faith, religion, God etc (as you all know!) but in this instance I don't see that there is anything new that I can add that I haven't already stated before.

  10. #110
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Oo, oo - I found a better one.

    This page is an essay about Dawkins.

    It includes the following statement:

    "What then is the sense of speaking of a gene for a trait, as competent evolutionists and geneticists do all the time?" (emphasis mine)

    From my earlier post: "geneticists and evolutionary biologists talk about a gene 'for' X and Y all the time"

    [EDIT]

    Oops!! Went off half-cocked. It is not an essay by Dawkins but one about one of his books. Still strong for me, though.
    Last edited by Barry Shnikov; 3rd-January-2008 at 02:59 PM. Reason: Boo-boo

  11. #111
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by andystyle View Post
    Probably because it's similar to previous faith-based arguments. I'm perfectly happy to discuss faith, religion, God etc (as you all know!) but in this instance I don't see that there is anything new that I can add that I haven't already stated before.
    Well, I haven't seen your answer to the question I posed. But please, don't feel the need to get involved. I'll put you in the 'no-shows'.

  12. #112
    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
    It looks like you feel unable to answer my question, which is perfectly fair. Interstingly, no other believers choose to engage on this matter...
    I think you've scared them off, maybe they're worried they'll be hit by all those fast-moving goalposts...

    For example:
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    My mistake. Social sciences do not, in this instance, count! I refer to biologists, physicists and chemists and the ilk.
    and:
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    I'm not wrong. I may be only partially right, but I'm not wrong.

  13. #113
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    My mistake. Social sciences do not, in this instance, count! I refer to biologists, physicists and chemists and the ilk.
    From the report:

    Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God.
    So that's still 62% of biologists, physicists and chemists who do.

    (Yes, there's a fairly obvious excluded middle here, which I think is more problematic than including social scientists in the cumulative figures).

  14. #114
    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, bleagh!! For goodness' sake.

    My mistake. Social sciences do not, in this instance, count! I refer to biologists, physicists and chemists and the ilk. I'm not even sure that social sciences really are, despite the name, sciences at all. You can't, for example, carry out experiments to nulify a thesis, and replicate the experiment, and so forth.
    your link not working ??

    FIRST-PERSON: Just because he/she is a scientist doesn't make him/her an atheist - (BP)

    Here ill print some of it for you

    --------------------------------------------

    The German physicist Max Born, who pioneered quantum mechanics, said, "Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist, must be rather silly people." He was right, of course, and over the years, many other Nobel laureates have agreed with him.

    American physicist Arno Penzias shared the 1978 Nobel Prize for discovering microwaves in space -- patterns that physicists have interpreted as showing that the universe was created from nothing. Penzias said, "If I had no other data than the early chapters of Genesis, some of the Psalms and other passages of Scripture, I would have arrived at essentially the same picture of the origin of the universe, as is indicated by the scientific data."

    German-British researcher Ernst Boris Chain was awarded a Nobel Prize in medicine for his work with penicillin. Chain says, "The principle of [divine] purpose ... stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks ... . The probability for such an event as the origin of DNA molecules to have occurred by sheer chance is just too small to be seriously considered ... ."

    Chain also said, "The assumption of directive forces in the origin and development of vital processes becomes a necessity in any kind of interpretation."

    American physicist Arthur Compton discovered what we call the Compton Effect, relating to X-rays. He said, "For me, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for an orderly, intelligent universe testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: 'In the beginning, God ... .'"

    William D. Phillips won the 1997 Nobel Prize in chemistry for using lasers to produce temperatures only a fraction of a degree above absolute zero. Phillips once quipped that so many of his colleagues were Christians he couldn't walk across his church's fellowship hall without "tripping over a dozen physicists."

    It's been the conventional wisdom that scientists are atheists, but not so, by a long shot. Professor Richard Bube of Stanford says, "There are [proportionately] as many atheistic truck drivers as atheistic scientists." But among Nobel laureates, the number who recognize the hand of God in the universe is remarkably high.

    As this year's Nobel winners appear on the news, watch what they say. If they're like many of their predecessors, they may surprise us. Because, increasing numbers of scientists are discovering in the intelligent design school and in studies of cell structure that what you and I believe by faith is also good science.

    -------------------------------------

    Please check your fact first or do these lot not count ill accept part wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    I'm not wrong. I may be only partially right, but I'm not wrong.

  15. #115
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    1,476
    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.
    Well that's an answer Steve. I'd agree that the whole concept of Atheism fundamentally rests on the relyability of your statement here. I'll let others make their own minds up if your answer is convincing.

    Interestingly, the original author of the philosophical work "The Presumption of Atheism" , Anthony Flew, back in 1984, says he has now changed his mind and is now a deist - based on scientific evidence.

    Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God | LiveScience
    Last edited by Will; 3rd-January-2008 at 03:58 PM.

  16. #116
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    The German physicist Max Born, who pioneered quantum mechanics, said, "Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist, must be rather silly people." He was right, of course, and over the years, many other Nobel laureates have agreed with him.
    All reasonable people would agree with that statement, there is nothing about the study of science itself that makes you realise there are no/some/one god(s). It can happen of course but if you're kind of busy with the science the issue of your belief may never even be important, until some clipboard wielding maniac forces the issue by asking you for the first thing that comes into your head on the subject

    Makes you wonder if Max Born was an Atheist.

  17. #117
    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 Dreadful Scathe View Post
    All reasonable people would agree with that statement,
    So you calling Barry silly then ?

  18. #118
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov
    I don't believe that there is no god. It is simply that there is no god. Prove me wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    Well that's an answer Steve. I'd agree that the whole concept of Atheism fundamentally rests on the relyability of your statement here.
    Because atheism is simply a "lack of belief or denial of god(s)" , there really is no "concept" to it at all. As a statement though, whats wrong with the above? To claim for the existence of something, in this case god(s), you clearly have enough proof for yourself. If someone else says its nonsense and asks for proof then you either ...

    1) give them enough proof to satisfy them
    2) fail to give them enough proof to satisfy them
    3) don't bother even trying

    but its never up to them to provide proof of anything, and should they not be convinced and moreover, be annoyed enough, by conflicting, silly, irrelevant and plain nonsensical "proof" offered - then its no surprise they take the opposite camp and actively try to get others to think about what they believe in more carefully. Isn't that fair ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Will
    Interestingly, the original author of the philosophical work "The Presumption of Atheism" , Anthony Flew, back in 1984, says he has now changed his mind and is now a deist - based on scientific evidence.
    That is interesting. His opinion is totally incompatible with Christianity (and all the big religions) of course, being , as it is, the belief that some alien intelligence created everything and has no more interest in us humans than it has in juggling atoms or shopping at Quarks bar in the Orion Nebula.
    Last edited by Dreadful Scathe; 3rd-January-2008 at 04:39 PM.

  19. #119
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    So you calling Barry silly then ?
    why ? do you know he would disagree with that ?

  20. #120
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    1,476
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Test of Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Because atheism is simply a "lack of belief or denial of god(s)" , there really is no "concept" to it at all.
    Again, I'm happy for your above statement to stand by itself and for others to judge its credibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe
    That is interesting. His opinion is totally incompatible with Christianity (and all the big religions) of course,
    Absolutely. I said that Flew has become a "Deist" specifically to make this point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe
    as it is, the belief that some alien intelligence created everything and has no more interest in us humans than it has in juggling atoms or shopping at Quarks bar in the Orion Nebula.
    And interesting that you felt it necessary to replace Flew's use of the word "God" with your preferred "some alien".

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
  •