Unanswered questions by Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-03-2013, 03:14 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
I'm fairly sure you knew you were making an equivocation fallacy equating faith and trust/acceptance. That's the dishonesty I was talking about. Acknowledge your sins, oh forgiving one.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 04:55 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 02:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Translation, "I am putting my faith in Krauss' explanation for now."
There is nothing wrong with that. I know "faith" is an imflamatory word for you atheists, but be honest....its part of the human condition.

You stupid fucktard. I would only have 'faith' in Krauss' explanation, if after better evidence and a better supported explanation emerged, I instead chose to hold onto Krauss' explanation against all new evidence to the contrary.


I currently find his explanation compelling because it is backed by reason and evidence, which is the exact opposite of having 'faith' in it.


So please quit being a disingenuous little turd by attempting to equate our two positions, they are not one in the same.. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 05:55 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 04:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 02:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Translation, "I am putting my faith in Krauss' explanation for now."
There is nothing wrong with that. I know "faith" is an imflamatory word for you atheists, but be honest....its part of the human condition.

You stupid fucktard. I would only have 'faith' in Krauss' explanation, if after better evidence and a better supported explanation emerged, I instead chose to hold onto Krauss' explanation against all new evidence to the contrary.


I currently find his explanation compelling because it is backed by reason and evidence, which is the exact opposite of having 'faith' in it.


So please quit being a disingenuous little turd by attempting to equate our two positions, they are not one in the same.. Drinking Beverage
"I currently find his explanation compelling because it is backed by
reason and evidence, which is the exact opposite of having 'faith' in
it."

It is in fact not the exact opposite, the word faith faith is multi faceted, you certainly dont have blind faith or religious conviction. But, I assume you trust your assertion and make it honestly. If you do you have faith in it and hold it in good faith.

The poster, you refer to as a fucktard, makes the quite correct observation that many atheists see the word faith as imflamatory and he's right, you see it on this board all time and frankly I'm a trifle baffled at its simplest root faith is trust, it certainly has religious uses, but it is not an exclusively religious term. This refusal to use or rather what amounts to a concerted effort to throw the baby out with the bath water is unmerited and makes me think that the people who refuse to use the words like faith and belief within there perfectly acceptable secular contexts as just frightened to even be associated with the words as if the very association marks them as unclean.

But, really the last what 5 or 6 pages circle jerking insults and pettiness is really affecting my faith that anyone involved has anything relevant to say, and certainly any attempt to discourse in good faith as long since been abandoned.

Weather you personally are "frightened" to be tarred by proximity to the word faith or not, Im not sure so my point isnt really directed at you personally, but rather addresses the issue so dont take this out of that context.

Basically, my point is even if they (the religious) lay claim to morality, ethics, words like faith and belief or the origins of creation they have no special claim to any of them. On morality, ethics and creation we dont just shy away and say fair enough I believe we most certainly should not just roll over and concede these words to the religious either.


World English Dictionary

faith (feɪθ) [Image: dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif]

n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2. a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith
3. Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
5. complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc
6. any set of firmly held principles or beliefs
7. allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith , break faith )
8. bad faith insincerity or dishonesty
9. good faith honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business (esp in the phrase in good faith )

interj
10. archaic indeed; really (also in the phrases by my faith , in faith )

[C12: from Anglo-French feid , from Latin fidēs trust, confidence]

Sure 1 to 4 are all religious, but 5 thru 10 are not.

PAX and keep the faith.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Humakt's post
04-03-2013, 06:03 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
Humakt, we dislike the word because every meaning except the religious one has an alternate word that can be used instead. Why use the word "faith" which has religious connotations when one can use the word trust, accept, loyal, etc.

Definitions 1, 3, and 4, as provided, are all religious (or at least unreasonable) in nature, and dishonest or naive theists like to conflate those meanings of the word with the meanings that actually apply to science, atheism, or philosophy. They also falsely refer to tentative trust or acceptance of an argument as faith, when this does not fit the definition. It's an equivocation fallacy, plain and simple, and it can unfortunately be convincing to those with little experience in arguing with theists. It's better to nip it in the bud by restricting the word to its religious meaning and using words without religious connotations when referring to things which do not have religious basis.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
04-03-2013, 09:45 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
Hahaha... no but seriously can you tell us all phaedrus how you empirically experienced the big bang?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 09:52 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
And can one of youguys explain to all of us ignorant people how natural selection used the math of PHY, in every creature on the earth?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 10:14 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 09:52 AM)blasphemilius_VI Wrote:  And can one of youguys explain to all of us ignorant people how natural selection used the math of PHY, in every creature on the earth?
The same way it used the gravitational constant. It is a universal constant that is inherent in the universe. Why should life not be susceptible to it?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 02:47 PM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2013 02:56 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 04:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 02:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Translation, "I am putting my faith in Krauss' explanation for now."
There is nothing wrong with that. I know "faith" is an imflamatory word for you atheists, but be honest....its part of the human condition.

You stupid fucktard. I would only have 'faith' in Krauss' explanation, if after better evidence and a better supported explanation emerged, I instead chose to hold onto Krauss' explanation against all new evidence to the contrary.


I currently find his explanation compelling because it is backed by reason and evidence, which is the exact opposite of having 'faith' in it.


So please quit being a disingenuous little turd by attempting to equate our two positions, they are not one in the same.. Drinking Beverage

I forgive you for calling me a stupid fucktard and a disingenious little turd. Also if you read post 120, you will see I already made a concession.
Krauss really has no evidence for his idea because we have no working physics that apply to the moment the universe came into existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 02:58 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 02:47 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 04:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You stupid fucktard. I would only have 'faith' in Krauss' explanation, if after better evidence and a better supported explanation emerged, I instead chose to hold onto Krauss' explanation against all new evidence to the contrary.


I currently find his explanation compelling because it is backed by reason and evidence, which is the exact opposite of having 'faith' in it.


So please quit being a disingenuous little turd by attempting to equate our two positions, they are not one in the same.. Drinking Beverage

I forgive you for calling me a stupid fucktard and a disingenious little turd. Also if you read post 120, you will see I already made a concession.
Krauss really has no evidence for his idea because we have no working physics that apply to the moment the universe came into existence.
Which is why it is A) appropriate to say "I don't know" and not "god done it" and B) our understanding breaks down. This means that causation may not apply. Which means the universe may not have a cause. Which means that yet again, the answer of "I don't know" applies while "god done it" means absolutely nothing and contributes 0 rationality to the discussion in any way.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
04-03-2013, 04:25 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 02:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Which is why it is A) appropriate to say "I don't know" and not "god done it" and B) our understanding breaks down. This means that causation may not apply. Which means the universe may not have a cause. Which means that yet again, the answer of "I don't know" applies while "god done it" means absolutely nothing and contributes 0 rationality to the discussion in any way.

Evolutionkills didn't say he didn't know. Evolutionkills said he accepted Krauss' explaination.

Do you think it is more appropriate to say "I don't know" as opposed to "Krauss' explaination done it"? Do you agree that Krauss' explaination means absolutely nothing and contributes 0 rationality to the discussion in any way?

Evolutionkills faith my not be as fixed as say a fundamentalists, but he has faith in something nevertheless. Even God if He exists has to have faith in something, its just not something you can get away from.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: