Total posts: 101
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What about them?
I never said anyone knew anything. I said I accept the claim they *believed* something and that they held that belief strongly enough to die for it. That in no way makes their beliefs true. Nor can we be certain that they believed they'd seen a resurrected Jesus. Only that I accept the claim they believed something strongly enough to die protecting that claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SethBrown
For me, it requires no Faith, since it's not a belief. It's simply the lack of belief in a claim. In my case I don't believe in the claim of the resurrection. I haven't the evidence necessary to believe in that.
I don't know if the Apostles were lying, if they were some how mistaken or even the accuracy of the accounts of their deaths. I also don't know that they weren't telling an accurate truth. However I feel accepting that they were requires more than a 'they might have been.'
I certainly think there's a strong argument for the claim that the Apostles believed something and that they believed it strongly enough to die for it. I don't know as I've any reason to believe that belief was that they'd seen a risen Christ.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The problem with your theory is that drinking did get reduced during the prohibition. Just because an illegal black market popped up to exploit the demand, does not mean the demand for alcohol remained the same.
Short term sure. Long term they reported 60-70% of pre-Prohibition levels. Taking into account that this was what they are able to record of an illegal market how much do you suppose went unreported?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well, if a father, doesn't have similar beliefs and principles as the mother, than there is going to be a lot of conflict on how to raisea child.
I disagree based on personal experience, however let us assume you're right. What then would make three people with the same principles and beliefs worse for a child's upbringing than two parents who don't share the same principles and beliefs.
Yes they should, because then they are going to not have anything to set their beliefs off of, therefore, not having a basic set of beliefs.
Not true. I had a wide range of beliefs, opinions and ideas to base my beliefs off of. I was never confused by this. I knew my mother had her beliefs, I knew my dad didn't share them and I knew members of my family had yet different beliefs.
As for the link. That specifically compares to single parents and step parents. Does that show that it's better to have two parents or to have both biological parents in the home?
Women don't know how to be men, therefore can't teach their sons to be men.Men don't know how to be women, therefore can't teach their girls to be women.
This assumes that there's only one way to be a man or a woman. In my experience people learn to be men or women through their experiences. A good role model is great, but a bad role model can be far worse than none at all. Ultimately it's an individual who makes themself a man or woman usually with a lot of support from those around them.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
A mother and father shouldn't have different beliefs and principles, rather similar ones.
I'm not asking you what should be, but rather what happens when things don't go as you think they should.
This is the best way to raise a child, because there is the mother, and the father, who have similar beliefs and can raise the children accordingly.
That sounds a lot like opinion. Got any way to show and objective 'best'. Are you saying that you think a person should be raised to accept a set of beliefs given to them by their parents? If so, why is that better than raising a child to determine their own beliefs?
The mother turns baby's in to boys. The father turns boys into men.The father turns baby's into girls. The mother turns girls into women.
Can you support this assertion with evidence? Or is it just based on opinions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Sure, I think people have believed in stranger things.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
you made the statement. "Making something illegal doesn't necessarily decrease instances of it."
Which is supported by drinking during Prohibition. I have never claimed that I know abortions wouldn't go down if they were made illegal, only that it isn't necessarily true that making something illegal will stop people from doing it.
If making things illegal doesn't make instances of that thing go down, then what's the point of having illegal things? Should we just let murder be legal, because after all, it won't make any difference, right?
You make things illegal to try and prevent people doing them. It doesn't always work. Prohibition is evidence of this.
As for your evidence you asked for:California, and Texas both have similar populations, yet abortion rates are higher in California, than in Texas. Why? Because abortion is illegal in Texas, and legal in California.
And how accurate were these numbers in regards to illegal abortions in Texas? How many abortions happen that never get added to the published tallies?
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."There you go.
I asked about life rather than if it was a human being. To elaborate on the position. When is the embryo alive and more pressingly when does personhood start?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The point is valid. Making something illegal doesn't necessarily decrease instances of it. Prohibition is a solid example of that.Yes, in some instances yes, but in others it does. How would you be able to prove abortion would be one of those instances where it doesn't decrease?
I'm under no obligation to do so. You made the statement.
Yes it would decrease the abortion rate. It's common knowledge that when you make something illegal, the instances of that thing happening goes down.
This was your assertion. The mention to Prohibition directly contradicts this. If you wish to assert that making abortions illegal would lower the abortion rate then you're welcome to prove that assertion. I'm not convinced and I outright disagree with your claim that making something illegal makes instances of that thing go down.
The child is alive at conception. That is where life biologically starts. The zygote is a human, whether you believe it to be or not. Saying that zygotes and fetuses aren't actually human beings, is like saying that tomato seeds won't aren't tomatoes. Tomato seeds are tomatoes, just a smaller and less edible version of one.
Got any way of supporting this with facts and evidence? Or is it simply your opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yet my point stands. By definition for something to be just one must be objective, yet being just doesn't necessarily mean one is being objective. I can see an argument for the two being similar, but not to the degree of them being synonymous. If you can show that your definition of fair and moral is factually accurate then sure, it's the same as objective, otherwise one's idea of just is subjective and not objective as it's being based on a belief and not a fact.
Created:
Well, as long as murder is morally wrong the abortion is as well.
I find this to be very dependant on what we deem alive. At what point do we determine a fetus is alive? Or are talking of the mere potential for life being equal to life?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yeah, like alcohol prohibition back in the 20s. LolYour comparing alcohol to abortion??
The point is valid. Making something illegal doesn't necessarily decrease instances of it. Prohibition is a solid example of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I wouldn't define objective as synonymous with just.
Just would be defined as:
Exactly
Based on or behaving according to what is morally right or fair
Very recently
Whereas Objective is defined as
Something that you plan to do or achieve.
based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings.
For being just to be objective it needs to be fact that what you're doing is morally right and fair. Otherwise you're acting on what you believe to be morally right and fair, which by definition isn't objective.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Firstly, you never answered my question, what happens when the mother and father have different beliefs or principles? This was certainly the case with my parents. Doesn't this lead to as confused a child? Why does a third person change that? Secondly, I would say that came down to who I was with to my knowledge the issue never came up. I certainly wasn't aware of it as a child. If I was with my grandparents then they had complete authority, with my aunts the same or with my parents. It never became an issue because there was trust in the family. My parents never restricted what any of my family could say or do with me. They never had to, because they knew the family could be trusted with my care. (As I got older I don't think my mother was too happy about her mum's spiritualism, but that was something I was surprised to realise in discussion with my mother as an adult).
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You have just proved my point. You grew up with two parents, and that gave you a base for your ideas and beliefs without confusing you. Sure you learned stuff from your grandparents, and aunts, but your base for what you believed came from your parents, because I assume you trusted them the most. What happens when a child is confused on who to trust?
Not at all. I spent a lot of my formative years questioning the beliefs of my parents and my grandparents and my aunts and uncles. I didn't trust my mum and dad more than my grandparents, I didn't trust them more than my aunts. I questioned all their teachings, I was fortunate that my family taught me to question and were clear in explaining that the beliefs they held were to be questioned. The flaw in your argument is that the child would be confused on who to trust. My point is that just because their are multiple points of view being presented to a child doesn't have to be confusing. Nor does the fact that the people they trust hold different views have to be confusing as long as the people they're putting their trust in are honest in admitting their personal beliefs are just that and not some unquestionable and fundamental truth. Why is having a third person any more complicated than having two people? What if the mother and father have different beliefs? Why should I trust one parent more than another?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Many sources, I learned from both my parents, my grandparents, friends of the family my aunts and uncles. I learned that people have different perspectives, beliefs and ideas. My father for example was an atheist, while my mother was a deist. My grandmother on my mothers side was a spiritualist while my grandmother from my father's was a christian (as were a couple of my aunts). All of these people were present for my childhood (with work I spent much of my time with my grandparents and aunts for example).
Created:
-->
@thett3
I'm not advocating anything. I just question the unsupported claims. As for parenting, I've seen a wide selection of family types and good and bad in all of them. I've known many people who would be bad parents regardless of the nature of the relationship. As for 'hook up culture' being a millennial thing, I'd have to disagree, it was around in my parents youth and my grandparents. As for stability, I agree stability is important, my cousin had a very stable upbringing with her parents who never married as did a number of my friends. My parents divorced when I was a kid and while it was hard on me at the time, I had a happy upbringing with both my parents in my life. So I would say marriage is far from a strong indicator of stability.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You can teach this with two parents as well. Teaching your kid that our world views might be different than other family's. It is important for a child to have a figure that they can trust with different roles for different problems. Mixing in more than two would confuse the child. You can't make beliefs without a base belief. What are they going to base there beliefs off of, if they don't even know whos view to base there own beliefs on. Children aren't born with the knowledge of how the world works. You have to teach it to them.
You can. My parents did, but my point is that you don't need to have one role model that the child holds as the source of truth. As for needing a belief before you can have a belief... That's sounding like an infinite regression. As for whose view to base my beliefs off of? I always knew that my parents were always very clear on that... I based my beliefs off of my views, it's true that other people informed those beliefs, but it wasn't an individual it was a group of people who I spoke with, questioned and trusted for a long time. The last sentence is also immaterial to this discussion, as more than one person can do that. As I said, I learned how the world works from a very present and involved extended family as well as my parents. None of this seems to suggest only one parent is necessary or preferable unless you want to instil particular beliefs in a child.
Created:
-->
@thett3
A very good reply. Yet hardly proof that the other is 'perfect' I know a number of people who faced abuse at the hands of their biological, married parents. I've known a number of single parent families that I'd say raised their children as well as any with both parents and I've seen children who had incredible stepparents. To say that statistical probability is the same as a 'perfect mix' is hardly fair. In most cases I'd agree that where possible the biological parents are preferable, but I'd hardly say that it's proven to be a conclusive perfect mix. Also, that does nothing to address the matter of polyamorous relationships. What if the biological parents are married and have a live in lover, which way does that skew the statistics?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
My primary issue would be the double standard. If you can have more than one partner why can't your partners?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
It is wrong, because the bonding of two people (man and a woman) is shown to be the perfect mix to raise children.
How is this shown exactly? What evidence do you have that proves this claim?
You have one father figure, and one mother figure. The one father figure is supposed to raise based on his beliefs and principles. As soon as you have more than one father, then there different ways of thinking that is taught to the child. Then the child is confused. Then as soon as you have more than one mother, then the same thing applies. Mothers and fathers teach different things. So if you had more than one of both, then the child would be confused on who to trust, who to believe, and who to base there life principles on.
Or you raise your children to believe that there is more than one perspective in the world and it's a persons responsibility to question and consider the beliefs and principles presented to them and come to their own conclusions based on their observations, experiences and reasonings. In fact I'd say that giving a child only one voice they trust and believe is a bad idea. I learned from my parents who had different views in many things and my aunts and uncle and grandparents all of whom had many different perspectives on many different topics. This worked because they never taught me that their beliefs and principles were the only valid beliefs and principles, but instead taught me to consider what people tell me and make my determinations based on that consideration and personal experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
We evolved as a tribal species with feelings of empathy for the members within our group,I do want to point this out to you as it proves what I am saying.Why did we evolve with empathy, and not murderous intent. What force made us like this and not the other way around.
The issue is that you're not proving anything. You haven't proven that the big bang needed to be initiated by an intelligence. You haven't proven that life required an intelligence to begin. You haven't proven that morality as it exists is the product of a god. Essentially your entire claim is built around pointing to things and saying 'we don't know how that can be, so it must be god'. That is the god of the gaps fallacy.
Why does the origin of the universe need to be a god? Why does our not knowing prove your claim correct?
Why does life require a divine origin? We can show that processes in nature can develop complexity, so how does that prove god?
How can you show objective morality? Why does the morality shared by most humans require a god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
We evolved as a tribal species with feelings of empathy for the members within our group,I do want to point this out to you as it proves what I am saying.Why did we evolve with empathy, and not murderous intent. What force made us like this and not the other way around.
A good question. If my understanding of evolution is close to the mark (and as a layman it may not be), then I'd say the answer is the ability to survive and procreate. Humans are more able to survive and reproduce when in social groups, we can more efficiently protect ourselves, better use our exceptional ability to learn and create and better gather resources when we're living in social groups. Now those who have murderous, destructive and anti-social tendencies were more likely to be excluded from the social group or punished by it, making those with more developed empathy and less violent tendencies more likely to survive. Evolution at work.
Again, I don't claim to be anything other than a layman on the topic, if my understanding of evolution is inaccurate, please feel free to point me to sources where I can learn more about the subject.
Created:
Posted in:
Ok, let's start from my first standpoint, the Big Bang."The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation for how the universe began. Simply put, it says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot and dense single point that inflated and stretched — first at unimaginable speeds, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.7 billion years to the still-expanding cosmos that we know today."Let's start with this argument and then we can work our way up to the others."Around 13.7 billion years ago, everything in the entire universe was condensed in an infinitesimally small singularity, a point of infinite denseness and heat. Suddenly, an explosive expansion began, ballooning our universe outwards faster than the speed of light. This was a period of cosmic inflation that lasted mere fractions of a second — about 10^-32 of a second, according to physicist Alan Guth’s 1980 theory that changed the way we think about the Big Bang forever."They don't explain how, "Suddenly, an explosive expansion began...". They just state that it happened. No scientist to this day has factual evidence of where that mass of energy came to be, and why it suddenly exploded.If you truly believe the Big Bang was purely based in science, then answer this question.Question one: What caused the "infinitely hot and dense single point that inflated and stretched"
Answer One: Unknown. That however doesn't suggest a god. That we don't know the origins of the universe doesn't in any way support the claim of a creator. What it does is leave us with an unknown and possible claims to try and explain that. What you present is a god of the gaps fallacy. Essentially you're seeing a gap in our knowledge and trying to fill it with an unsupported claim. Counter question: What evidence is there to show that it was a god that caused the big bang?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok here is another argument for God's existence.I have one question for all of you. Just answer this one question, and I will continue with my argument.Imagine I draw a circle on a white board.The space inside the circle represents all knowledge.It contains Physics, Chemistry, etc.Even knowledge that we are still trying to find, exists in this circle.Now I ask you this question. If I gave you a pen, and asked you to fill in how much knowledge you think you have/know in the circle, how much of the circle would you fill in?Just answer me that.
I'd be willing to say that I can't answer this, because I don't know how much there is for us to know. Yet I wouldn't be surprised if we'd need a very, very fine pen to put a small enough dot.
This however doesn't argue for the existence of god. That we have limited knowledge supports neither the claim of gods existence nor the claim of gods non-existence. In what way is the amount of knowledge we possess evidence of gods existence? The fact that we can't currently know if a god does or even could exist seems to do little to prove a god does exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1: The SingularityMany scientists today call use the term singularity to represent what they believe to be the big bang. Now before I go any further, I just want to point out that I do agree with science, and in fact it does prove gods' existence.Ok back to the singularity.We hear from scientists that the singularity, means something that popped into existence from nothing. If nothing existed at the start of time, then nothing would be here now. It is impossible for something to pop into existence from nothing. The only way for something to come into existence from nothing, is if something, or someone puts it there.
This assumes that the singularity came from nothing, do we have any evidence for this or is it just speculation? Or what the properties of nothing would be? Or for that matter how we can be certain that something can't come from nothing? It seems to me discussions in this area are highly speculative.
2: Design Has to Have a DesignerWhen you see the various aspects of nature, like birds, dogs, trees, and all of nature itself, and all of the specific roles they play you have to wonder how they got like that. We as humans try to copy nature sometimes with the way that we use technology, aerodynamics etc
We design from what we've seen in nature because we are intelligent and learn how nature works from watching nature. How does this suggest that nature is the product of an intellect?
We see parts of our body that are some of the most advanced things we know of like for instance, the brain. We try to copy and mimic those things by making fake arms and computers and things like that, but we never even get close to a direct copy.
Nature is complex, too complex for humanity to understand or emulate. My question is, why does complexity suggest design?
Now this all goes back to the question; well, where does design originate? We'll let me give you an example:
Unknown true, but an unknown isn't evidence for anything.
If you have all the parts of a watch in a box, and they aren't put together, you could shake that box forever, but you would never get a watch. Now the human brain for example is way more advanced than a watch, so do you really think that life was just created like that, all shaken up?
Above you said you agree with science, does that include evolution? If so then the brain developed through a process not randomness. If you don't accept evolution, then do you accept the idea that a living thing passes on characteristics from generation to generation?
3. What Created Life?Scientists use the term Law of Biogenesis to explain how life works. The way it is explained, is like this:Law of Biogenesis: "In this material, natural world, life comes from previously existing life of its own kind.Now scientist nowadays say well, life actually comes from random chemicals and elements. Yet every biological experiment we have done with chemicals and elements, has not produced life or any actual signs of life at all.So, if life didn't arise from non-living chemicals, then how did life arise? The only explanation is a supernatural being.
Biogenesis isn't a law at all. It has no underlying hypothesis as to why life can't form from non-life. Without an hypothesis or any way to test hypothesis there can be no scientific law. Scientists can show lipids that create microspheres that begin replicating through chemistry alone. They have found a couple of ways RNA can form and we have examples of amino acids.
That said, it is true that we haven't yet found examples of life arising from non-life, yet that we haven't seen a thing, isn't proof that a thing can't happen, as such there is no way for us to be certain that life can or cannot come from nothing, though the above seems to suggest that under the right circumstances all the necessary building blocks would be there. This line of reasoning again proves nothing.
4. Moral LawIf some things are objectively morally wrong, and some things are objectively morally right, then there must be a God.We don't say that when a dog stole a bone from another dog, that dog broke a moral, law no we don't. But we do when it comes to humans. So, at what point did moral law become important.
Prove morality is objective. I certainly have my moral codes and they are important to me, they are not however objective.
The second part is interesting, but I would argue that is as much a matter of human social development as theology. In terms of objective morality, I find myself wondering why an objective moral law only applies to humans? I'd think a subjective moral law agreed upon by humans would be more likely to focus exclusively on morals. Again this seems inconclusive as evidence of a gods existence.
5. Human ReasoningWe humans have the nature to reason, and to wonder why things exist, why we exist, and that's why we have science. Why are we the only species that does this? Animals don't wonder why they exist, they just do? What gave us that need to find out? God did that's who.
This (like several of the above) is begging the question. I don't know as anyone has the answer to this question. However, even if there is no other correct hypothesis this doesn't support yours. Can you show any way in which human intelligence requires a creator to form?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
there's good evidence for God. atheism is irrational because they pretend there's no evidence or at least there's enough evidence to be at least agnostic.
That seems pretty subjective. Evidence has to support a claim, I feel a lot of what people claim as evidence (on both the theist and atheist side) are debatable at best.
we see things that look supernatural happen to praying theists but there's no reason to assume those things happen to atheists. supernatural healings.
Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by supernatural healings? Do you have any way to confirm that such healings don't happen to atheists or is this just speculation on your part?
the large majority of people who have NDEs who are atheists end up believing in God (almost everyone who has those experiences, even skeptics, end up believing in the afterlife, but that's just a related point)
This is a common problem. Even if everyone who had an NDE came to believe in an afterlife/god(s) (not the same thing). This doesn't do anything to suggest NDE's are actually proof, only that they're convincing to those who observe them.
there's lots of good evidence for NDEs so we should take them seriously. such as out of body experiences being verified under scientific study.
I believe people have Near Death Experiences, I'm not convinced however that it's anything other than a product of their own mind.
it's stupid to argue that it's common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die and then give no good reason why that happens, when drugs dont cause that to happen either. dr longs book 'evidence for the afterlife' is full of good evidence.
Firstly, I don't believe there's any example of anyone ever having come back from their brain stopping? If not then why dismiss the claim that NDE's are a product of the brain? That drugs don't produce that result seems immaterial to the argument, is there a reason we should assume drugs would? I'd agree that if we developed drugs that could produce the exact result of NDE's it would be good evidence that NDE's weren't divine, however, the lack of such drugs does nothing to suggest that NDE's are divine, only that we can't made drugs to emulate specific mental states.
there's good and inexplicable evidence for demonic possession.
Could you point me to this evidence? As I'm not aware of it.
there's the point that the universe is going from high energy to low energy as if it's a clock that got set (how does something happen once within all eternity and never happen again, what does that even mean?)
This point seems to be begging the question. That we don't know why the universe is the way it is isn't evidence of anything other than our lack of understanding.
there's no good alternative hypothesis that has good evidence for it, just speculation.
This is pretty much the definition of begging the question. Lack of alternative hypothesis doesn't prove any existing hypothesis.
it's stupid to argue that humans are just elaborate living robots. it should be intuitive that we are more than that, and it's forced and artificial to think that way.
That your opinion is that it's stupid, or forced and artificial to argue something does nothing to disprove that position, it's simply your opinion. Personally, I think it's irrational to add the unnecessary step of an unobservable creator to a process we don't understand rather than work towards understanding it, I don't however, claim that's evidence for anything.
the design of the universe is weak evidence but it's evidence
The design of the universe would be proof of a god. Can you prove the universe is designed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
This seems like a very loaded question. Why did life come about? Because something happened that created life. How did life come about? That is, as far as I'm aware an unknown.
As someone who is not an evolutionist - and what little I thought I knew, seems to becoming more vague every day, so would someone please assist me here.Now I know that this may well do with the origin of all theories - yet - I am not asking about why or how non-life came into being - we can assume that for the sake of the discussion. I am asking about the evolution from non-life to life.
This is a false equivalency. While the word evolve means to change gradually, the theory of Evolution doesn't address the origins of life, only the development of life (that's abiogenesis, which is specifically the pre-evolutionary origins of life). Beyond the false equivalency I'm also curious why you feel it's fair to say life evolved from non-life? That implies a gradual change, got reason to think it was a gradual change?
Now admittedly, having a brain seems better than not having a brain. And the ability to move and communicate seems to be better than not being able to do the same, but they are both value statements.
They are and my admittedly very basic understanding of the theory of evolution is that it doesn't have anything to do with 'better' so much as increased ability to survive and procreate.
Created:
Posted in:
I know what an argument from poor design is. It's also not an argument I have made. Since I've never argued the universe isn't the product of an intelligence. I won't take that stance.
The stance I take is a simple one. I believe the universe exists. I believe that life exists within the universe. Beyond that I even believe I haven't sufficent information to know how the universe came to be or if it required a designer.
When someone makes the claim that a designer is necessary. I ask why? In what way can the universe be shown to necessitate a designer.
When someone claims probability then I ask how they determine the odds they are using. I mean from all the information I'm aware of we have no way of knowing that a universe can form in such a way that life can't form. We don't seem to have any information from which to form conclusions do we?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Yet doesn't the newly hatched seagull begin pecking without experience or instruction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Take PTSD, combat vets and their instincts,'Might be useful in times of war,Being careful where one sits, hypervigilant, taking cover action in response to loud bangs,Though in times of peace with family and trying to live and enjoy life, a detriment, I'd say.
Not an instinct. This is a learned reaction.
And so on,Though the 'definition is inborn, the examples often enough use the word the similar way one would use intuition or feeling.I could say a politician acted intuitively, or had fine political sense,And it'd be similar to"He has been guided throughout his career by his political instincts."I could say she sensed danger, or intuitively felt she was in danger,And it matches to my mind, pretty well with,"Mere instinct alerted her to the danger."
You could, though you'd be inaccurate.
Returning to the discussion though,I'm just not much bothered by myself or others listening to their intuition.
Actually the discussion was originally your chair leg analogy. Which hasn't seemed to stand up too well.
Created:
Posted in:
Suppose I had a bad feeling, but was unable to explain why,Would it be logical to 'act on that feeling, despite not possessing any evidence?My action or belief that I need take an action, would be justified by a feeling without evidence,Though I say justified 'personally, not objectively or good logic necessarily.
Would it be justified by that feeling though? Is a feeling really a valid justification to act?
People 'are saved at times, by listening to their gut,By acting on their 'faith that something was right or wrong,Though, 'might be such cases are outliers, I couldn't say.Certainly people often run into trouble in life, when 'only thinking with their instinct,Still,
I always find these examples questionable at best. How many people listen to their guts? What percentage of them are saved by it? The fact that someone is remarking on cases of people being saved by listening to their guts, would suggest such an outcome is remarkable wouldn't it?
Well, I suppose I link instinct to faith,By one of it's definitions,"strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." - Definitions from Oxford Languages
But that definition isn't remotely related to instinct.
And I link instinct to guts, feelings, like Spider Senses,Since if it's without proof,Why does it matter any?I suppose my answer is it feels a bit like a sense, to me,Though as I said earlier, senses aren't always what they seem, 'if faith could be 'called a sense, or faith chosen 'due to a sense.
Now you're conflating faith, instinct and senses?
An instinct is an unlearned (often complex) natural response. An example is that a baby kangaroo with no guidance at all will get into their mothers pouch. Newly hatched sea turtles will head for the sea. These are instincts.
Senses are the facalties by which we perceive an external stimulus.
Faith is (dependent on context, but within context of our discussion) defined as belief without proof.
There is a connection between the senses and instinct in that instincts occur as reactions to the senses. But instinct isn't a sense, it also isn't intuition. Intuition is in no way an instinct.
By any definition I can find faith can't be described as a sense no. It also doesn't seem in any way to match the definition of an instinct. Instincts are in no way relevant to the discussion of faith. Intuition might be, but then you've done nothing to show intuition is reliable or to be trusted at all. That some people got lucky in trusting their intuition doesn't mean intuition is trustworthy.
Your quote of the Christmas Carol seems to add nothing to your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
I'd agree that faith doesn't quite work as a basis,And even when people do make a decision, because they have faith in X,I'd suppose there's 'reasons they have faith in X, rather than faith being the reason they have faith in X.
Then faith isn't valid as one of your chair legs is it?
Bit difficult to do 'anything 'just by instinct I'd think, no rationale or thought,But intuition works as a hint often, I'd think,If it's a sense, something 'experienced, why not put 'some value on it, though 'maybe not all.
Instinct is an interesting discussion in and of itself. How do you define instinct for one thing? Using the medical definition.
a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
There are those who argue humans don't have instincts, only reflexes. I don't claim to be well versed in the subject, but I am curious how you link instinct to faith? And why that link would add any value or legitimacy to faith?
As for your talk of intuition. I still don't accept that intuition is a good basis for belief. It may sometimes lead to good conclusions, but I'd say it's far too unreliable to be trusted.
Created:
Posted in:
Faith and belief are both assumptions in the absence of factual data.
No, belief is merely the acceptance of a thing as being true or in accordance with reality. I believe in tables, because I have evidence supporting the existence of tables.
Yet we are expected to accept out of hand a persons faith/belief in a supernatural floaty about creation guy.
I would say you're not expected to accept any claim. I certainly don't expect anyone to believe anything without a good reason.
Created:
Posted in:
Though I don't think that faith is or has to be without facts of information myself,Depends how one uses it I suppose.Though it's true people sometimes accept information on faith,Meaning they've not thought it through themselves, but have faith in the provider of said information, that they'll not lead them astray.And then,There's other people who's faith is 'renewed, by an experience or proof.
But there in lies the crux of the disagreement. Faith is belief without evidence. I have yet to see any reason for faith. If you want to talk about beliefs, then sure I have beliefs. I believe in many many things. The Internet for example. That however isn't faith.
However to move back to my original point. If faith needs something to support it then it isn't a basis is it? You're putting a legs on your chair leg.
I'd agree though,That my trust/faith in my brother,Would have been formed through experiences, insights, intuition, 'somethings,Rather than being founded on itself.
Then I would say it's probably best to define it as trust rather than faith for claritys sake. You trust your brother because you know him your evidence is based on what you know of his character and past actions. It's not great evidence, but it moves us beyond the realm of faith.
Intuition is usually a very bad basis for belief. Why believe anything because of a feeling? I would say intuition is a basis for faith. Experience isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
What 'qualifies as evidence?Would personal experiences qualify?For surely faith does not arise without reason or cause?
Evidence is any fact or information that supports a claim. Which is why I don't put much stock in faith. It's belief without facts or information.
If an uneducated fellow is shown calculous, will he understand?Or is evidence something 'personal at times, as well as shown other times?For a person can 'learn calculous,Yet 'if God were to exist, can a person 'not learn of God?
It doesn't matter if he understands. His evidence could easily be provided by seeing calculus applied successfully. Again any fact or information that supports a claim is evidence for that claim. If you have evidence then you don't have faith.
Insist you might, that 2+2=4, can be shown, while God cannot,Well, I am not a prophet, God, or a Miracle,How shall a Caveman be taught calculous, when 'evidence of calculous yet exists for him?
The same way a child is surely? Also, this is a red herring. We're not discussing the existence of gods we're discussing faith.
Also, if your caveman lacks evidence (having seen calculus applied repeatedly in an effective fashion for example) then I'd ask why should he be expected to believe it?
Of the religious,Can one not argue they have felt and seen justification for their faith, thousands of times?Though perhaps this varies, and others find certainty, a difficulty, well,
Sure they can argue all they like. Yet if they have facts or information to support their belief they have evidence for it and it's not faith, if they don't, then I why believe it? What use is faith in helping one trying to ensure they believe true things where possible?
You don't view as true common statements you make of everyday life?
Most of the statements I make. Though I don't know how this is relevant. I still can't think of a thing that I accept as true without evidence. Just as importantly however, I don't expect others to believe my statements without evidence.
Well, I 'suppose some people might be skeptical and precise of life,I'd say I have faith that my coworker won't suddenly knife me,Sure I suppose he could go psycho one day, but I'm pretty sure of my belief.
I assume my Co-workers won't. I wouldn't say I'm beyond considering the possibility considering they would.
I'd also argue as I did early on in this thread,When I do a Google search for synonyms of faith, one of the matches is trust.And when I do a Google search of synonyms of trust, one of the matches is faith.Though as SkepticalOne says,Faith can have a more specific meaning, related to religion.
Faith is contextual. It can mean complete trust (different from just trust, I trust some people, I don't know as there is anyone I completely trust), but in the context of acceptance of a claim as is the case in this threads context, it is defined as belief without evidence. Which I have seen no evidence of being useful.
Created:
Posted in:
Is it wrong to say people have 'faith that 2+2=4?
Yes. They have evidence for their belief that 2+2=4. Faith is belief without evidence.
And though this faith is not wrong, it can lead them to false conclusions in situations?
It's not faith. It's a belief built on evidence. I have seen 2+2=4 tested and found correct probably thousands of times in my life. I have evidence for that belief. If there is evidence then it is a belief if there is no evidence then it's faith. Either can potentially be correct or incorrect, but one has evidence the other doesn't.
Of determining through past experiences,Some people are not always what they seem,Friends turn out to be secret serial killers,One day a family member commits a crime, and their family insists they 'never would have done such.
Again if the evidence leads to a correct belief isn't what matters, that the belief is backed by evidence is the required criteria.
Hm, no I don't think so,Though I'm not making examples with intuition being true,I assume you already agree with me that intuition 'is often true, or hinting at 'something true,Though I'll argue for the truth of intuition of you like,
I see this as moot. While I have no particular trust in intuition, I certainly wouldn't form more than an assumption based on it. I also fail to see why it's relevant to faith.
In the 'moment however, I'm arguing 'against people who claim no need or use of belief.I think.
You are incorrect. At least in your discussion with me. I am not speaking of people who claim no need for belief. I am speaks of *faith* they are not the same thing. If a belief is supported by evidence, then it is not faith. I have many beliefs. I cannot think of anything accept as true without evidence. I make *assumptions* when necessary, but they aren't faith as I don't accept them as true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Yet all of those beliefs are built to one degree or another on evidence aren't they? We can test 2+2=4 We can use direct and personal past experience to determine if X Is a good person or not. The moon landing the evidence gets less direct.
I would say Faith comes into play when that evidence is lacking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I have to strongly disagree. I do this based on the fact that I am an atheist and I do not think those things. I have a negative opinion of some theists. Others I consider good friends. I will concede, I can't see the reasoning behind their belief, but I don't think that is in any way an indicator of their intelligence or character. However. I do find telling someone what they as a member of a group think about something that is in no way a necessary trait of being part of that group unreasonable and bigoted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
1. Atheists are not here to engage in debate they're here to tell us that we're stupid, evil and that our children should be taken off of us.
I can't speak to what other atheists are here for, but I am here to discuss people's beliefs with them.
2. The atheist are allowed to do post that violate the code of conduct and the mods not only allow it they encourage it. At this point the mods have even engaged in it.
This is an issue with enforcement of the rules and particular atheists. Not all atheists. I have not intentionally, or to my knowledge at all, insulted anyone, nor is it my intention to do so.
3. There's no reason there shouldn't be one post in this forum that only theists are allowed to post in so that they can have actual conversations about doctrine and belief without someone coming in and saying you're all stupid, you're all mentally ill, you're all lairs and you are all child abusers. And I haven't even begun to address the inappropriate sexual comments that are made here all the time including comments about theists children and pedophilia.
There is no reason I can see that atheists should be excluded from discussion of beliefs and doctrine. I do however think atheists who insult, belittle or harass theists are another matter.
You are consistently equating the actions of some atheists with all atheists, this is unreasonable. I have (many times) been insulted by theists, I've been accused of moral degregation, being an idiot and much worse. In no way do I assume this is the belief of all theists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I find your talk of faith as one basis somewhat interesting, but I would question position (well I do question any position) that requires faith to be stable. If the position is stable without the faith then why add it? It's like an unnecessary leg on your chair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
How very oppressive of you.
What is your reasoning for this position? Or is it just a dislike for people who question your beliefs? I've never known why people would be so upset about having their beliefs questioned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Isn't it funny how not a single group is exactly the same as each other except for theist we must be super duper f****** special we must be super duper f****** unique and we don't even know it look at our superpowers we can band together like a f****** hive somebody should have told us this s*** no wonder Christians took over the world.
I personally find your sarcasm and vitriol unnecessary, but that aside, I would address your point by saying that I personally don't claim all theists are the same. I don't know of anyone who has taken that position. I will say all theists share a position. That of believing in a god or gods. I would go further and say that the god or gods will further shape what they believe or don't believe. Though at no point will I assert a universal attribute to theists other than belief in god or gods.
All atheists also share a position. That of not believing in a god or gods. However, where belief in god(s) has led to set religions which contain beliefs necessary to their acceptance (Christians believe in christ for example). Atheists however can't be said to necessarily believe in anything. Not the big bang or evolution. They also aren't required to not believe in anything other than gods. They can believe in ghosts, fairies, lochness monsters, reincarnation or anything else that isn't a god. This does make their beliefs harder to group than theists.
However, since we're discussing the possibility of a god/gods and the nature such a god or gods may have, it seems reasonable that the theists beliefs are more relevant to the discussion. The theists claims are what are being discussed after all.
Created:
Posted in:
"My view in exploring ideas it to take someone's idea and simply extend it as far as we - allowing everyone to see what that particular view is and what's implications are. That is how I think."
That's great, it's a good way to address ideas. Yet atheism doesn't address an idea, it specifically addresses a belief. When discussing if one should hold a belief seeing how likely that belief is to be true seems important to me.
"This is why I find the atheist position so well cowardly. It is permitted to attack my views - which incidentally I am ok with - since it will help me understand my own views better. Yet, it never provides an alternative - except - there is no god. And that is it."
Atheism doesn't attack any world view (again you are mistaking atheists for atheism). It simply doesn't accept a single belief. It isn't the position 'god doesn't exist' it is simply the position of not believing in a god. There is a vital difference. Some atheists believe god doesn't exist, others simply don't believe a god does exist. Not accepting A as true isn't the same as accepting Not-A as true.
Further atheism doesn't provide an alternative, nor is it within the purview of atheism to do so. Atheists may, but that will be drawn from other beliefs, ideas and philosophies, atheism is simply the state of not accepting a specific single claim.
"This is why I find the atheist position so well cowardly. It is permitted to attack my views - which incidentally I am ok with - since it will help me understand my own views better. Yet, it never provides an alternative - except - there is no god. And that is it."
Atheism doesn't attack anything, it is simply the state of not accepting your claim. Atheists may attack your position, but that is an individual using their beliefs and ideas beyond their atheism.
"But how can an idea - since it is clearly not more than that - it is self professedly not a worldview, somehow take on the persona that it can destroy entire worldviews? It logically just can't do that. An idea must fit within a context - a worldview to have such a self-important view of itself. Yet as soon as it does it, it effectively destroys itself as an idea only."
Atheism isn't an idea, nor is it meant to destroy theism. Atheism is simply the position of not accepting the claim of a gods existence. *Atheists* may attack a theists world views, they may even destroy them, but that isn't with atheism, it's through other ideas and beliefs that likely make up the atheists worldview.
Atheism is simply the position of not accepting a gods existence as true. I see little reason this isn't the most reasonable position in regards to the claim of a gods existence. I'm open to discussing this of course (it's the main reason why I'm here).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why is open discussion of ideas precluded? There is an idea put forward. That of creation or a god. Why does one need an alternative idea to question if the creation or god idea is valid? Surely you're not suggesting we should believe an idea unless we can put forward an alternative?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
When have I ever done anything that could be construed as harassment? This is a forum for the purpose of discussing religion isn't it? What is your reasoning for excluding those who do not believe the claims put forward?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you don't care then why waste your time in engaging me? I engage in discussion on the topic of religion because I find them (and the reason people give for believing them) interesting. I find it surprising that theists object to this. Why do you disapprove of someone asking questions of your beliefs on a forum specifically for the purpose of discussing those very beliefs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It's been my experience that Atheists love to show up to religious threads. They get to have their say. They get to destroy their opponents. They get to prove how cool they are in the world of philosophy.
Personally I prefer to simply question. I find theology interesting, not convinced by its claims though.
But this is why I say they are cowards. Because they are afraid to reveal what they believe. For instance, what do Atheists believe?
What would you like to know my beliefs on?
Nothing. One common doctrine. God doesn't exist. An argument based on a negative. That is it. Nothing else. We are not allowed to know what else they believe - because there is no common factor.
Well, I mean you can ask an atheist what they believe. You just can't apply that to all atheists. Hell you can't even state 'God doesn't exist' as a 'doctrine' of atheism. The only position you can attribute to atheism is not believing in a god.
Are there more doctrines for the atheist than there is no God? No. nary a one. LOL! laughable. And weak. Cowardly really. there is no other words that can account for this state of being. A worldview - that is not really a worldview - a position - that is not really a position - a statement that allows no criticism. Imagine if we tried to apply to that any religion? It would be laughed out of the stadium. that is why Atheism is cowardly. One rule for them.
I don't see atheism as a world view. It informs my opinion on one particular position it doesn't inform my day to day decision making in the least (I moved to one of the most Catholic countries in the world and most people who know me don't know my religious position and the few that do were surprised to find I wasn't a theist of some stripe. It's my opinion on one claim).
My view is that only people with worldviews should be allowed to contribute in a religious forum. An atheist ought be rejected unless they can provide a worldview to be considered. Unless this occurs - then there is no basis of comparing and contrasting. There is no basis for conversation.
Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, but it's my opinion that your wrong. Claims should stand on their merit. Not on that of other claims. If you claim X and someone questions that claim. The only real question is, can your claim withstand the questions?
Unless an atheist is able to come up with a worldview - then the atheist's opinions ought not be welcome.
You'll find most atheists have a world view (I don't know as anyone can avoid having a world view). It's just not necessarily tied to their atheism. To be clear I have a world view. It informs my position on creator gods not the other way around. Nor is it based on one point, claim or belief. I don't know as I'd consider myself having a 'doctrine' I have views and beliefs, I have opinions and ideas. None of those are dependent on religious beliefs however. Can you explain why you assert I must accept yours?
Created:
Posted in:
Faith can be used in different ways, this is true. We can talk of the faith as a noun. Or we can talk of it as a verb. I have faith in that man.
And personally this is why equivocation fallacies happen. When I mean I believe (accept as true) then I use the term belief, when I mean I have trust in something/someone, then I use the term trust. When I use faith it is within the context of a belief not based on proof. Not because I'm attacking faith, but because it's clear. When we do otherwise we lead to equivocation fallacies.
I'm not sure what you are saying about religious conviction. In my view EVERYONE is religious. I say religion is inescapable. Humans are religious beings.
Define 'religious' because I don't believe I am at all religious by any definition I'm aware of.
I actually don't think being religious has anything to do with faith per se.
That depends on your definition of religion, but within the context of most of the discussions I've seen here, I'd say faith certainly has something to do with religion.
Created:
You cross the road in sidewalks if you can to reduce your odds of getting hit. The odds of you getting hit from crossing the road once is significantly less than the odds of a female getting pregnant from straight sex once if she uses birth control (note birth control produces bad side effects so I wouldn't expect a female to use birth control).
I'm not 'expecting' anything from anyone. I'm saying if a woman chooses to have sex despite the possible risks then that is their concern and nobody else's. The same goes for birth control. Your argument seems to be it's painful so they shouldn't do it. What would be more reasonable to my thinking is if the argument was its painful so they shouldn't want to do it. Either way it seems a weak argument.
It's their opinion. Abortions are painful.
What exactly puts you in a position to speak to an entire groups opinion? And you never said its their opinion that abortions were painful. Your statement that I was replying to was:
Their opinion is they might get pregnant, and they would just not have sex on that basis.
Evidence would suggest that isn't their opinion considering many women have sex knowing the potential consequences, as is their right.
The pain from abortion isn't a good enough reason to ban it, but you really shouldn't get an abortion if your a female because of it's pain
Again risk vs reward, entirely your opinion and obviously not agreed with by many women. At present you don't seem to have an argument, against abortions, just an opinion on why you feel women should abstain.
No sex is 100% safe and abstinence is. I'm not even blaming women. It's men's fault women are pregnant, so men should stop pressuring women to have sex.
Wow. OK. I agree men should never pressure women to have sex, but you do realise women choose to have sex without pressure from men right? Again, I believe it's never right for anyone to try and pressure anyone else to sex. But then you kind of started slipping that position in after we'd started this discussion. I don't see why a woman shouldn't have every right to want to have sex without wanting to have children. There doesn't need to be any pressure from men, nor does there need to be any blame placed when two consenting adults choose to have sex aware of and willing to take the risks.
I wouldn't ban their sex, but I would strongly discourage it since it's just a few minutes of pleasure and once the kid is born, the female is vomiting for hours after the abortion.
And it's your right to discourage whatever you like. But as of yet I'm not seeing an argument against abortion.
It's their right to want to be in pain from abortion; but it's also your right to refuse to be vaccinated and suffer from covid. If you exercise that right, I think it's kinda dumb.
This is disingenuous at best a strawman at worst. I haven't once (and don't know anyone who has) argued that women want the pain of abortion, only that they're willing to risk that pain for something they do want.
Aside from that I personally feel there is a difference between the two positions. A woman getting pregnant and having an abortion doesn't put anyone else at risk, not getting vaccinated may damage herd immunity and put others at risk.
Men pressure women into having sex unfortunately, and it's how consent is obtained. Women aren't that horny.
Some men do, it's true. Yet you're wrong if you think women only have sex when pressured. Or that women don't have enough of a sex drive to seek sex without being pressured. That simply isn't the case.
The thing is, I don't think they do. Otherwise if a female was pro Roe V Wade and didn't believe in fetal personhood, she would be having dozens of abortions since she wouldn't want the side effects from birth control and would want to have sex.
Again you seem to be lumping all women into one group. I know women who don't use any birth control other than condoms. I know women who are routinely on birth control even though they're not routinely sexually active. It would seem many women would rather deal with the consequences of sex one way or the other rather than not have sex. Again not all women hold the same position. Some no doubt do believe in the personhood of a fetus, others no doubt don't. Neither should be excluded from having sex if they choose to. Again I'm not seeing any argument against abortion.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They know it's a possibility.
I know it's possible I'll get run over when I cross the road, doesn't mean I won't cross the road. That something bad may happen isn't necessarily a good reason not to do it.
Their opinion is they might get pregnant, and they would just not have sex on that basis.
I would say the evidence suggeats that isn't their opinion.
I don't support mandating this, but if your a male that doesn't want kids and aren't vasectomized, you shouldn't have sex because you might get the girl pregnant and then either a kid is going to be killed and the female endures a lot of pain from the abortion, or she births the kid and endures even more pain.
This moves into the Realm of a fetus being a baby, which you've already stated is a different issue. As for the rest, if the parties are two consenting adults aware of the possible consequences and willing to take them, I fail to see the issue. Shouldn't the man respect the woman's decision in regards to the risks she wants to take?
Either option is painful for the female, so she shouldn't have sex unless she wants a kid. In addition, the male shouldn't pressure her to have sex because if she gets pregnant, she will endure pain either from the abortion or from childbirth.
This is why people should be encouraged to learn the risks and practice safe sex (contraceptives aren't perfect, but they're a good measure if used properly). As for pressuring a woman into having sex. I think 'she might get pregnant' is far from the only reason not to pressure a woman into sex, but again, if it's two consenting adults who are aware of the possible risks and still want to do it, I fail to see an issue for either party.
It's why people get very painful abortions which they shouldn't get because they shouldn't become pregnant unless they want a kid.
Firstly, purely your opinion. If a woman is willing to risk the pain of abortions for the sake of having sex, why should anyone nay say them? If they're aware of the risks and preferably of the precautions they can take to minimise those risks why should anyone be against them having sex? This doesn't seem to be an argument against abortion so much as an argument for abstinence and frankly a fairly weak one at that.
Yes, and it is even better when the male does not pressure the female into having sex.
No where before this post did either of us mention men pressuring women into sex. That is not part of my argument at all. I don't think it's ever correct for anyone to pressure others into having sex.
You seem to be saying that pain of abortion is a good reason for a woman not to have sex. If a woman wants to have sex, is aware of the risks and willing to take them, then I'd say the possible pain (which she's aware of), is obviously not a good reason for her to choose not to do it. Risk vs reward, if the woman knows pain is possible, but feels the reward is worth that pain, then obviously the pain isn't a good reason for her to not do it.
Created: