Atheism...the religion of...science?

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

[/color]

Again, faith is not a virus that affects only theists. In my humble opinion, those who claim that they don't have faith and yet flip a light switch are hypocrites.

Please don't tell me you are being serious. Electricity is something that can, and even as I type this, is, being proven to exist, it has measurable qualities, it can produce power, it can run this computer, it is running your brain as you read this, it can re-start a heart when it stops, it can and does, run golf carts. No faith required.

Hypocrites are those who say one thing, while thinking or acting in manner in opposition to that statement. Claiming you have a rational reason (other than, perhaps, Paschal's Wager) for belief in the supernatural, is, to my way of thinking hypocritical. Beleif in the supernatural, by definition requires blind faith. If something can be proven, then it is no longer in the realm of the supernatural, is it? Anything that exists and can be proven to exist is in the realm of nature.

Beleiving in the power of electricity requires absolutely no faith at all. Beleiving that Ra is going to greet you in some afterlife, which has never been proven to exist requires someone to lay aside rationality and beleive, just because you decide to, and for no rational reason. If you beleive in something with no reason to, then you are beleiving that on faith, and nothing else, why hide that fact?

B.

 

[Fade]

[/color]I hear the bias speaking. I don't rely on blind faith and never have and I happen to be a theist.

Denial: it's not just a river in Egypt. I would suggest that my faith is every bit as reasoned and evidenced as yours.

Again, faith is not a virus that affects only theists. In my humble opinion, those who claim that they don't have faith and yet flip a light switch are hypocrites.

Blocking your ears and shouting 'Nahnahnahnahnah...I can't hear you!'. Doesn't really help your argument. Show us how you don't rely on blind faith.

Saying something is so does not make it so.

Flipping the light switch in my home does not require any faith on my part, especially since I wired my house in the first place. I have faith in my amateur electrical abilities yes, but my faith is reasoned and logical.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Pah, you "slam" me by calling my faith blind and take umbrage when I point out your bias against faith. You have obviously made up your mind about the "quality" of my faith and there is NOTHING in the world that will change your heart or mind in regards to that. Why continue? You are obviously angry, and I don't want to become like you.


MdmSzdWhtGuy, show me an electron so that I might FULLY believe. Just one.

Fade, I am not the one blocking their ears. Apparently, you are quite upset that I have pointed out that you have and use faith on a continual basis. That this faith is in no way different from my faith. However, you put far more credence in your faith, dismissing all others as merely being blind. Go back and re-read my posts without the chip on your shoulder and try to understand what I have written.

All, I find this constant talking past each other most tedious and boring. If you can't accept that I agree with the two definitions of faith that Spinks presented or that my faith is both evidenced and reasoned then there is nothing more to discuss. Have a great day. I hoped we could keep the discussion civil but it's not going that way, so I will bow out. I disagree with your views on my faith and many simply can't handle that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you can't accept that I agree with the two definitions of faith that Spinks presented or that my faith is both evidenced and reasoned then there is nothing more to discuss.

No one can read something like Summa Theologiae and doubt the possibility of reasoned faith. There is obviously a difference in how we define and weigh 'evidence'.

 

[linwood]

No one can read something like Summa Theologiae and doubt the possibility of reasoned faith. There is obviously a difference in how we define and weigh 'evidence'.

That is what the disagreement here stems from.

 

[Fade]

No one can read something like Summa Theologiae and doubt the possibility of reasoned faith. There is obviously a difference in how we define and weigh 'evidence'.

Which particular faith are you refering to?

 

[linwood]

Which particular faith are you refering to?

I believe Jay is merely highlighting the different levels of evidence people are willing to accept.

NetDoc does have evidence for his beliefs but it is not evidence that would be acceptable to any skeptic.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Jay,

Thanks... I was feeling a bit alone in this.

Linwood,

I doubt that you would dismiss the evidence as much as you would the conclusion from the evidence. I see the diversity of fauna and thank God that he created evolution. You point to the same diversity as evidence against God.

You ask me to prove that God created evolution, and I ask you to prove otherwise. We both rely on a reasoned faith to justify our beliefs.

 

[Flappycat]

Any time I have tried to debate with an atheist about religion, all I here is how and why science concludes and proves all that they debate for. Has it then become an atheist belief, or a means of defying God???

Most scientists just happen to be atheists, so this is naturally the group that the atheist would identify most with. It's the only place that atheists can be said to be the overwhelming majority. Dispute the scientists as much as you like, but you'll continue giving them money as long as they keep working out better ways to make your car go and stitching your body back together in the event that you break it. You can divert the cashflow to the churches if you want to, but let's see how far you go in a prayer-powered automobile or how many faith-healers can stitch your spine back together.

Being an atheist is a natural consequence of being highly educated and literate. Being an atheist doesn't make you highly educated or literate, of course, but, if you'll observe the graphs, you'll see that the more erudite members of our population are more likely to feel there is something smelly about religion.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Being an atheist is a natural consequence of being highly educated and literate.

Bwahahahahahahaha!
Bwahahahahahahaha!
Bwahahahahahahaha!

That has got to be one of the most telling statements of all times. Didn't I mention intellectual snobbery earlier? Here it is in all of it's glory.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Being an atheist is a natural consequence of being highly educated and literate.

One can be childishly shallow and naive when speaking of science and scientists. Here we see them forced to personify the "highly educated and literate" while the political science graduate from George Washington University, drama gratuate from the Julliard School, the philosophy graduate from New York University, the music graduate from Northwestern, the law graduate from Yale, etc., are, apparently, insufficiently "highly educated and literate" to warrant consideration.

 

[painted wolf]

I'd like to think of myself as "highly educated and literate"... I'm not an athiest.Knockout

wa:do

 

[Fade]

I believe Jay is merely highlighting the different levels of evidence people are willing to accept.

I know, I was merely being facetious.

 

[mr.guy]

Furthermore, i must be "doing" atheism wrong; my grasp on science is pitiable, at best.

 

[Fade]

I've met a few 'un' educated atheists in my time

 

[Scuba Pete]

Jay,

I can't frubal you twice in one day.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can't frubal you twice in one day.

That's OK. I refuse to accept double frubals from any theist who walks around in a Santa hat in February.

 

[Fade]

Lol, that changed fairly rapidly

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps us atheists need to realize that things aren't always as they appear.

 

[Fade]

The truth is out there.