The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

LOL yes... every time I hit the nail on the head... it is a fallacy.

No, you have only hit yourself on the head. You are using an equivocation fallacy. That is where one uses different definitions for the same word.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

LOL or missing mine?

Nope

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have you ever worked for someone on a promise that they would pay you?

Strange way of saying that. It also doesn't fit the sentiment that was in the original statement. So this feels like goal post moving.

But I'll play along.

Worded like that, I would have to say "no".

What I actually have done, is entered contractual agreement where I would offer labor in return for pay.
You can call that a "promise" if you will, but to me that sounds a little too "pinky swear" verbal playground agreement.
I wouldn't characterize contractual obligations in that manner.

In any case, so my answer is that I have entered in contractual agreements to exchange my labor for an agreed upon fee in return.

Now what?


(ps: I can tell where you are going to go with this and I can already tell you that you're going to crash right into the wall.... but go ahead, let's play this out)

 

[Kenny]

Strange way of saying that. It also doesn't fit the sentiment that was in the original statement. So this feels like goal post moving.

But I'll play along.

Worded like that, I would have to say "no".

What I actually have done, is entered contractual agreement where I would offer labor in return for pay.
You can call that a "promise" if you will, but to me that sounds a little too "pinky swear" verbal playground agreement.
I wouldn't characterize contractual obligations in that manner.

In any case, so my answer is that I have entered in contractual agreements to exchange my labor for an agreed upon fee in return.

Now what?


(ps: I can tell where you are going to go with this and I can already tell you that you're going to crash right into the wall.... but go ahead, let's play this out)

Thank you!!


That is how faith works. What you have is a promise to pay. You have faith in the person's word (as per the contract) that at the end of the work, you will be paid even though you don't know the balance on his checking account. You have a certain faith that they will fulfill their contract even though we know that there are people who don't fulfill their promises and it goes to court. It is a "contract of good faith" - a legal term

In our belief, it is the same principle. We have a promise - a Last Will and New Testament that went into effect at the death of the Testator.

It isn't an "Illogical, foolish and presumptuous" belief system where you just "believe that you believe" but rather one that is based on a legal position. We have a legal position as per the covenant contract and we trust the veracity of what the covenant contract says because we trust the one who enacted the covenant contract (arrived by multiple reasons - such as track record).

 

[F1fan]

Science and religion are not antagonistic. That is an atheist myth.

Correct. Theists are antagonistic when they are desperate to find some scrap of validity for their beliefs. The irony is that if the believer is so lost in turmoil where they are insecure about their religion, but reject science, it suggests their religion isn;t working for them. Yet they remain committed instead of reassessing what doesn't work in what they adopted.

It still amazes me that in the 21st century so many Christians are still trying to hold onto creationism and bad theology instead of just accepting science. This is learned bias.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is how faith works. What you have is a promise to pay. You have faith in the person's word (as per the contract) that at the end of the work, you will be paid even though you don't know the balance on his checking account. You have a certain faith that they will fulfill their contract even though we know that there are people who don't fulfill their promises and it goes to court. It is a "contract of good faith" - a legal term

False equivocation.
I have very good reasons to assume the employer will comply to his end of the contract.
I also know what type of situations can come up that might end up in me not being paid.

This is not a matter of "faith" in the religious sense, where things are believe for bad reasons (no precedents, no evidence, no earned trust)

In our belief, it is the same principle.

It is not.

We have a promise

With a ghost that you can't communicate with, which is undetectable and which you have to believe on faith that it is real.

A proper analogy with the work for pay contract, would rather be that some guy in the street claims he works for an incognito Nigerian prince that I'm not able to meet or know about, and needs me to go work for his company which can not be verified to actually exist, whose activities are undetectable and "mysterious" etc.

An employer that I actually can physically meet, with a company of which I can actually check the balance and books as that is public information, which I can actually go and physically visit on location,..... Hardly the same thing.

- a Last Will and New Testament that went into effect at the death of the Testator.

All of which is believed on faith.
I don't require "faith" to believe that my employer is real and that there is actually a person at the other end of the contract.

It isn't an "Illogical, foolish and presumptuous" belief system where you just "believe that you believe" but rather one that is based on a legal position.

False. As explained above: the other side of the "contract" in your case is an undetectable ghost.

We have a legal position as per the covenant contract and we trust the veracity of what the covenant contract says because we trust the one who enacted the covenant contract.

And "the one" is an undetectable ghost.

You require "faith" from A to Z.
I don't. There is no step where that kind of "faith" comes into the picture when it comes to working for pay.

 

[F1fan]

Thank you!!


That is how faith works. What you have is a promise to pay. You have faith in the person's word (as per the contract) that at the end of the work, you will be paid even though you don't know the balance on his checking account. You have a certain faith that they will fulfill their contract even though we know that there are people who don't fulfill their promises and it goes to court. It is a "contract of good faith" - a legal term

In our belief, it is the same principle. We have a promise - a Last Will and New Testament that went into effect at the death of the Testator.

It isn't an "Illogical, foolish and presumptuous" belief system where you just "believe that you believe" but rather one that is based on a legal position. We have a legal position as per the covenant contract and we trust the veracity of what the covenant contract says because we trust the one who enacted the covenant contract (arrived by multiple reasons - such as track record).

Who told exposed you to this dogma? And why did you believe them? Certainly you can understand how these ideas are not rooted in reality, and the history of Christianity shows itself to be fraught with bad belief and negative effects.

 

[Kenny]

False equivocation.
I have very good reasons to assume the employer will comply to his end of the contract.
I also know what type of situations can come up that might end up in me not being paid.

This is not a matter of "faith" in the religious sense, where things are believe for bad reasons (no precedents, no evidence, no earned trust)

And yet people are in court because their "assumption" was wrong. As the legal term is given "a contract in good faith" for which, if not fulfilled, you sue.

So it is quite a true equivocation

With a ghost that you can't communicate with, which is undetectable and which you have to believe on faith that it is real.

I beg to differ. I do communicate with Him and He communicates with me.

An employer that I actually can physically meet, with a company of which I can actually check the balance and books as that is public information, which I can actually go and physically visit on location,..... Hardly the same thing.

You can't if it is a private organization.

Popular bridal dress chain abruptly closes stores, leaving some brides-to-be stranded

Alfred Angelo Bridal abruptly closed its stores Thursday, leaving brides-to-be jilted, as its lawyer said the company planned to file for bankruptcy.

abcnews.go.com

Notice that in this organization the faith they had place their bridal dress didn't produce.

All of which is believed on faith.
I don't require "faith" to believe that my employer is real and that there is actually a person at the other end of the contract.

Again... wrong definition of faith. Your employer may be real but you still exercise a measure of faith as noted that not all organization fulfill their contract of good faith. We have faith in our doctors, but some doctors have a poor record.

False. As explained above: the other side of the "contract" in your case is an undetectable ghost.

False on your part. I find Him quite detectable.

And "the one" is an undetectable ghost.

You require "faith" from A to Z.
I don't. There is no step where that kind of "faith" comes into the picture when it comes to working for pay.

So... we end up with two sides of a coin if not three. You, apparently, are on the unbelief side which you have every right to have. I have a belief side, by virtue of the Last Will and New Testament that went into effect on the death of the Testator, and we have those who are searching for truth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thank you!!


That is how faith works. What you have is a promise to pay. You have faith in the person's word (as per the contract) that at the end of the work, you will be paid even though you don't know the balance on his checking account. You have a certain faith that they will fulfill their contract even though we know that there are people who don't fulfill their promises and it goes to court. It is a "contract of good faith" - a legal term

In our belief, it is the same principle. We have a promise - a Last Will and New Testament that went into effect at the death of the Testator.

It isn't an "Illogical, foolish and presumptuous" belief system where you just "believe that you believe" but rather one that is based on a legal position. We have a legal position as per the covenant contract and we trust the veracity of what the covenant contract says because we trust the one who enacted the covenant contract (arrived by multiple reasons - such as track record).

I'd say in your example, no faith is required, given that you've signed a contract with a person, wherein you have legal recourse to recoup any money lost if the employer does not pay you. You don't need faith in "the person's word" if you have a contract, which is kind of the point of it.

 

[Kenny]

I'd say in your example, no faith is required, given that you've signed a contract with a person, wherein you have legal recourse to recoup any money lost if the employer does not pay you. You don't need faith in "the person's word" if you have a contract, which is kind of the point of it.

non sequitur - it is a break of the "contract of good faith" - a legal term that everyone understands or should understand.

contract-of-good-faith

 

[Heyo]

That is somewhat exaggerated for convenience sake IMV. Not to mention that not all 41,000 are in conflict with each other.

It's exaggerated to make a point.

So, because we have doctors that are pro Covid vaccinations and others that are against Covid vaccinations that the medical profession is against each other and all thousand branches of medical profession are in conflict with each other? (I just applied your same standard you applied to Christianity)

(I appreciate that, it's a tool I use often.)

Assuming "faithful" actors, doctors could possibly agree on the best way and I guess many Christians could also agree on some contentious points. There is no fundamental disagreement in basic belief. Doctors want to treat their patients and keep them alive, it's just a debate of the best practise. And I think the same could be said about some Christian denominations.

But the same could not said about science and religions. There is a fundamental difference that can't be bridged. Science axiomatically believes in an orderly universe (i.e. no magic). Most religions, and Christianity for sure, fundamentally believe in magic.
People, even scientists, gloss over this fundamental difference in everyday life when it has no effect. They compartmentalise. But in the end you have to decide between magical thinking and rational thinking to know which camp you are in.

 

[SkepticThinker]

non sequitur - it is a break of the "contract of good faith" - a legal term that everyone understands or should understand.

contract-of-good-faith

It does actually follow.

That doesn't address my response.

You know, just once, it would be super amazing to have you actually directly address something I've pointed out to you.

 

[Kenny]

It's exaggerated to make a point.

(I appreciate that, it's a tool I use often.)

Assuming "faithful" actors, doctors could possibly agree on the best way and I guess many Christians could also agree on some contentious points. There is no fundamental disagreement in basic belief. Doctors want to treat their patients and keep them alive, it's just a debate of the best practise. And I think the same could be said about some Christian denominations.

But the same could not said about science and religions. There is a fundamental difference that can't be bridged. Science axiomatically believes in an orderly universe (i.e. no magic). Most religions, and Christianity for sure, fundamentally believe in magic.
People, even scientists, gloss over this fundamental difference in everyday life when it has no effect. They compartmentalise. But in the end you have to decide between magical thinking and rational thinking to know which camp you are in.

I wouldn't use the word magic - a personal preference of mine... I would use the supernatural. Just a technicality.

But let's find commonality:

1) Our faith does believe in an orderly universe governed by the principles that science has discovered and is still discovering.
2) You are right, the Achilles heel of science is that it doesn't look for all possible answers, only those that they can see.

I also believe that rational thinking and living supernatural has an intersection. IMV.

 

[Kenny]

It does actually follow.

That doesn't address my response.

You know, just once, it would be super amazing to have you actually directly address something I've pointed out to you.

When you point out irrelevancies, present faulty positions and ignore basic principles, I view it as a waste of my additional time. (I'm not going to backtrack and list them)

So I synthesize what we have covered and that being:

You are on the side of the coin that doesn't believe. I am on the side of belief while I continue to search for additional truth.

I am satisfied that we both know where we stand and satisfied that whatever conclusion you have about me is your conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A proper analogy with the work for pay contract, would rather be that some guy in the street claims he works for an incognito Nigerian prince that I'm not able to meet or know about, and needs me to go work for his company which can not be verified to actually exist, whose activities are undetectable and "mysterious" etc.

Oh! So you know Hank too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet people are in court because their "assumption" was wrong. As the legal term is given "a contract in good faith" for which, if not fulfilled, you sue.

So it is quite a true equivocation

No, not at all. This argument harms you. We can sue someone if he makes promises and does not keep them. How can we sue God?

Your equivocation fallacy still fails.

 

[Heyo]

I wouldn't use the word magic - a personal preference of mine... I would use the supernatural. Just a technicality.

But let's find commonality:

Always an amiable approach.

1) Our faith does believe in an orderly universe governed by the principles that science has discovered and is still discovering.

I think that is not the case / a misunderstanding of the phrase "orderly universe". In a scientific sense "orderly" means that, given otherwise equal conditions, the universe acts the same, no matter time or position. It means if things change, there is a physical reason for that change.
It also means that people who die, stay dead - just as they did every time, everywhere.
If I meet a person I thought to be dead, I assume I had false information about their demise or, being sure of that, a doppelganger. I exclude resurrection.
You don't.

2) You are right, the Achilles heel of science is that it doesn't look for all possible answers, only those that they can see.

We agree on that. (Though I wouldn't call that an Achilles heel, just a technicality.)
Science is limited, has itself limited, to the real world, that what can be measured. That feature has made it very successful at explaining and predicting real phenomena. And what's more, non science and pseudo science has failed to explain and predict real phenomena.

I also believe that rational thinking and living supernatural has an intersection. IMV.

Rational and rationalising are often indistinguishable at first glance.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When you point out irrelevancies, present faulty positions and ignore basic principles, I view it as a waste of my additional time. (I'm not going to backtrack and list them)

So I synthesize what we have covered and that being:

You are on the side of the coin that doesn't believe. I am on the side of belief while I continue to search for additional truth.

I am satisfied that we both know where we stand and satisfied that whatever conclusion you have about me is your conclusion.

How is directly addressing the example you gave and pointing out your false equivocation an "irrelevancy?" It seems to me that it speaks directly to the heart of the discussion on faith.

Yeah, it's a waste of your time to actually engage in a back-and-forth with the person you're conversing with. You don't think it's a waste of time for me to write out a thoughtful answer to your example only to have it dismissed out of hand as an "irrelevancy" and a "non-sequitur?" Over and over again? Come on.

 

[Kenny]

No, not at all. This argument harms you. We can sue someone if he makes promises and does not keep them. How can we sue God?

Your equivocation fallacy still fails.

He doesn't make mistakes Even when we break contract... He hold to His end of the document.

 

[Kenny]

Always an amiable approach.

Hopefully... and hopefully, even in disagreement, we can still life happy lives together... (LOL in a distant sense since I prefer living together with my wife )

I think that is not the case / a misunderstanding of the phrase "orderly universe". In a scientific sense "orderly" means that, given otherwise equal conditions, the universe acts the same, no matter time or position. It means if things change, there is a physical reason for that change.

I agree... there are laws that the universe are governed by such as cause and effect et al. Don't disagree there.

It also means that people who die, stay dead - just as they did every time, everywhere.

Wellllll....

Of course we revive dead people and some are declared dead by doctors and suddenly come back to life...

But, understanding your application, yes - Jesus died and resurrected and that is not looked at as a "scientific possibility"

If I meet a person I thought to be dead, I assume I had false information about their demise or, being sure of that, a doppelganger. I exclude resurrection.
You don't.

As noted

We agree on that. (Though I wouldn't call that an Achilles heel, just a technicality.)
Science is limited, has itself limited, to the real world, that what can be measured. That feature has made it very successful at explaining and predicting real phenomena. And what's more, non science and pseudo science has failed to explain and predict real phenomena.

I like that parenthetical thought

Yes, science is limited. But, I wouldn't agree that it has explained all phenomena. Yes, it is uncovered that which was "magical" when it was "natural" but surely hasn't explained all phenomena

My friend who had a broken back, (ski accident) and treated at John Hopkins about 4 decades ago - they tried to bridge the break twice and both failed.

After a meeting with Kathryn Kuhlman - in her hotel... healed completely. Went back to John Hopkins who reported - paraphrased - "There is no evidence of a break in your vertebrae and the only explanation we have is that it is a miracle"

We have other such reports.

Can't predict that, reproduce that and definitely "non science" - it is supernatural.

Rational and rationalising are often indistinguishable at first glance.

I agree completely!