It's ignorant, because a lack of evidence that something doesn't exist is not a reason to say believe it does, especially if there is no evidence that it does exist. This is where the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in, there is no proof that the FSM does or does not exist, but that does' mean anyone should act like it does. The same applies to deities, which is what this thread is about.
It's ignorant, because a lack of evidence that something doesn't exist is not a reason to say believe it does, especially if there is no evidence that it does exist. This is where the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in, there is no proof that the FSM does or does not exist, but that does' mean anyone should act like it does. The same applies to deities, which is what this thread is about.
If there is no evidence of it existing it means it still hasn't been found yet. Meaning it could mean anything in the end. Rather you believe it exists or not is totally up to you. It does not mean its ignorant to think differently.
Me using the word Creator was my conclusion, not the premise... Check again what I said. The first thing I said is that the universe exists, and my other premise was that it had a beginning: which you agree with.
From these I concluded that the best explanation for the above is a personal agent, hence me using the word Creator.
Let me summarise: Basically you are saying that when believing in God you in your head have solved the problem of how the universe came into existence by making up a god and giving him the power to do that. I find it odd that yet you ignore the problem of how supernatural being came from nothing. Yes I know that you say you you just follow the 'evidence' that is the universe and come up with the conclusion of god, but it's the consept that you made in your head. Prior to that, it is difficult to measure, and therefore difficult to conjecture. if you wish to believe that a giant magician, a genie, a god like zeus, or Odin, or Yahweh said, let it all be, and poof it appeared, you are welcome to. I still think you simply have no evidence for your hypothesis, other than saying "Gee it all must have come from somewhere, so it must be magic". And there's no proof for magic or supernatural powers either so to say god did it is imo not a rational conclusion for those reason alone.
No, I didn't say you said it. I said you implied it. Which I can conclude by asking you: is Earth the Creation of god? Yes or no.
Granted it's not your original argument, but it dismisses your original argument, if you agree it is a Creation and are not able to prove Earth is a creation.
Also, to me your premise fails, when you don't follow your own logic, which is that somethign that exists must have a beginning.
Obviously it would lead to an infinite regression if the creator was created too etc etc, so it has to stop at some point, and I think it is an eternal God. You could ask, as another guy asked, why not say that the universe is eteranl, but as I replied to him, I don't have a problem if you believe the universe is eternal, but then can you prove it? If not, then it's also just faith.
But as you said ,you agree with me that the universe had a beginning, so the next possible step where the infinite regression can stop is an eternal God. Further creators would be superfluous.
I'm not saying that universe is eternal. I'm saying you don't have any logical argument to say god is eternal, therefore you can't use it in your premise which uses different logic anyway. Also you don't have proof that anything eternal ever existed so you can't use it in your argument as it is faith. Do you see the problem? You can't use faith to justify evidence for your faith.
You just can't make up something that would ultimately help your logic. It all has to be rationalised base on the same logic.
____
Anyway, whether God really exists or not, is totally irrelevant. Your thread is about faith being evil. You conclude that on the premise that faith means believing without proof- which you use interchangeably with evidence, but they are not.
I never said I can prove that God exists, but there are pieces of evidence. You can't just redefine evidence to your own liking. The argument I presented is an evidence, but of course it's not scientific proof, but that was never my point. You may say that this evidence is not good enough for you, but this is still evidence, as per its definition. I gave you the definition from legit sources, evn your dictionary differentiates. I also linked to a guy the meaning of reason: as an explanation for something. So yes faith has its reasons and evidence, whether you think these are good enough or not. An evidence doesn't have to be irrefutable- that's what the word proof means. Now of course you could keep arguing how faith is evil for not having irrefutable proof, but then certain scientific claims are also evil...etc. And you still have to explain how a concept like faith is evil on a naturalistic worldview.
For the above reasons, I think there is not much more to debate about, as the topic is not about whether God exists or not. You only asked for evidence: I gave you. It doesn't prove beyond doubt that God exists, but I never said that, and that's why there is a difference between evidence and proof- which is supported by the dictionaries as well.
Anyway I saw you made this thread because you wanted to continue the debate with Transixx, so I guess he shall take it over from now, I'm tired. Been debating over this for 2 days, and even before that, several times. You people denying that a word means what the dictionaries say, well, I can't help that. I also can't help if your mother tongue makes it harder for you to understand.
Yeah I get what you're saying. But for the above reasons you can't use it as evidence as the premise is not fully rationalised. Meaning it fails even before it forms as a premise. Other than that I could agree that you have circumstanstial evidence and change my OP to say faith is somethigng which does not have proof or scientific aka empirical evidence for it. If you can make me think that then by all means.
"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference." <--- so you atleast have to proof how and why god is eternal. And answer my question whether or not Earht is a Creation of god.
So in summary:
1) You've offered no evidence that the universe is a creation, when it obviously is by your logic if there is a creator. Arbitrary statements of personal opinion don't count as evidence.
2) You've offered no evidence - and not even the slightest shred of argument! - for your preposterous notion that even *if* there may have been some sort of creator once, it has anything to do with the Abrahamic god.
3) You've offered no evidence of God being eternal.
The universe could've been created by Odin. Or the flying spaghetti monster. Or the Huastec goddess whose name we don't know because the Aztecs wiped out the Huastec before anybody from outside the area got to talk to them. Or a computer program. Or an interdimensional child playing with construction toys. Or a slithery leather-winged deity from a different galaxy's pantheon. Or somebody named Herb, who died of boredom 44,890 years after creating it. Or a nonsentient process. Or, quite literally, *anything*.
Argument isn't evidence.
But even if we decide for the sake of argument that the universe is a creation, and thereby needs a creator (a circularity, as others here and elsewhere have observed), calling that creator "God" accomplishes nothing, because we have no basis to ascribe any useful characteristics to our creator. Other than the fact that "it" created the universe, we have no way of knowing if "it" is a blob, a leprechaun, a big man on a throne or a giant cosmic mushroom--we certainly haven't hit the jackpot that allows us to lay claim to the idea that this creator is "our" god, with all the anthropomorphic qualities that feed our emotional need for a sky daddy. And now that our creator exists, we must contrive ever-more-fantastical explanations as to why God doesn't need a creator, but everything else does. And we still have no valid response to the objection that "If God could exist without a creator, so could the universe. And if the universe can't exist without a creator, neither can God."
It was not a bad debate, at least you bothered investing time and thought in it, unlike many other people. But excuse me if from my part I consider this case closed. You can interpret it in whatever way you wish.
If there is no evidence of it existing it means it still hasn't been found yet. Meaning it could mean anything in the end. Rather you believe it exists or not is totally up to you. It does not mean its ignorant to think differently.
Forget it now! Because I erase your memories by force.
I believe there exists a telepathically talking rock with butterfly wings deep in the forests of timboekistan. None of you can proof to me it does not exist as you have no proof. Not that I've seen it myself or every gotten any response through my prayers but hey..I belief 100%. It's funny to see the youth not even realizing it has been indoctrinated.
I believe there exists a telepathically talking rock with butterfly wings deep in the forests of timboekistan. None of you can proof to me it does not exist as you have no proof. Not that I've seen it myself or every gotten any response through my prayers but hey..I belief 100%. It's funny to see the youth not even realizing it has been indoctrinated.
I thoroughly respect your beliefs. I will not judge you in anyway by making a thread over your belief in this telepathically talking rock. May your god give me mercy.
I thoroughly respect your beliefs. I will not judge you in anyway by making a thread over your belief in this telepathically talking rock. May your god give me mercy.
You say faith is believing in something with out proof and that its pointless and stupid and whatever, and you use religion as the base of your argument by saying how can people believe in god without proof. but tell me something can you prove god does not exist? Are you not relying on your own faith of the non existence of god based solely on your own prejudice and not having a single piece of evidence that absolutely says "god does not exist" are you not only relying on your beliefs?
You say faith is believing in something with out proof and that its pointless and stupid and whatever, and you use religion as the base of your argument by saying how can people believe in god without proof. but tell me something can you prove god does not exist? Are you not relying on your own faith of the non existence of god based solely on your own prejudice and not having a single piece of evidence that absolutely says "god does not exist" are you not only relying on your beliefs?
Why not its the same thing he is saying, he says to believe it something with out proof of its existence is stupid but same can be said for not believing
Why not its the same thing he is saying, he says to believe it something with out proof of its existence is stupid but same can be said for not believing
A few more things are worth noting. First of all, OP is again using his made-up definition of faith being unreasonable due to the "fact" that it's a belief without evidence. Now, in his posts he seems to be confusing faith (in religion) with the religion itself. Now, I have already explained why claiming all religion is "this or that" is a recipe for desister, but instead of repeating it, I'll let those interested find it in the thread above.
If you or Kobak can argue that evidence exists for your or anyone elses faith then yes I will change my original post to say "scientific evidence" or even "proof" instead of evidence. I have not yet come across with a rationalised argument for evidence for your faith. Not in this thread, nor in real life.
Whether or not all religion is based on faith, it's fare to say that the main religions are. I'd say any movement that seeks social change and improvement is a faith-based one. It has to be, otherwise there would be no reason to hope for something better.So yes, any working through for a better future implies a belief in an idea or person as powerful to bring about something better, with hope and loyalty to that idea/person.That's what Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are based on.
"Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing; or the observance of an obligation from loyalty; or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement; or a belief not based on proof; or it may refer to a particular system of religious belief" (wikipedia) <--- that and what I saif above applies to all the main religions. About 84% of the world's population is affiliated with one of the five largest religions, namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or folk religion.
So over 6 billion people are part of those religions. Those are mainly what I'm talking about in my OP. It's enough for me to say faith is evil when it's such a big part of humanity.
Second, OP has openly stated that he lacks basic knowledge of the religions his talking about, claiming that studying religions themselves is unnecessary as he has "talked to a lot of people". This shows quite well how OP isn't qualified for this discussion as subjective experiences cannot be used as facts.
Why do I need to study religions? This is a strawman. I use only or mostly my subjective experience? This is also a strawman as it is not true and thus exaggeration. I only need to know the basis for each religion to conclude they are based on faith. Then I need to be aware of history to conclude what has happened as a consequense of each faith. That's it.
Last, but not least, OP has a tendency to generalize and use straw-mans to back his points up, wich points to terrible intelectual dishonesty (wich is evident in his statements so far). Instead of using valid, objective sources, OP provides quotes and videos of the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens who are one of the "4 horsemen of new atheism", without giving any arguments himself and forcing the opponet to debate with a virtual image of someone else whose arguments ultimatively have nothing to do with the matter at hand, all the while dismissing other sources without any given argument.
Yet it is you who uses strawmen in the previous quote and in this by saying I don't use valid sources or I don't give arguments of my own when I have done both by quoting bible and dictionary to strenghten my points. I also provided you with examples of Islam which are real. If you want evidence for them I can give them, but they are pretty self explanatory for anyone with general knowledge of the world. Also your try to dismiss Hitchens quote of the wrong doings is horrible. They are true and you haven't refuted them. Catholic church is the reason for the AIDS epidemic in Africa with it's irresponsible preachings based yet again on faith. They opposed condoms and that is a clear factor on the spreading of HIV and it goes against any assertions that praise RCC as somekind of a school system or spreader of knowledge. AIDS is bad, but not as bad as condoms really! People have a natural desire to have ***. They don't have a natural desire to not use condoms. The RCC should have realised this.
Futher more valid sources hace criticed RCC on this: The Church's stance has been criticized as unrealistic, ineffective, irresponsible and immoral by some public health officials and AIDS activists. They refer to a claimed scientific consensus that condoms greatly reduce the risk of STD transmission, but also that Abstinence-only *** education is ineffective.
Empirical evidence suggests that, although condoms do not prevent STD transmission in all cases, condoms reduce the numbers of those who are infected with an STD. Other studies have focused more on HIV/AIDS and have consistently found that fewer than 20% of those who would otherwise have been infected contract HIV.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Injustice towards women is also real: As evidence, Ipoint to sexist quotations from Church Fathers and sexist interpretations of Scripture. Even Scripture contains "subordination" passages, such as "Let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands" (Eph. 5:24). Moreover, the Catholic Church is also well-known for its opposition to abortion and contraception, which many believe are the keys to women's sexual and economic freedom. Finally, only men can be ordained priests. Isn't that clear evidence of discrimination?
AlsoPope John Paul II was a pope for catholic church for nearly 30 years in the end of 20th century: He confessed, many members of the Church, including some in the hierarchy, have acted – and sometimes still act – in ways that fail to express the equality of man and woman. "And if objective blame [for offenses against the dignity of women], especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole Church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the gospel vision" <-- This comes from a higher up of RCC in the modern times!
A funny, and a bit hypocritical, fact is that OP tends to ignore any longer posts unrightfully deeming them "walls of text" while he himself is responsible for dragging the last debate for multiple pages despite being proven wrong on the first one. After all that he writes a lengthy post himself, repeating all the fallacies from the previous thread.
I did that for the same reasons that I again noticed in this reply. Using strawmen arguments and insisting on continuing to repeat the same weak points based on those strawmen.
No one has proved me wrong. Maybe Kobak, depenging on his next reply, but you surely haven't. Why I called Kobak's texts wall of texts was because of the reasons I already stated. There was no reason to write them that long as they consisted on strawmen and misunderstanding what I said, either intentionally or unintentionally. This I already explained but you keep on using it as an argument. Lol. Talk about bad reading comprehension skills.
Ok, so, in the very begining of his thread, OP shows his bias. First he states his own definition of faith, and then proceeds to contradict himself by listing a number of different definitions of faith. Then he points out just one, whilst completely ignoring the rest, implying (as I already said) all faith is blind faith. Now to answer the individual points.
Don't say I contradict myself if you haven't shown any evidence for faith.
That is where this all boils down to. I focus on that one definition just because of the fact that I haven't come across any evidence not to talk about proof with faith. If faith is belief without proof then you can't say that some faith has proof. Lol. That's contradictory if anything. If you don't agree, show me proof for faith.
1) OP combines his biased definition of faith once again while mixing the already mentioned arguments of Dawkins into the mix. He states that the only reason why someone is of a certain faith (or religion in this case) is due to that person being born in said culture.
Now, this is wrong on multiple levels. First being the fact he deems humans as blank boards who passivelly wait for someone to write something on them wich they won't question at all. Humans, ofcourse, are not like that. While indoctrination (infamous among atheist circles) can have influence over a child, as a person matures and finds out new things and ideas, they become more self-aware and able to choose their own path.
No it's not wrong when it accurately reflects real life. Just look at the maps and their religious statistics. Dawkins or I did not say all humans are like that. All humans don't have to be. But if most of them are the "victims of their surroundings" then that strenghtens my point about faith alone being weak as it's just the sum of most of people's surroundings.
Second, the argument assumes all religion is dependant on brainwashing, wich is not true. Regardless of wether or not you agree with said religion, generalization is something you, as an intellectual, should avoid in all cases. Not only is religion present all over the world, but these places vary greatly. Some have a great level of education, while others do not, some are secular some are not, some are rich some are poor, some are under a state of war while some are not.
These vast differences point out that one's building of character and way of thinking is not reliant solely on other's influence, but on the state in wich they are born, on the enviroment wich surrounds them. Many factors are to count in when detirmining a person's worldview thus claiming all religious people are who they are due to being raised or indoctrinated that way, is ridiculous.
Again you use strawmen by saying I said all religion is dependant on brainwashing when my original quote was: "Assumed without reason meaning most muslims and christians are born that way".
Also saying someone have great level education is not an argument for religion since they are still influenced by religion. They still need religion to form some view of the world. Whether or not you like to admit it, beinf religious dismisses the fact that you are objective when viewing the universe. In some point or another your religious values and beliefs show up.
Just look at this video where Dawkins interviews students in a religious school where there are kids from many cultures and religions:
What the kids say strenghten my point. They have been raised to believe in supernatural things, and when Dawkins very rationally and objectively explains the universe to them, they object those notions and keep believing on their god.
2) Faith is a personal matter. A matter of believing in something or someone, not a tool to learn new things. Upon new discoveries, faith is built, not vice versa. Faith isn't an empirical method, nor anything independant. Faith is simply belief or acknowledgment of something. This argument points out your understanding of faith is not even clear to you yourself.
Faith in this case affect a huge amount of people in the world. Just in Islam itself there are still laws based on religion that are against basic human rights.
No it's not a tool to learn new things, but rather to believe in something like what they teach in christianity, which btw constitutes of 2,4 billion followers, which is the teachings of a book that was written 2000 years ago by men who didn't have nearly the amount of information we have today.
Why I pointed out the lack of faith's accomplishments in a positive way was to form a basis for my argument that we really could have coped without religion as, like my points in the part 3. concludes. So it strenghtens the notion that faith is not importan to human progress. Why is it then that a non-important thing like faith and the main religions have caused so much suffering and pain in the world. It really goes to strenghten my point that faith is evil.
3) Again, OP is confusing faith in religion with religion itself. He brings out the very same points that have already been refuted, thus confirming my observations as valid. Instead of repeating myself like a parrot, I'll paste it if someone insists.
Another thing to note is that, OP is again accusing all religions for the (supposed) mischiefs of a few. Another thing I pointed out in the thread above. If necessary I'll paste it here. Tough, you'd be advised to read the previous topic instead as it will be easier to understand.
Lmao refuted. Take a look at above. You can't refute reality. Also Islam has 1,6 billion members and Christianity 2,4. Which is over half of the population of Earth. So many people have been affected by these wrong doings. Women consist half of the population themselves and in both Islam and Christianity they have been treated as unequal to men. You also didn't even mention most of my other points so saying you refuted anything and then moving forward on the debate is the example of intellectual deception like you like to call it.
Also talking about "few" is just plain ridiculous as they consist of major of the worlds pupulation. That's my premise for the argument that faith is evil and the root for evil in the history of man kind.
4) Again making the fallacy of only pointing to one religion while speaking for the whole of religion, OP shows his lack of knowledge on the issues presented at hand, including historical context, nature of Christian doctrines, or the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Again I could point out same kind of examples from Quran. Was what I said about Christianity wrong? No it wasn't. The premise for this part was that people, using faith as a basis, believe that they go to hell if they don't do as their religion tolds them. The same kind of faith is visible in Islam. Again they consist the majority of the population.
Like I said above there's no real reason for faith to exist as it has not accomplished anything of significanse, but rather it has done a huge deal of bad things. So it is irrelevant if in some parts of the world faith is neutral when viewing the consequenses having it, when only the negative effects matter as we don't need faith for anything.
Tell me an example of something that a non religious person can't do, but a religious person can do? Tell me an example of where faith is more important than not having faith?
5) OP repeats his distorted definition of faith, this time under a different fashion. He claims that faith is at odds with science (despite lying in the previous thread how he didn't claim that) by quoting paragraphs from religious scripture wich have nothing to do with the context in wich he presents them. This point has also been answered in the previous thread but I will answer again, if someone insists on further elaboration.
I am just pointing out the differenes in science and in faith based religion. You saying saying my quotations have nothing to do with the context. Lol.
"while faith makes a virtue out of believing unprovable and often improbable propositions"
--> -2 Corinthians 4:18 “We look not at things seen, but at things not seen.”
-2 Corinthians 5:7 “for we walk by faith, not by sight.”
Tell my by which logic do you conclude that those two have nothing to do with each other? Those quotes clearly make a virtue of believing something that is not seen, but rather believed in. Again lol.
6) OP here makes a straw-man in the fact of him claiming that people of faith will deceive themselves and not propose any arguments whilst completely ignoring any and all arguments their opponets provide. Now this is funny, as this is exactly what the OP is guilty of, while religious people like myself are here writing detailed posts on how he's wrong.
Posts wich he ignores for the xth time claiming his subjective experiences round up for all of religious people.
While you being the expert on strawmen, you fail in two things on this reply: I said faith at it's core. Meaning faith in religion urges people to to get their morals and values from a book, basing your worldview on something that has no proof for itself, outsourcing your thinking to a third party, and relying on your beliefs to your god or whatever to provide you with values and understanding of the world. That is the case with many religions. Tell me a different example of faith then?
Also you use strawman (again) for saying I use my subjective experience to provide my points, which is not true at all as proven above and in the earlier thread.
------- Lol you convieniently ignored the fact that I talked about reaffirming faith in the 7th part. "It is already dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, but that’s what all religions do." They do that don't they. Religion being disgonest = which strenghtens the point that faith is evil.
Also I will post again the part about homosexuality which again proves that faith has a negative effect on whole societies worldwide. Homosexual marriages are still illegal in muslim countries and in some other countries. This is mainly because of faith which does not demand the use logic from voters and members of the parliaments. It affects millions of people around the world.
"Because of this, faith is fundamentally fallacious and inherently dishonest. An example of this is homosexual marriages. It's a well known fact that all muslims think of it as a sin. They won't allow it. Many christians won't allow gay marriages because it's not "how god intended it".
Homosexual marriages have been over and over again rationally argued to something that gays should have the right to have. There's no logical way to deny it. Gay parents have been proven to be as safe and good if not even better than heterosexual parents. Even the National psychiatric organisation in US agrees with this. Same with the National Psychologist Association in Finland. It's the consensus all over the world. Yet Christians object it due to their faith. Not to talk about muslims who are even further behind in progress." --------
8) Without any specific details, OP makes an empty statement and lets it fly around like that. Such statements, until fixed, are not worthy of refutal, as there is nothing to refute.
I'll give you this one though. But it's mostly true even if you look at the examples given in this post.
9) Further explanation necessarry as the OP has yet again made it unclear wether he means religion or faith in religion. An ambiguous statement at its best.
Ambiguous? I mean both. My point is: Where do you need faith when instead you could pervasively use facts and rationalisation instead of faith. Again we come to the the point that faith is not needed. Religion is not needed. It's not significant. It's irrelevant in todays world.
10) Again repeats previous points, while proving again he has no knowledge on the context of what he's describing.
Why do I need the context? The propositions itself provides impossible assortion thus makes it self explanatory for strenghtening my point.
You can find those irrational thoughts in all religions. It's pretty simple.
In the end, OP posts an already seen video of Richard Dawkins' speech, wich really doesn't help his point all the while strengthening mine - the OP is not qualified for the remarks he's making, lacks basic context of the matter at hand, and relies on other people's arguments (wich themselves are fallacious) all the while not backing up anything at all.
Again strawman, when you imply that my main points are based on the arguments of others. Nevertheless the arguments from Hitchens and Dawkins are not fallacious as I've pointed out in this reply. You on the other hand failed to prove they are. You just said they are. Lol "while backing up anything at all" . This is probably the 6th or 7th strawman from you? I can't keep count anymore. I provided you with many sources and evidences in my OP. This comment from you is just straight up lying and you know it.
Again you failed to understand what I said to you. You intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood me and used a great deal of strawmen while claiming me for not being able to debate. I find you to be truly hypocritical. Which is why I don't like to debate with religious people.
You say faith is believing in something with out proof and that its pointless and stupid and whatever, and you use religion as the base of your argument by saying how can people believe in god without proof. but tell me something can you prove god does not exist? Are you not relying on your own faith of the non existence of god based solely on your own prejudice and not having a single piece of evidence that absolutely says "god does not exist" are you not only relying on your beliefs?
Lol for the millionth time: You have the burden of proof. You made the claim that god exists. I didn't, cause in the absence of proof of it's existence I don't believe he exists. So my point is only rational. Is yours? Can you prove he exists?
It's the same thing as me saying to you "Hey the flying spaghetti monster exists, now prove me he doesn't, which if you don't means he does!" LOL!
Or prove me that Tooth Fairy does not exist.
It's just a silly argument saying that when there a possiblity for something to exist, it's okay to suppose it exists, treat it like a fact when it isn't and to form your life around that faith, which is only the consequense of a tiny possibility? There's a possibility like that for everything. Tooth fairy. Different dimensions. Flying spaghetti monster. Snowman. Spacewizards. I don't go around starting religions and believing in them though.
Lol for the millionth time: You have the burden of proof. You made the claim that god exists. I didn't, cause in the absence of proof of it's existence I don't believe he exists. So my point is only rational. Is yours? Can you prove he exists?
It's the same thing as me saying to you "Hey the flying spaghetti monster exists, now prove me he doesn't, which if you don't means he does!" LOL!
Or prove me that Tooth Fairy does not exist.
It's just a silly argument saying that when there a possiblity for something to exist, it's okay to suppose it exists, treat it like a fact when it isn't and to form your life around that faith, which is only the consequense of a tiny possibility? There's a possibility like that for everything. Tooth fairy. Different dimensions. Flying spaghetti monster. Snowman. Spacewizards. I don't go around starting religions and believing in them though.
Look I don't care what exists and what does not exist your the one that made a whole thread about faith and it being evil and quoting every dictionary in existence when in fact you yourself have faith in the fact god does not exist you hate something you yourself use, and if you get your head out of your ass then you would understand what I am trying to say
Look I don't care what exists and what does not exist your the one that made a whole thread about faith and it being evil and quoting every dictionary in existence when in fact you yourself have faith in the fact god does not exist you hate something you yourself use, and if you get your head out of your ass then you would understand what I am trying to say
I make my arguments based on the absence of proof. I have never said I know that god doesn't exist, thus what you say about me having faith on god not existing, is an invalid argument.
I make my arguments based on the absence of proof. I have never said I know that god doesn't exist, thus what you say about me having faith on god not existing, is an invalid argument.
I don't. I already said to you that I can't prove he doesn't. Nevertheless I know what exists based on proof so I don't take into consideration the existence of god when there is no reason to, so I'll just let it be and critisize people who treat assumptions as facts.
Look the consept of our reality is pretty simple. If there is proof that something does exist then it does, but when there isn't then, then there isn't. It means that for now the reality for us is that god does not exist until proven otherwise. It's pretty simple.
You can't treat faith in the tiniest possibilities as facts. That's what I'm criticising in here.
I don't. I already said to you that I can't prove he doesn't. Nevertheless I know what exists based on proof so I don't take into consideration the existence of god when there is no reason to, so I'll just let it be and critisize people who treat assumptions as facts.
Look the consept of our reality is pretty simple. If there is proof that something does exist then it does, but when there isn't then, then there isn't. It means that for now the reality for us is that god does not exist until proven otherwise. It's pretty simple.
You can't treat faith in the tiniest possibilities as facts. That's what I'm criticising in here.
Then you should have made a thread about assumptions being evil cause fate is believing without knowing but assumption is knowing without knowing, but like it or not what you said now are your beliefs and you have fate in them, so don't attack otherss for doing the same thimg
Then you should have made a thread about assumptions being evil cause fate is believing without knowing but assumption is knowing without knowing, but like it or not what you said now are your beliefs and you have fate in them, so don't attack otherss for doing the same thimg
Like I already explained faiths are more or less assumptions (not what you mean by them). I don't have beliefs towards what you're suggesting. I already explained this to you.
I only have faith in the scientific methods which have from time and time again been proven to work. I have reason to have faith in them. It's different than religious faith.
Assumption is not knowing without knowing. What does that even mean? Science means forming a reality based on proof and that reality changes when new proof comes along. So science is knowing whatever has been proved.
Like I already explained faiths are more or less assumptions (not what you mean by them). I don't have beliefs towards what you're suggesting. I already explained this to you.
I only have faith in the scientific methods which have from time and time again been proven to work. I have reason to have faith in them. It's different than religious faith.
Assumption is not knowing without knowing. What does that even mean? Science means forming a reality based on proof and that reality changes when new proof comes along. So science is knowing whatever has been proved.
Assumptions: to know something for certain without out proof
Fate: to believe something without proof
Anyway we are going in circles you use faith and you have faith and does not matter if its religious or otherwise, so don't make threads about faith being evil which you don't even have proof that it is, if does not effect your life then nobody cares, even if it did no one will still care. If people want to have faith let them have faith it has nothing to do with you its their choice.
Like I already explained faiths are more or less assumptions (not what you mean by them). I don't have beliefs towards what you're suggesting. I already explained this to you.
I only have faith in the scientific methods which have from time and time again been proven to work. I have reason to have faith in them. It's different than religious faith.
Assumption is not knowing without knowing. What does that even mean? Science means forming a reality based on proof and that reality changes when new proof comes along. So science is knowing whatever has been proved.
Dude you really getting on my nervous let me tell you what I meant by knowing without knowing
You take something to be true but you don't have proof that it is to know something without knowing if its true
assumption
əˈsʌm(p)ʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
"they made certain assumptions about the market"
