Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote: He was a committed Atheist who was absolutely certain that religion was responsible for all of man's ills, so certain that he exhibited religious behavior in his desire to prove it. The very behavior that he deplored.

That's actually a pretty profound statement.

And it's one that I have believed for a long time. Athiests have faith. They just don't have faith in God. Their faith is that there is no God, and they frequently use "faith based doctrines" like evolution and secular humanism to reinforce their faith.

I have run into many people like this, and in fact I used to be one of them. ;-)

Also to any athiests that read my post, please don't take my post as a personal attack. :-)

GG

Their faith isn't necessarily that there is no God. Conceivably an Atheist could have faith in spirits, extraterrestrials, or flying spaghetti monsters. So long as he doesn't equate those thing to God he would still be an Atheist.

At least that's true according to the definition which is currently in vogue: a lack of belief in God, or gods. Its the pure negation of Theism which is 'the belief in God, or gods'. Personally, I find this metric of classification entirely useless as it seems to ignore the possibility of prolonged uncertainty with respect to any statement of belief.

generalgrog wrote:

That's actually a pretty profound statement.

And it's one that I have believed for a long time. Athiests have faith. They just don't have faith in God. Their faith is that there is no God, and they frequently use "faith based doctrines" like evolution and secular humanism to reinforce their faith.

I have run into many people like this, and in fact I used to be one of them. ;-)

Also to any athiests that read my post, please don't take my post as a personal attack. :-)

GG

I don't want to derail this, but you have to understand that calling evolution a faith based doctrine is only going to be viewed as, if not inflammatory, certainly a statement that requires rebuttal and objection. If nothing else the term "evolution" is so broad as to include many things that even ID scientists concede. So, the statement is a non-sequitor, but you have to know the response it's going to bring. I would also argue that calling evolution a "faith based doctrine" is quite insulting to those that respect the scientific method.

Agreed. Not to mention that evolution isn't something that's just prescribed to by Atheists. The Catholic Church recently said it was not in conflict with the creation of the universe by God.

dogma wrote:Their faith isn't necessarily that there is no God. Conceivably an Atheist could have faith in spirits, extraterrestrials, or flying spaghetti monsters. So long as he doesn't equate those thing to God he would still be an Atheist.

At least that's true according to the definition which is currently in vogue: a lack of belief in God, or gods. Its the pure negation of Theism which is 'the belief in God, or gods'. Personally, I find this metric of classification entirely useless as it seems to ignore the possibility of prolonged uncertainty with respect to any statement of belief.

Isn't that the semantic war that's always going among atheists, in defining agnosticism, strong atheism and weak atheism? Each group trying to claim more members by fiddling with the definitions of each term. Personally I think it's reasonable to say there are people who don't claim any belief about the existance of God, people who think its very unlikely that there is a God, and people who are adamant there is no God, and just wish we could all move on.


And yeah, GeneralGrog, I doubt anyone would be offended by your evolution as faith line, but it was begging for rebuttal. I'd be really surprised if you weren't hoping for just such a reaction. Personally I think that pretending evolutionary theory has developed along faith based lines manages the double act of diminishing science and diminishing faith.

generalgrog wrote:

And it's one that I have believed for a long time. Athiests have faith. They just don't have faith in God. Their faith is that there is no God, and they frequently use "faith based doctrines" like evolution and secular humanism to reinforce their faith.

I have run into many people like this, and in fact I used to be one of them. ;-)

Also to any athiests that read my post, please don't take my post as a personal attack. :-)

GG

Funny how if someone insults science around here it goes unpunished, but say anything untoward about 2 of the three major religions and it is a grievous transgression. Last I checked, at least there is physical evidence to back most of science up that isn't on a theoretical level... Wish I could say the same about anthropomorphic personifications of creation myths.

And finally... here is some food for thought... part of my work is passing along paperwork to a judge to sign to do emergency detention of mentally disturbed people. Two to three a night involve god or the devil telling people to do things. Funny how our last president also said he heard messages from god. Seems like if you are poor than hearing things from god is a sign of mental illness, but if you are rich and the most powerful man in the world then it is perfectly acceptable.

Ozymandias wrote:Agreed. Not to mention that evolution isn't something that's just prescribed to by Atheists. The Catholic Church recently said it was not in conflict with the creation of the universe by God.

Also agreed, evolution only disagrees with certain readings of elements of the Old Testament. Several Christians (Theists) in this very thread have explained how different denominations determine that some elements in that book can be interpreted differently or ignored outright.

Evolution does not deny the existence of god or his creation of the universe and everything in it.

Fallen668 wrote:
And finally... here is some food for thought... part of my work is passing along paperwork to a judge to sign to do emergency detention of mentally disturbed people. Two to three a night involve god or the devil telling people to do things. Funny how our last president also said he heard messages from god. Seems like if you are poor than hearing things from god is a sign of mental illness, but if you are rich and the most powerful man in the world then it is perfectly acceptable.

There have always been a great divide between the rich and poor, so I don't really find it that surprising.

Just out of curiosity, since I have not seen or missed this definition, how do people define faith?

Fallen668 wrote:

And finally... here is some food for thought... part of my work is passing along paperwork to a judge to sign to do emergency detention of mentally disturbed people. Two to three a night involve god or the devil telling people to do things. Funny how our last president also said he heard messages from god. Seems like if you are poor than hearing things from god is a sign of mental illness, but if you are rich and the most powerful man in the world then it is perfectly acceptable.

Respectfully, that statement is full of it.

George Spiggott wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Agreed. Not to mention that evolution isn't something that's just prescribed to by Atheists. The Catholic Church recently said it was not in conflict with the creation of the universe by God.

Also agreed, evolution only disagrees with certain readings of elements of the Old Testament. Several Christians (Theists) in this very thread have explained how different denominations determine that some elements in that book can be interpreted differently or ignored outright.

Evolution does not deny the existence of god or his creation of the universe and everything in it.

on
Indeed, evolution can be viewed as part of that power. Until someone shows me God's Idiot guide to Making People, there's no reason to exclude evolution as part of that process. The mystery of God is not how we got here, but the Everything of Life.
off

I mean, if the statement made was "believing that science alone can explore and understand all knowledge is an act of faith," I'd be more likely to agree with it. I mean, I think I understood what Generalgrog was saying, it's just that as written I think it said more than he meant.

[robin williams]
But could "Let there be light" be a metaphor for the Big Bang.

No, He just went "Click".
[/robin williams]

Polonius wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

That's actually a pretty profound statement.

And it's one that I have believed for a long time. Athiests have faith. They just don't have faith in God. Their faith is that there is no God, and they frequently use "faith based doctrines" like evolution and secular humanism to reinforce their faith.

I have run into many people like this, and in fact I used to be one of them. ;-)

Also to any athiests that read my post, please don't take my post as a personal attack. :-)

GG

I don't want to derail this, but you have to understand that calling evolution a faith based doctrine is only going to be viewed as, if not inflammatory, certainly a statement that requires rebuttal and objection. If nothing else the term "evolution" is so broad as to include many things that even ID scientists concede. So, the statement is a non-sequitor, but you have to know the response it's going to bring. I would also argue that calling evolution a "faith based doctrine" is quite insulting to those that respect the scientific method.

You are right, and I thought about it after posting whether I should have been more clearer as to mention "Macro" Evolution. Which is to say evolution from one species to another. Whereas "micro" evolution, which is to say evolution within species, apears to be real science and provable.

A good friend of mine at work is a member of the Knights of Columbus, and he enlightened me as to a current teaching in the Catholic Church that they except a form of theistic "macro" evolution. It totally blew me away when he showed me some of the writings of John Paul on the subject and also of the current Pope. Not being Roman Catholic I had just assumed that they thought as I did on the issue. It's their right to believe that, but I can't agree with them. (before people get all bent out of shape, I'm just saying I disagree with this teaching and I'm not condeming Catholics)

We have allready had a "mini" discussion on evolution on one of the other locked threads, and you are correct, it definately seems to be an inflammatorry subject to some people. Which is why I found Dogmas statement so profound, and I was relating that, to how some people seem to hold certain theories like the theory of "Macro" evolution to be so true as though it were some holy doctrine, and how dare you even question it. Like when I question the assumptions (insert faith) used in the modern theory of "macro" evolution.

One of the main assumptions they make is that 1/2 life decay rates for the different dating methods have always been the same. We don't really know that that is true. So it takes faith to believe that the 1/2 life decay rates have always been the same. Not to mention that some people don't even question the science and just believe their professors and science books, on faith, as though it were true.

Maybe we should start another thread on this subject, because I realize this issue could go off topic quickly and end up focusing on just the evolution vs creation debate. Kind of like the gay rights issue did. :-(

GG

sebster wrote:
Isn't that the semantic war that's always going among atheists, in defining agnosticism, strong atheism and weak atheism? Each group trying to claim more members by fiddling with the definitions of each term.

Yeah. Its pretty amusing how pedantic its gotten. For example, I've been accused of 'flagrant theism' for simply accepting the word god as a valid articulation of the way I choose to approach the universe. It seems the artistry of translation is lost these days.

sebster wrote:
Personally I think it's reasonable to say there are people who don't claim any belief about the existance of God, people who think its very unlikely that there is a God, and people who are adamant there is no God, and just wish we could all move on.

I agree. Especially given that the historical usage of the word 'Atheist' has not been consistent with a simple lack of belief, but an outright rejection of it.

generalgrog wrote:
We have allready had a "mini" discussion on evolution on one of the other locked threads, and you are correct, it definately seems to be an inflammatorry subject to some people. Which is why I found Dogmas statement so profound, and I was relating that, to how some people seem to hold certain theories like the theory of "Macro" evolution to be so true as though it were some holy doctrine, and how dare you even question it. Like when I question the assumptions (insert faith) used in the modern theory of "macro" evolution.

I think you'll get more mileage out of your critique if you approach from the angle of consistency. One of the main issues between Atheists, and the more fundamentalist Theists, is that science and religion are inherently inconsistent. This simply isn't so. At levels of extreme abstraction the difference between, to use your example, evolution and intelligent design is zero. To ape Arthur C. Clarke's famous statement about technology: any sufficiently powerful being would be fundamentally indistinguishable from nature. Whether it was some cosmic intelligence guiding the progression of events, or simple chance, is largely irrelevant. Well, until you start presuming that such a cosmic being intercedes perceptibly in daily life. Then things get dicey.

generalgrog wrote:
One of the main assumptions they make is that 1/2 life decay rates for the different dating methods have always been the same. We don't really know that that is true. So it takes faith to believe that the 1/2 life decay rates have always been the same. Not to mention that some people don't even question the science and just believe their professors and science books, on faith, as though it were true.

No, it takes belief. There is no evidence to countermand our observations of consistent 1/2 life decay, and the denial of countermanding evidence is the defining characteristic of faith.

I agree with your second statement, though. However, I suspect that has as much to do with the devaluation of education as anything else. Much like faith, science is a process, not just a series of discreet facts.

generalgrog wrote:end up focusing on just the evolution vs creation debate. Kind of like the gay rights issue did. :-(

Weren't you here? The debate's over, god and evolution won, they teamed up against fundamentalism.

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

That's actually a pretty profound statement.

And it's one that I have believed for a long time. Athiests have faith. They just don't have faith in God. Their faith is that there is no God, and they frequently use "faith based doctrines" like evolution and secular humanism to reinforce their faith.

I have run into many people like this, and in fact I used to be one of them. ;-)

Also to any athiests that read my post, please don't take my post as a personal attack. :-)

GG

I don't want to derail this, but you have to understand that calling evolution a faith based doctrine is only going to be viewed as, if not inflammatory, certainly a statement that requires rebuttal and objection. If nothing else the term "evolution" is so broad as to include many things that even ID scientists concede. So, the statement is a non-sequitor, but you have to know the response it's going to bring. I would also argue that calling evolution a "faith based doctrine" is quite insulting to those that respect the scientific method.

You are right, and I thought about it after posting whether I should have been more clearer as to mention "Macro" Evolution. Which is to say evolution from one species to another. Whereas "micro" evolution, which is to say evolution within species, apears to be real science and provable.

A good friend of mine at work is a member of the Knights of Columbus, and he enlightened me as to a current teaching in the Catholic Church that they except a form of theistic "macro" evolution. It totally blew me away when he showed me some of the writings of John Paul on the subject and also of the current Pope. Not being Roman Catholic I had just assumed that they thought as I did on the issue. It's their right to believe that, but I can't agree with them. (before people get all bent out of shape, I'm just saying I disagree with this teaching and I'm not condeming Catholics)

We have allready had a "mini" discussion on evolution on one of the other locked threads, and you are correct, it definately seems to be an inflammatorry subject to some people. Which is why I found Dogmas statement so profound, and I was relating that, to how some people seem to hold certain theories like the theory of "Macro" evolution to be so true as though it were some holy doctrine, and how dare you even question it. Like when I question the assumptions (insert faith) used in the modern theory of "macro" evolution.

One of the main assumptions they make is that 1/2 life decay rates for the different dating methods have always been the same. We don't really know that that is true. So it takes faith to believe that the 1/2 life decay rates have always been the same. Not to mention that some people don't even question the science and just believe their professors and science books, on faith, as though it were true.

Maybe we should start another thread on this subject, because I realize this issue could go off topic quickly and end up focusing on just the evolution vs creation debate. Kind of like the gay rights issue did. :-(

GG

I believe I already countered this viewpoint in the other thread, but I'll try to articulate myself better here.

We assume half-life rates are the same as they have always been because there is absolutely not one jot of evidence to the contrary. If you could provide a reason for your skepticism beyond faith I'd be very interested to hear it, as would the larger scientific community I'd wager.

And to the point about 'daring to question' macro evolution, respectfully, I disagree. The scientific method is based on questioning theories. You start with a hypothesis, and then try to disprove it, you don't begin with an idea and try to find evidence that fits in with it. If the evidence does fit though, that hypothesis appears to be correct. If you can find some evidence to disprove macro-evolution, not only would I, and any other proponent of macro evolution, love to see it, you would no doubt win a nobel prize. To date though, there is no sound argument against it, beyond 'Yeah, but what if?'.

not be horribly parochial, but there are two different kinds of faith. You can have faith in a person, or a theory, or an institution, and that just means that you have trust in them.

Faith also means belief in the absence of evidence, or even in the face of opposing evidence.

So, while we have faith in evolution, it's not quite the same faith as I have in God. While I certainly have trust in both, I don't believe in evolution in the fact of opposing evidence, while I do that for God.

As was stated in the other thread, there really isn't any good evidence against evolution, there are just gaps. History has shown that the gaps are being filled, and so until then, I think trusting it as good science beats the alternative, which is essentially to throw up hands and admit total failure.

You have a point that often belief in evolution is taken as a manner of faith: simply learning and parroting a teachers instructions, for example, but that doesn't mean the same thing. I've studied evolutionary theory on a pretty advanced level, including a course in mammalian cladistics where we literally examined skulls of related animals. I don't consider my belief in evolution to be an act of faith any more than my belief in electromagnetic theory or the atomic model of chemistry.

Polonius wrote:

So, while we have faith in evolution, it's not quite the same faith as I have in God. While I certainly have trust in both, I don't believe in evolution in the fact of opposing evidence, while I do that for God.

You have a point that often belief in evolution is taken as a manner of faith: simply learning and parroting a teachers instructions, for example, but that doesn't mean the same thing. I've studied evolutionary theory on a pretty advanced level, including a course in mammalian cladistics where we literally examined skulls of related animals. I don't consider my belief in evolution to be an act of faith any more than my belief in electromagnetic theory or the atomic model of chemistry.

But in the eyes of a believer, wouldn't their existence and the existence of the world around them be just the same as your experiences, making faith in god to be the same as faith in electromagnetic theory?

George Spiggott wrote:

generalgrog wrote:end up focusing on just the evolution vs creation debate. Kind of like the gay rights issue did. :-(

Weren't you here? The debate's over, god and evolution won, they teamed up against fundamentalism.

You called? Oh wait, there's a probl here-I stuffed the GR issue or closing of thread IIRC.

Frazzled wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

generalgrog wrote:end up focusing on just the evolution vs creation debate. Kind of like the gay rights issue did. :-(

Weren't you here? The debate's over, god and evolution won, they teamed up against fundamentalism.

You called? Oh wait, there's a probl here-I stuffed the GR issue or closing of thread IIRC.

Help me out here Frazzled, what are you trying to say?

GG

generalgrog wrote:Not to mention that some people don't even question the theology and just believe their pastors and bible translation of choice, on faith, as though it were true.

You can flip your statement around and it is still just as true as the original.

Polonius wrote:not be horribly parochial

Don't lie, you live to be parochial.

Ran across this the other day and it seems like it might be useful in this thread.




And becuase people like to take things the wrong way whenever possible I want to add that the superstitious side of the video is not meant to represent religion. I'm posting it more because I am seeing to many instances of where someone disagrees and the other side takes it as a denial of what they believe, which is not the same thing. Also it has pretty colors and noise.

Edit-belay that I didn't see the orky icon.

generalgrog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

generalgrog wrote:end up focusing on just the evolution vs creation debate. Kind of like the gay rights issue did. :-(

Weren't you here? The debate's over, god and evolution won, they teamed up against fundamentalism.

You called? Oh wait, there's a probl here-I stuffed the GR issue or closing of thread IIRC.

Help me out here Frazzled, what are you trying to say?

GG

Only this which has nearly nothing to do with, well anything.

Ahtman wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Not to mention that some people don't even question the theology and just believe their pastors and bible translation of choice, on faith, as though it were true.

You can flip your statement around and it is still just as true as the original.

Polonius wrote:not be horribly parochial

Don't lie, you live to be parochial.

I agree with Frazzled that your method was wrong (you could have made your point without being so rude, or smarmy).

The problem with what you did was you took a quote of mine and added your own words to fit your agenda and now it's out of context. So no.. it's not as true as the original.

If your point was to say that there are Church members who do not "study to show themselves approved" then I would agree with you.

GG

There's difference between using faith in the manner where anything not supported by absolute, unquestionable certainty must have faith to supplement it, and faith being something held in conviction despite it being less likely than the alternative.
(The first being what sebster would define this as being "belief" in order to make the distinction.)

For instance, I have faith in Australia. I believe that it exists. Now, maybe all the pictures of the world that have Australia on them have been doctored up. Maybe everyone claiming to be Australian is a British person doing it for laughs. Maybe kangaroos actually live in Jamaica.

This is an unlikely scenario; nevertheless, it does require a small measure of faith on my part. Faith that there isn't a massive conspiracy to make up Australia.

The difference is, this faith is supported by evidence and probability. It is very unlikely that Australia does not exist, and that all media is lying to me, so even though I've never been there I assume it is real.

It is different, therefore, from me having faith in my "magick" spells from a Wicca website actually cursing the people who made fun of me in school.

Frazzled wrote:

Only this which has nearly nothing to do with, well anything.

Got the red x here at work.


GG

generalgrog wrote:I agree with Frazzled that your method was wrong (you could have made your point without being so rude, or smarmy).

No I couldn't have, but I can actually have be either of those things if you want to see the difference.

generalgrog wrote:The problem with what you did was you took a quote of mine and added your own words to fit your agenda and now it's out of context. So no.. it's not as true as the original.

No, you just saying it isn't as true doesn't make it not true. It is exactly as true as what you said. People are just as prone to blindly believe science just the same as people are prone to blindly believe religion. You can criticize both for the exact same thing.

Please tell me what my agenda is other than debating the point, as I would like to know. While you are at it why don't you tell us what Frazz's is, or Polonius's is, since you are the man that thinks they know what everyone is doing and why they are doing it without really knowing them. The way you use the word makes me think that you only conceive of it in terms of "liberal agenda" or "the gay agenda" like it means conspiracy or to undermine someone or something.

That video was like a slower talking Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation. Same accent and same fun use of cartoons.

generalgrog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Only this which has nearly nothing to do with, well anything.

Got the red x here at work.


GG

Thats ok, it just involves dirty Harry and a math lesson from the last part of the movie Dirty Harry.