creation/evolution

[Mike Cl]

Drich is so obviously trying to convert the 'brain dead' atheists to his view of christianity; and it is starkly clear that he has no capacity to see reason or to think.  I think I'm done with the guy.  He is beyond repair.

[Cavebear]

It's funny. Every Christian like Drich does the same thing. They want to believe that atheists are the same as theists because that justifies their faith. And in order to do that, they always try to sneak in a change of definition to make two different things equal. Every time this discussion comes up, the theist is trying to make 1+1=5.

To paraphrase Tolstoy, "All theists are the same, all atheists are different".

[Blackleaf]

To paraphrase Tolstoy, "All theists are the same, all atheists are different".

[Cavebear]

Well, I mainly read theist posts and you could change out names among several and I couldn't tell the difference.  But every atheist I meet seems different from the others.  I suppose if I was a theist it might seem the reverse, but that it hard to imagine.  We all seem to approach atheism is different ways and from different causes.

But to a T Rex, all small mammals were just squeaky snacks!

[Baruch]

Well, I mainly read theist posts and you could change out names among several and I couldn't tell the difference.  But every atheist I meet seems different from the others.  I suppose if I was a theist it might seem the reverse, but that it hard to imagine.  We all seem to approach atheism is different ways and from different causes.

But to a T Rex, all small mammals were just squeaky snacks!

I don't stereotype ... so unique people are unique in all forms.  No two theists are alike, no two atheists are alike.

[Drich0150]

Yeah, I love it when theists claim science is a faith.  It shows the limitations of their thoughts.  I mostly just give the door-bangers a few facts that challenge their faith but are easily proven.

Then please explain how it is not faith based.

[Drich0150]

It's funny. Every Christian like Drich does the same thing. They want to believe that atheists are the same as theists because that justifies their faith. And in order to do that, they always try to sneak in a change of definition to make two different things equal. Every time this discussion comes up, the theist is trying to make 1+1=5.

Then I challenge you as well please explain how science is not faith based, I'll even start you out with a solid defination.


n.
"duty of fulfilling one's trust," from Old French feid, foi "faith, belief, trust, confidence, pledge," from Latin fides "trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE root *bheidh- (cf. Greek pistis ; see bid ). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from late 14c.; religions called faiths since c.1300.

In short FAITH Is to believe, trust, to have confidence without full knowledge in something.

Tell me you have full knowledge in every aspect of science and the argument ends... If you don't you have Faith in those field of science that you yourself did not extrapolate a peer approved working theory from. Your 'Faith' is in the work of others is as strong if not stronger than what you assume to be true.

But here's the thing sport.

Science is ever changing. Truth never changes. that means science is based on fact not truth. Fact being a provable or disprovable not absolute truth. if Your 'precious" was based on the truth, then yes you could say you need no faith, but because your 'precious' is ever changing (because new facts userpt old ones) your faith lies in the idea that the current theories are indeed truth. Meaning you can treat others who challenging these facts as challenging the 'truth.' when again they are only facts.

point in case global warming. anyone who challenges these 20 year old facts with all of what science knew of Global warming with the 500 years of collective data we have before this 25 year old theory told us the sky is falling, is treated like he objects to the truth... Again even if he presents 500 years of theory and data the world accepted before they sold their souls to al gore, and the catsup empire.

PURE faith in the data make 'global warming due to carbon emissions a 'inconvenient truth.'

[Drich0150]

Drich is so obviously trying to convert the 'brain dead' atheists to his view of christianity; and it is starkly clear that he has no capacity to see reason or to think.  I think I'm done with the guy.  He is beyond repair.

Can you cut and paste an example where you uesed/expended any planned critical thinking on any think I said. Don't get being critical/doubtful as a critical thinking skill. Show me where you observed question and compared to known fact.

If you can't how then can you honestly make this claim?

[Drich0150]

Well, I mainly read theist posts and you could change out names among several and I couldn't tell the difference.  But every atheist I meet seems different from the others.  I suppose if I was a theist it might seem the reverse, but that it hard to imagine.  We all seem to approach atheism is different ways and from different causes.

But to a T Rex, all small mammals were just squeaky snacks!

Do you have an example where my posts are like other theist posts... oh, that's right you claim not to actually be reading posts... no wonder they all seem the same to yo... you pay no attention and just keep circling the same retoric over and over hoping to sell this stroke as high end logical thinking.

I think you have a few who are ntrested in your 'thinking process.' The just spout generalizations atheist ALways say about Christians and put my name inplaceof the word Christian..

See I'm good for business

[Unbeliever]

Every time this discussion comes up, the theist is trying to make 1+1=5.

Yeah, or 1+1+1=1

[Hydra009]

In short FAITH Is to believe, trust, to have confidence without full knowledge in something.

That's an extremely broad definition, which coincidentally is bandied about by apologists seeking to place their faith that a guy walked on water and cured the sick merely by touch because they read about it in a holy book on the same footing as NASA mission control during the moon landing.

It doesn't take a genius to notice a bit of semantic trickery afoot, since believing in things without evidence is worlds apart from having high confidence in something with a solid track record and every appearance of working as intended.  In fact, those things are pretty much polar opposites of each other.

Tell me you have full knowledge in every aspect of science and the argument ends

Hmmm...omniscience or faith.  What an intriguing false dilemma.  I'm just going to carefully step over..*crunch*...well, it's broken.  Couldn't even withstand light scrutiny.

Science is ever changing. Truth never changes. that means science is based on fact not truth. Fact being a provable or disprovable not absolute truth.

Hence the ongoing devaluation of Truth(TM), particularly "Truth" as propagated by religious organizations - people who couldn't possibly know the validity of the claims they're making and therefore have to compensate with deep conviction, as if that'll make up for it.

Scientific "truth" is provisional for the most part.  A few statements, like 2+2=4 or a circle has no straight lines are necessarily true.  But If I were to say that the solar system has 9 planets, that wouldn't necessarily be the case because one could always discover another one or downgrade the status of an existing one.  This is not a bad thing.  In fact, this ability to self-correct is one of the main reasons science is useful and religion is useless.

point in case global warming. anyone who challenges these 20 year old facts with all of what science knew of Global warming with the 500 years of collective data we have before this 25 year old theory told us the sky is falling, is treated like he objects to the truth... Again even if he presents 500 years of theory and data the world accepted before they sold their souls to al gore, and the catsup empire.

PURE faith in the data make 'global warming due to carbon emissions a 'inconvenient truth.'

Haha.  Global warming denialist, now there's a shocking development.  I love how susceptible people are to believing everything but reality.

[fencerider]

1 (man) + 1 (woman) = 5 (in the family)

[Drich0150]

That's an extremely broad definition, which coincidentally is bandied about by apologists seeking to place their faith that a guy walked on water and cured the sick merely by touch because they read about it in a holy book on the same footing as NASA mission control during the moon landing.

I have/Had family @ NASA durning those days. the moon landing 90% math we knew 0 about the moon all speculation so that leaves propulsion/rocket. which is 50%  math, 20%metallurgy, 5% thermodynamics, 20%chemistry 5%"electronics"

So no, not the same at all as no faith is required in believing in a God willing to directly interact with you.

It doesn't take a genius to notice a bit of semantic trickery afoot, since believing in things without evidence is worlds apart from having high confidence in something with a solid track record and every appearance of working as intended.

Are you kidding me??? the world around many say the moon landing never happened. Not one of them but because people know what little 'science' we have vested in the moon landing to them makes it seem impossible. The more you understand about the 1960 space program the more you get the feeling that there was a 10 year span of time where the government threw every spare dollar into makeing this work and by LUCK it did! Go through the national space museum At nasa whatch the old guys talk about how they did thing by the seat of their pants... Not science, but guesstimate and math with a billion dollar backing is the only reason we made it to the moon.

Yet God simply says Ask, seek and knock till you find me, and I will give you a mesure of the Holy Spirit! God the Father Send God the Spirit to interact with you. So in essence God is the proof you get of God!

What proof of the moon landing do we have? grainy footage many say was filmed on a sound stage because this moon dream was bankrupting the country.

In fact, those things are pretty much polar opposites of each other.

indeed once you critically look at what you are actually getting for proof... One one hand GOD Himself establishes and maintains a relationship with you.

on the other we get a fuzzy black and white video from the moon when/at a time most people could not get a tv signal from a tv station located more than 10 miles away.

Again not saying it didn't happen. I'm just point out the quality of evidence and the fact that despite how shaky it is I have FAITH in the moon landing like most of you d-bags do yet will not admit it no matter how shaky the evidence is.

Hmmm...omniscience or faith.  What an intriguing false dilemma.  I'm just going to carefully step over..*crunch*...well, it's broken.  Couldn't even withstand light scrutiny.

Again the moonlanding was topped shelfed in the realm f 'science' meaning not many people had access to it/the program or the data it produced, therefore it was never meant to be scrutinized as critically as your relationship with God will be. As God will send the winds and rain to test every aspect of your beliefs right down to the core... till your questioning your own consciousness. That said that is why I have faith in the moon landing and I believe in God. but again it is ok for me to say that despite the shaky evidence that you pointed out will not stand up to severe scrutiny.

Hence the ongoing devaluation of Truth(TM), particularly "Truth" as propagated by religious organizations - people who couldn't possibly know the validity of the claims they're making and therefore have to compensate with deep conviction, as if that'll make up for it.

says a douche who is holding p the single greatest example of "faith in science" that 'science' has ever demanded from soceity. a moon landing despite all the logistical lack of technology to even venture outside the earth protective magnetic shielding, let alone the fuel calculation out there that say based on rocket engine efficiency and fuel capacity of the saturn 5 there was only 2/3rds the rocket assembly could carry despite what was needed. meaning they according to some, could not have made it back home if they indeed made it to the moon... but again my faith in my family who worked at nasa durning those years and years after carries me on, I believe despite what other may say, no matter how or what evidence provided. as I have faith in the space program. As apparently you do too!

Scientific "truth" is provisional for the most part.

Bwahahaha

A few statements, like 2+2=4 or a circle has no straight lines are necessarily true.

Not a scientific fact sport those are mathematical truths.

But If I were to say that the solar system has 9 planets, that wouldn't necessarily be the case because one could always discover another one or downgrade the status of an existing one.  This is not a bad thing.  In fact, this ability to self-correct is one of the main reasons science is useful and religion is useless.

but this ever changing truth is what qualifies 'science' as an excercise in faith, IF you consider scientific fact to be the equivalent to scientific truth.

Haha.  Global warming denialist, now there's a shocking development.  I love how susceptible people are to believing everything but reality.

Perfect example of a foolish person taking a fact as truth but says he has no faith in these facts.

1) I didn't say the planet is not warming it is evident and there is 500 years of data to support this.

2) what I am saying is it takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe al gore's version of what the planet is warming over the 500 years of original study that the earth shared.

[Blackleaf]

I have/Had family @ NASA durning those days.

[Drich0150]

Actually I own a dealership..
(and a few other businesses) Thanks to the Lord and All He has done for me.