Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

"Faith" in movies is sometimes used as a stronger version of the word "Trust".  "Have faith in yourself" and other things that make you want to vomit on hearing htem.

[RAM]

"I have faith in the bridge holding my weight"
"I trust the bridge to hold my weight"
"I believe that the bridge will hold my weight"

I think that all of these are valid, in none of these is the outcome the result of analysis or observation. I think that all of these can be used to describe an untested confidence...

[Emperor_Jonathan]

I think that all of these are valid, in none of these is the outcome the result of analysis or observation. I think that all of these can be used to describe an untested confidence...

Both an analysis and observation of that the bridge holds greater weights regularly.

[Ampersand]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8uei4_openmindedness_tech

[SniHjen]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8uei4_openmindedness_tech

Ah yes; QualiaSoup, already subscribed to him, very informative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

TheraminTrees have two (3) videos, where he talks about how he became an atheist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyE8wUteFA4
Rational

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0WwZc-Vz7Y
Emotion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HJrAaGJudw
Responding to them that claim that he was "a fake christian"

[Sergius]

I think that all of these are valid, in none of these is the outcome the result of analysis or observation. I think that all of these can be used to describe an untested confidence...

Both an analysis and observation of that the bridge holds greater weights regularly.

"Having faith" that the bridge will not fall, implies that the bridge itself isn't that trustworthy. It's not that different from "I pray that the bridge will hold my weight."

"Trusting" could refer to the bridge working more or less consistently (trust is earned, after all).

"Believing" is very vague, and it could be either of the above, or an educated guess (based on observation maybe but not thorough analysis).

[Andir]

"Having faith" that the bridge will not fall, implies that the bridge itself isn't that trustworthy. It's not that different from "I pray that the bridge will hold my weight."

Well put.  I have my first signature... thanks!

[darkflagrance]

According to Miriam-Webster "faith" simply defers from trust in that with regards to English it originates in Latin/French rather than pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon. The Latin root it originates from is a generic one that is associated with similar words like "fidelity". The actual word can, but does not necessarily, imply lack of basis.

This results from my own personal belief that one should not let ideological or religious concerns affect the language that one uses.

[Muz]

I got insomnia and actually looked through most of this thread.

I think I see a problem here. Most people here are arguing for the sake of proving someone wrong. It's not arguing about what's true or what's not, no, it's about trying to point out that someone's arguments are wrong. Worst offenders are post-by-post replies. These hang on to almost literally every sentence and try to point out what's wrong.

Arguing in itself is not a problem. It's when you start arguing without taking into context whatever you're arguing against that makes things annoying. It's impossible to have a discussion when someone is trying to point out that every single word you say is wrong and isn't even doing it coherently. It doesn't help you 'win' the argument to batter down someone like that either, just makes you look like a douche.

And then there's like a third of the posts arguing that religion is evil, religion doesn't contribute to society, etc. That's logical and all.. but doesn't have anything to do with whether or not God exists. It's just dodging the question. "Do you have a driving license?" "Cars are evil, they pollute the atmosphere, they should never exist". It's funny that so many atheists talk about it. But it spot on when it goes against the 'omnibenevolence' theory.

Around another third is all about abuse of language or valid theories to prove a point. Always something or another, like the meaning of the word 'atheist', 'religion', who has the burden of disproving the other person's beliefs, Occam's Razor. It shows that the argument is all about trying to use "Logic" (with a capital L) against someone. You're not actually trying to get to a conclusion, you're just trying to use existing theories to prove them wrong.

There's also a smaller portion of the thread that blames a few people or a particular sect. Just because there are some flaws in Religion P doesn't completely mean that there's no God at all. It just proves that Religion P is a sham. And you can't deduce something from a small sample of people. Just because a few Muslims fly planes into buildings doesn't mean all of them do. Just because some Christian priests are child molesters, doesn't mean that every Christian priest touches children. And you can't say the same about sheep, fanatics, and other idiots.

Finally, there's this whole taking sides thing. Everyone is so eager to see their side (atheism/"religion") win that they support every idiotic thing someone on the same side is saying. "I think you're stupid" "Yeah, he is so stupid!" "I read an article somewhere that proves him wrong" And they'd even argue against someone who's saying the same thing as them if it seems like that someone is on the opposite side of the fence.

Oh, yeah, and there's probably like 5 pages worth of people who think that this thread should be locked/deleted. Those are probably the most counter-productive of all. Ragequitters.

I'm pretty sure that something is possible out of this thread other than practicing to be a politician. There just needs to be some rational discussion. That's probably impossible, seeing how it takes only two trolls to steal the discussion. And so many become trolls when they're faced with something they hate.

[Sergius]

Oh, yeah, and there's probably like 5 pages worth of people who think that this thread should be locked/deleted. Those are probably the most counter-productive of all. Ragequitters.

I couldn't agree more. Wow is that annoying or what. "STOP HAVING FUN GUYS" guys are the worst.

[Ampersand]

I've tried very hard to be reasonable. If I've failed at any point, my apologies.

[UberNube]

I just want to comment on an interesting point raised early in this discussion. Sorry if this has already been said, but I'm not about to read 100+ pages.

Several people have stated that if you know the equations for an interaction, then you can know the result without carrying out the experiment. This isn't entirely true.

Assume for a moment that we understand EVERYTHING in physics, and that we are also effectively omniscient with regards to measuring the states of particles in the local space region. Now, we could for example create a perfect computerised copy of a human. We could then use a supercomputer programmed with our knowledge of physics to run a 100% accurate simulation of this human. This, effectively, would be identical to having the real person standing there, except we would take the role of God in our ability to manipulate this virtual universe. Now, all the computer is doing is running calculations, yet the end result would be a fully sentient and, by all definitions, alive human. Similarly, we could remove the computer completely and, albeit very slowly, do the maths by hand or using a calculator and create an identical simulation. This simulation would, again, be a perfect copy of the real person, and in fact would be that person. Now, no matter how abstract you make the process of running the calculations, you will always end up with a living human in the simulation. The only difference is that they are not living in the real world.

In exactly the same way, if you understand the maths accurately enough, then there is no difference between experiment and calculation. Calculations just take considerably longer.


As for whether God exists? I don't think the question is really meaningful. God is just another word for "unknown". We don't know what created the universe so people say that god did it. We didn't know about evolution until recently so people claim God was responsible. 1000 years ago we didn't know about weather patterns so we said that God was responsible for the lightning. God is simply a way for humans to claim they understand things which they do not, either to gain power or to overcome fear.

PS. How has a religion thread got to 100+ pages without being locked?

[Ampersand]

It's gone on for so long without being locked because, for the most part, people have been self-policing to reduce the vitriol that is bound to arise in such debates.

[Areyar]

How has a religion thread got to 100+ pages without being locked?

Because it's an atheism thread, which is only a religion (heresy) to religious people.

Also this thread is funny for the way the participants use the same words but different definitions and understanding of them.

[GlassInMyEyeGuy]

Fun Religion Fact of the Day:

During the medieval ages, the Holy Roman Empire instated an official Anti-Pope. He job was not to destroy the world in order to appease Satan (that would be too cliché), but to second-guess and disagree with the Pope at every possible point in time. This was in order to make the Pope rethink all of his decisions, but I imagine it must have been annoying.

"Tomorrow is to be declared a holiday!"
"Are you sure, I think they have enough of those already."
"Now is a time to rejoice."
"Not while that famine is going on in Sicily, it isn't"
etc. etc.

Now, to get back on track, I go for Agnosticism: the religion of perpetual uncertainty. Basically, Agnostics believe that it is impossible to understand the true nature and origin of the Universe, and as result live smugly in the knowledge that even though they're not right, no one else is. It's surprisingly comforting to live in self-induced ignorance.