Lockjaw Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Yes, you are right I used the incorrect wording. Again; thanks for the straight answer. One or two posters on this thread should be humbled by your responses. So, what was the correct wording then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Oh ****. Mr Soft has joined us. There goes the sensible debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 No... anyone who believes otherwise is a moron. A confident claim. Care to provide any evidence to support it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 (edited) I can, faith in one book is a religious faith and is fundamentally unprovable and the faith in the other book is a faith in things that can be proven time and again on demand. These two faiths are not the same thing and cannot be equated. However I don't need to explain this to you, as you've already admitted you know the difference between them, but you are disingenuously persisting in your attempts to equate the two regardless of this admission. How can you equate the faith that I need to know that a desk will support the weight of a computer to the faith that is required to believe that the known universe started with a big bang, which filled the universe with quark-gluon plasma after it came into existence 13.7 billion years ago, and that the QGP 250,000 times hotter than the centre of the sun became us and everything else we see now. How can you equate your personal faith in an undetectable red cube to the faith that millions hold about the teachings of Jesus and Mohammad which are contained in books that exist. I see the difference between the faith in the desk and the cube because I know from experience that desks tend to hold the weight of computers and you had no reason other than your own feelings to believe the cube existed. If I had no knowledge of the Bible, or the big bang and I read the Bible and a scientists explanation on how the universe started, It would be an act of faith to believe either or both without first seeing the evidence which supports them, and to date I haven't seen the evidence which supports either, yet I choose to believe one over the other. Edited May 5, 2012 by MrSmith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Again; thanks for the straight answer. One or two posters on this thread should be humbled by your responses. So, what was the correct wording then? Without checking back I think what you supplied was OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pininsho Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 It would be an act of faith to believe either or both without first seeing the evidence which supports them, and to date I haven't seen the evidence which supports either, yet I choose to believe one over the other. So by what process do you choose to believe one over the other? Why don't you either believe both or not believe both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 I had a drink with God last night, we went to the chippy and we had chips, fish and wine, I wanted water. You never believe you get what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 So by what process do you choose to believe one over the other? Why don't you either believe both or not believe both? Life experience I would imagine, I have seen the proof of what science can achieve which leads me to trust what they say, providing it fits into what I already think, and I have witnessed the contradictions within religion. I was brought up with religion and although I think some stories are based on true events, it didn’t lead me to a belief in God. Whilst I don’t think the big bang was the start of the universe, it fits with what I already believe. The fact that physicists claim to have created quark-gluon plasma from ordinary matter fits with my belief that the universe is infinite and as always existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pininsho Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Life experience I would imagine, I have seen the proof of what science can achieve which leads me to trust what they say, providing it fits into what I already think, and I have witnessed the contradictions within religion. My bold. So you understand that there is a different mechanism here than simply taking something on faith. You clearly understand what proof is and how it's derived from the evidence presented through observation, experimentation, peer review etc. In other words, because you understand this mechanism and its openess and unambiguity that produces tangible, workable results you, from those experiences, trust that method. That's as far removed from faith as you could imagine. Thank you for clarifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Without checking back I think what you supplied was OK. Fair enough. Thanks. So, how can one believe in something when one doesn't know what it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now