If the whole point about faith is that it is not based on evidence and you accept it for that very reason, how do you know which faith to adhere to.

Surely the fact that none of them have any evidence or credibility suggests that they are all as valid as each other, no matter how strange they may seem.

(May 19, 2009 at 2:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 19, 2009 at 2:24 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Evidence is rational; Faith isn't. Science is based on Evidence; religion is based on Faith.

EvF

Exactly. Yet you continue to demand evidence of faith.

Demand evidence of faith?

So that translates for you telling me that I am demanding evidence for belief without evidence...huh?

So you mean things that can be believed only WITHOUT evidence - and I assume you mean because "God", etc there 'can be no evidence of' because he's unprovable and unfalsifiable, etc - I am demanding evidence for when there CAN'T be any evidence so that's illogical?

I've responded to this over and over again. Whether there can be evidence for "God" or NOT that doesn't mean you don't need evidence for God in order to rationally BELIEVE in him...

If the fact that there can't be evidence of God means you should believe in him WITHOUT evidence simply because you can't WITH evidence because there 'can't be any' then the same thing would apply to the FSM. You are simply giving God special treatment over the FSM for no good reason. You are cherry-picking God out; giving him special treatment - over the FSM, the IPU, Santa Claus, Zeus, Thor, and The Invisible Intangible Purple Spearmint Flavoured Goblin With a Rainbow-Striped Tail, Etc!

EvF

(May 19, 2009 at 2:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 19, 2009 at 2:40 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: At what point did ANY of us say, admit or even imply that science equates to theology? No one is, as far as I know, denying that the creationists and IDC's are wingnuts but ANY religious claim (any claim to the spiritual for which there is no evidence) is the same and the only difference is a matter of degree. IOW you're ALL whack-jobs, the only question is exactly how whacky you are!

You're using science to dismiss theology. Therefore you are saying theology is definable BY science (ie that it's not a subject). Therefore you are with the wingnuts in crossing over the two.

It does not follow that using science to dismiss theology equates to being a wingnut because nothing supernatural haves EVER Been demonstrated to be and THAT (the utter lack of any supporting evidence) is a scientific issue.

Kyu

(May 19, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Darwinian Wrote: If the whole point about faith is that it is not based on evidence and you accept it for that very reason, how do you know which faith to adhere to.

Surely the fact that none of them have any evidence or credibility suggests that they are all as valid as each other, no matter how strange they may seem.

You have to step outside your scientific straight jacket D and accept not everything is described by science. Then you'll see a whole world of reasoning you never knew existed before.

(May 19, 2009 at 3:03 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I've responded to this over and over again. Whether there can be evidence for "God" or NOT that doesn't mean you don't need evidence for God in order to rationally BELIEVE in him...

That's nuts.

(May 19, 2009 at 3:39 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: It does not follow that using science to dismiss theology equates to being a wingnut because nothing supernatural haves EVER Been demonstrated to be and THAT (the utter lack of any supporting evidence) is a scientific issue.

Kyu

The only way you're dismissing theology is with science. You've said before: science is the only true philosophy.

(May 19, 2009 at 4:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 19, 2009 at 3:39 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: It does not follow that using science to dismiss theology equates to being a wingnut because nothing supernatural haves EVER Been demonstrated to be and THAT (the utter lack of any supporting evidence) is a scientific issue.

The only way you're dismissing theology is with science. You've said before: science is the only true philosophy.

And rightly so.

Kyu

(May 19, 2009 at 4:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 19, 2009 at 3:03 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I've responded to this over and over again. Whether there can be evidence for "God" or NOT that doesn't mean you don't need evidence for God in order to rationally BELIEVE in him...

That's nuts.

*sighs* What I MEAN is that if there can be NO evidence of God then there's still no good reason to believe in him unless there IS! Ok, no possible evidence. Guess we're going to have to not believe then eh if we want to be rational? Cos unless there's evidence - believing in his existence would be irrational! So if there can't be evidence I guess we're just going have to reject him.

Cos if there can be no evidence of God; there can be no evidence of the FSM.

And if this means we need a reason to believe in God OTHER than evidence then the same applies equally to the FSM.

Why should God be given special treatment over the FSM?

EvF

fr0d0 Wrote:No Phil. This subject has no evidence.

If there can be no evidence, it follows that there can be no rational reason for having faith, rational reasoning being based on evidence.


fr0d0, why are you christian?

By that i also mean why do you not believe in zeus, apollo, vishnu etc...

(May 19, 2009 at 4:41 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Why should God be given special treatment over the FSM?

EvF

You make the leap before you can walk. You need to dump evidence and science to consider this subject you're interested in.

(May 19, 2009 at 4:48 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote: If there can be no evidence, it follows that there can be no rational reason for having faith, rational reasoning being based on evidence.

Yes there can be no rational reasoning for faith.

(May 19, 2009 at 4:48 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote: fr0d0, why are you christian?

By that i also mean why do you not believe in zeus, apollo, vishnu etc...

Because I reasoned that the leap of faith would be worthwhile based on observations in the bible that applied to my own life. I considered many other sensible alternatives, and value the journey together with those other faiths. For the bible to be true other faiths become illogical. It's a rational choice.

(May 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 19, 2009 at 4:41 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Why should God be given special treatment over the FSM?

EvF

You make the leap before you can walk. You need to dump evidence and science to consider this subject you're interested in.

Well,

1. Why should science and evidence be dumped for either of those things when both are so rational? Why should anything be believed without evidence nevermind things such as God and the FSM?

2. Why make an irrational leap (dumping evidence) to GOD rather than the FSM?

As I asked in my question above (and I don't see how you answered it??): Why give God special treatment over the FSM?

IOW: Why make this 'leap' to God rather than the FSM? Seems biased to me. Seems like special treatment for God. So why?

EvF

(May 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 19, 2009 at 4:41 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Why should God be given special treatment over the FSM?

EvF

You make the leap before you can walk. You need to dump evidence and science to consider this subject you're interested in.

Answer the question? Why is your god more plausible than the FSM?

(May 19, 2009 at 4:48 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote: fr0d0, why are you christian?

By that i also mean why do you not believe in zeus, apollo, vishnu etc...

(May 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Because I reasoned that the leap of faith would be worthwhile based on observations in the bible that applied to my own life.

Any chance you'll share these observations?

(May 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I considered many other sensible alternatives

But the insensible alternatives are just as plausible as the sensible ones (how did you decide which was which?)

(May 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: For the bible to be true other faiths become illogical. It's a rational choice.

I agree with your first statement. If the bible were true, then any book, person etc, claiming something in contradiction to the bible must be wrong.
However, we know that bible isn't all true (the sun doesnt orbit the earth for example), so at best it's a combination of truth, metaphor and misunderstandings.
But, there's absolutley no way to discern between what's true and what isn't (apart from the things we know for fact aren't) without choosing arbitrarily. Which I'm sure you'll agree, isn't rational.
The final option is that it is all metaphor. But then, how can you ascribe any truth value to anything in it? That would be irrational.

So I fail to see how the conclusion that the bible is true could possibly be rational.