(March 25, 2015 at 8:17 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: Here is a post from Parkers Tan:
[quote='Parkers Tan' pid='907114' dateline='1427303952']

I don't have faith in science. Science demonstrates its utility with its discoveries and inventions. Faith is not an apt descriptor for my attitude, thanks.

Quote:Probably most people share his sentiments, so I don't question the fact that "faith" is a poor word choice. I should have said "confidence" or "trust" maybe?

i do not want to call anyone out so I will encrypt the person's idenity I am speaking of, and just refer to this person as P-tan or ptan. P-tan can be a lot full of himself, most of the time. His biggest problem (besides having to take the max dosage of Viagra allowed to unlimp his biscuit) is that he like most self absorbed people like to comparmentalize people and or words so he can make quick unthinking judgements when ever a person fits a key word or phrase. For instance the world knows this behavior as bigotry, or when applied to a race, racism. However rather than be honest with himself, p-tan classifies these behaviors as being really really bad, and simply because he does not want to be classified or even associated with those words p-tan will deny being a bigot even if you water boarded him. Why? His self absorbion runs deep. It is who he has become. It is apart of his flawed nature and character...

Now is Parkerstan like ptan? Idk..


But I would be willing to bet that despite exhibiting behaviors that would and can be classified as faith by an honest person Parkerstan simple does not want to be associated with that word...

A test would be to simply use a thesaurus and find a fancy word with the same meaning and see if he will swallow the hook.

Quote:My question is: what do Christians mean by the attribute "faith" if they don't mean "confidence"? When I was a Christian, I always thought "faith" meant "confidence". My confidence in Christianity was not fundamentally different from my confidence in newspapers, text books, etc. Everybody I knew was either a Christian or kept their skepticism private, so I had confidence in Christianity.

If you want the stock answer Hebrews 11 defines faith for the Christian.

If you want the drich one word defination. faith = Trust.

All Jesus said we must have is Faith of a Mustard Seed. meaning all We Need is the Smallest Amount of Trust, and Place it in Him (as he says do not as we do..do.) and he will provide the proof we need to establish and maintain a eternal relationship.

Because like the mustard seed, your 'faith' will blossom into something very real.
This is exactly what happened to me.

Quote:IMO the only significant difference between Christian "faith" and plain "faith" is that Christianity is difficult or impossible to falsify. "Faith" in something that cannot be falsified is not the same as "faith" in something that can be falsified.

dont believe the propaganda. christianity is falsifiable. Just not on your terms.

Quote:Any opinions? I'm especially curious if Christians agree that "faith" means "confidence" and that "confidence" must have a cause - whether the cause is seeing Moses split the Red Sea or simply being indoctrinated as a child.

Do you know what Jesus said to doubting Thomas after Thomas demanded 'proof?'

What makes you think Thomas' answer could not apply to you?

(March 26, 2015 at 9:39 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:IMO the only significant difference between Christian "faith" and plain "faith" is that Christianity is difficult or impossible to falsify. "Faith" in something that cannot be falsified is not the same as "faith" in something that can be falsified.

dont believe the propaganda. christianity is falsifiable. Just not on your terms.

Bullshit. I'm impressed to what lengths Christians will piss on their dead master's face by resorting to lie after lie in the name of apologetics. Falsification is an old subject in philosophy of science, and in no part did any one of us decide the terms, other than what we're willing to believe or reject on the basis of sound, solid evidence.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Please tell me in what ways Christian faith meets falsifiability.

(March 25, 2015 at 9:11 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: There is a difference between believing God and some random man off the street. I would even go as far as saying it is no longer faith in my case, I have SEEN the evidence, there isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that God exists.
Whether you believe that or not makes no difference to me.

Congratulations, you have managed to confirm the belief you so fervently wished for. There can hardly be anything more convincing than that.

(March 25, 2015 at 9:11 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Whether you believe that or not makes no difference to me.

Never has the vice been more versa.

---

(March 26, 2015 at 1:11 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Paul was just some random Guy off the street?
The guy whose letters are the foundation of Christianity, was just some random guy?
The Guy who was tutored by Gamaliel, was just some random guy off the street?
The guy who persecuted the early Christians and had a miraculous conversion, was just some random guy off the street.
The guy who was imprisoned, beaten, and eventually beheaded for his beliefs, was just some random guy off the street?

How come I'm just finding this out now

I'm going to go with "stubborn", though brainwashed is also tempting. Frankly I think anyone who uses "belief" to mean that which is fervently wished for must undergo a kind of slippage with reality. Call it the Tangled Web Syndrome.

Anecdotes about anything above the mundane can and should never be convincing to anyone but the person telling them.

And even they should be being sceptical about the value of their own anecdotes, if they give a rats ass about reality.

We're relying not only on your honesty, your accurate recollection of events and your ability to communicate said events, but also on your interpretation of those events which almost always amounts to an argument from ignorance or incredulity. Or just plain making it up based on popular mythology.

Anecdotes are worthless. Bring us something we can hit with a spoon. I don't argue that you believe what you are saying, but I do argue that you shouldn't expect anyone else to take it seriously.

(March 26, 2015 at 9:39 pm)Drich Wrote: Do you know what Jesus said to doubting Thomas after Thomas demanded 'proof?'

What makes you think Thomas' answer could not apply to you?

I have always felt that the scene with doubting Thomas doesn't need to be understood as a condemnation of skepticism. We can see this as Jesus promising to make a special effort to provide the evidence that more skeptical people need. I think that is what you are saying?

On the other hand, I have read that the story of doubting Thomas may have been invented by the writers of the gospel of John to denigrate sects that admired Thomas (such as people who valued the Gnostic teachings in the Gospel of Thomas)?

(March 26, 2015 at 9:39 pm)Drich Wrote: Do you know what Jesus said to doubting Thomas after Thomas demanded 'proof?'

What makes you think Thomas' answer could not apply to you?

Based on the stories, it seems that Thomas knew Jesus and the apostles personally, and probably saw some of the miracles and heard some of the speeches. Anything he missed could have been filled in by the people who were there. So Thomas' lack of faith is very different from that of someone living thousands of years later, in a day when no one even knows who wrote those books or whether any of it is true. The day that a virgin-born, miracle-working, self-resurrecting fortune-teller shows up and starts walking on water and healing the sick, Jesus' words to Thomas will apply to me.

(March 26, 2015 at 11:46 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(March 26, 2015 at 9:39 pm)Drich Wrote: dont believe the propaganda. christianity is falsifiable. Just not on your terms.

Bullshit. I'm impressed to what lengths Christians will piss on their dead master's face by resorting to lie after lie in the name of apologetics. Falsification is an old subject in philosophy of science, and in no part did any one of us decide the terms, other than what we're willing to believe or reject on the basis of sound, solid evidence.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Please tell me in what ways Christian faith meets falsifiability.

In Luke 11 Christ Himself gives a set of instructions to help one obtain a measure of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God. If a portion of God comes to you, and help direct, correct andhelp you, then that interaction is proof of God.

Now if you do as Christ commands and you get nothing, then What christ said would have been proven false.

The thing about the Abrahamic faiths that puzzled me was how unconvincing god was supposed to be to people to which it had actually shown its power to.
I am thinking about the exodus jews.
God had just apparently just secured their freedom by a series of terrorist acts and yet as soon as his chief enforcer had some alone time they decided to worship other things. These were people who were supposed to know first hand of the power that god wielded and yet as soon as they could they ditched the dude.
It was only when Moses returned and slaughtered thousands of them that they supposedly gave in.
Makes zero sense.

(March 27, 2015 at 8:30 am)watchamadoodle Wrote: I have always felt that the scene with doubting Thomas doesn't need to be understood as a condemnation of skepticism.

Yes only a fool would think Thomas is being repremanded for his doubt. Why do I said that because Jesus commended Him for his acceptance of said evidence when it was provided.

Quote:We can see this as Jesus promising to make a special effort to provide the evidence that more skeptical people need. I think that is what you are saying?

Indeed it is. Christ congratulates Thomas for accepting the evidence provided, and then adds a blessing to those who have not seen and believe as strongly. But, again not all can do that, for those who can't there is proof.

The Holy Spirit is what we have been offered in the way of proof. The Holy Spirit is God, so what better proof is there of God?

Quote:On the other hand, I have read that the story of doubting Thomas may have been invented by the writers of the gospel of John to denigrate sects that admired Thomas (such as people who valued the Gnostic teachings in the Gospel of Thomas)?

The Gospel of Thomas was written some 150 to 200 years after his death... So I do not believe any of what you brought up would be a concern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

---

(March 27, 2015 at 10:06 am)Tonus Wrote:

(March 26, 2015 at 9:39 pm)Drich Wrote: Do you know what Jesus said to doubting Thomas after Thomas demanded 'proof?'

What makes you think Thomas' answer could not apply to you?

Based on the stories, it seems that Thomas knew Jesus and the apostles personally, and probably saw some of the miracles and heard some of the speeches. Anything he missed could have been filled in by the people who were there. So Thomas' lack of faith is very different from that of someone living thousands of years later, in a day when no one even knows who wrote those books or whether any of it is true. The day that a virgin-born, miracle-working, self-resurrecting fortune-teller shows up and starts walking on water and healing the sick, Jesus' words to Thomas will apply to me.

What I am saying is What Christ offered Thomas (proof) is also offered to people who live 2000 years later.

Again I am one of those doubting thomas need proof people. Now that it has been given to me I am equally as sure and resolved of what I believe.

---

(March 27, 2015 at 11:00 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: The thing about the Abrahamic faiths that puzzled me was how unconvincing god was supposed to be to people to which it had actually shown its power to.
I am thinking about the exodus jews.
God had just apparently just secured their freedom by a series of terrorist acts and yet as soon as his chief enforcer had some alone time they decided to worship other things. These were people who were supposed to know first hand of the power that god wielded and yet as soon as they could they ditched the dude.
It was only when Moses returned and slaughtered thousands of them that they supposedly gave in.
Makes zero sense.

Why?

(March 26, 2015 at 12:14 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: That definition came first thank you. Besides how are you going to try to apply an amendment of a definition to a 1500 year old document. You realize a lot of English words change in meaning right? When you sing that verse form deck the halls "don we now or gay apparel" you don't think they are talking about homosexuals do you?

You're not even thoughtful enough to see that you're arguing with yourself here: on the word hand, you're arguing that your usage of "evolution" is apt because you're using an older definition; on the other hand, you're rightly pointing out that usage in language changes.

What you're doing is called equivocation. If this were the first time I'd read any of your shitposting, I would have thought you were simply a dumbfuck. As matters sand, I know that you've had this explained to you, by myself and others, and that the only real explanation for you trotting this line of argument out is that you're a dishonest asshole.

And a dumbfuck.

---

(March 26, 2015 at 12:32 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Don't be daft [...]

Yeah, good luck with that, FaF.

---

(March 26, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I've said repeatedly that a species EVOLVES from itself, that is still evolution.

And you were shown clearly wrong, but lack the honesty to admit it:

(March 18, 2015 at 11:17 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(March 18, 2015 at 6:08 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Seriously? you Muppet....
Here is what I said.

Quote:meaning "speciation" is just a genetic variation of the same species, that are isolated from breeding with each other.

And your definition.

the OED Wrote:noun, Biology
1. the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

I think we've isolated the problem. Apparently you don't understand the difference between the words same and new.

You claimed that the species after a speciation event were the same species. That means that they could still interbreed and produce viable offspring capable of reproduction. The definition I provided clearly noted that in the aftermath of a speciation event, there is a new species at hand. It is a different species.

You see, "same" means unchanged; "new" means not previously present. The fact that you have to ignore this distinction gives great insight into the vapidity of your opinion. No one cares what you think the word means. What matters is its meaning in the context of biology. Your inability to understand that has no bearing on the issue, at all. Because scientists, and folks here, don't give a shit about your errors of comprehension -- or incomprehension, really -- insofar as the theory of evolution is concerned.

You're either a really bad liar, or a really stupid person.

Well, I guess that's an excluded-middle fallacy on my part; it's entirely possible that you are an incredibly stupid liar. Yeah, that sounds right.

Later, 'Tater.

The only thing you're doing here is supporting your ignorance by flaunting your dishonesty.

Dumbfuck.