The Genesis Conflict - 101 - The Earth in Time and Space

[Youwerecreated]

Well, you're welcome to believe what you want, but I think you are wrong. I don't remember ever feeling that the universe is benign, nor do I remember anyone else ever expressing such a feeling.

When you wake up in the morning, do you feel afraid? Hopeless? In despair? Depressed? Like nothing you do is going to succeed?

If not, then you feel you are living in a benign universe. Whether you THINK that or not, it is what you FEEL.

Again, believe what you want, but I disagree. I don't understand why it is necessary to feel the universe is benign to not be hopeless and depressed. I don't feel one way or another about the universe. It's the universe, not a person.

Yes,and there is someone in control of it..

 

[FurthurBB]

were you expecting honest discussion from someone with an education actually in the field being discussed? this is religious misinformation we're talking about.

Who cares his degree is in one field how do you know his experience in the field he is speaking about.

Anyone can read and learn from what they read.

Do you have this same view when let's say, your hero dawkins, speaks on subjects he is not educated in ?

I think you must be in love with this person. I have never spent so much time thinking about any person like this but my children.

 

[LOki]

No. I am not making a mistake here. You can be dogmatic in beliefs founded in evidence and/or valid logic, and you can be dogmatic in faith.

The first statement is, I suppose, true. I hadn't thought about that, but I suppose one could for example be dogmatic about the theory of relativity. It would be a true dogma (or at least the evidence we have suggests as much), but if one was rigid about it and refused to examine any arguments or evidence to the contrary, one would still be dogmatic.

However, your second statement is untrue. You cannot be "dogmatic" in faith, because faith is not a belief that, and dogma is always a belief that.

The difference between beliefs based in reason and those based on faith

There are no beliefs based in faith, or anyway no beliefs-that -- no beliefs that can be stated in words.



Since there is no such thing as a faith-based belief, this statement is untrue.



No, it says that faith makes no assertions of certainties, or assertions of any kind for that matter. There are no faith-based assertions.

No faithful Christian would EVER claim that their faith expresses ANY uncertainty--ANY gap IN their certain knowledge--that Jesus is our Lord, God and Savior.

"That Jesus is our Lord, God and Savior" is not a faith-based assertion. There are no faith-based assertions. Faith has nothing to do with assertions. As I said in the beginning, what you are calling "faith" isn't faith, it's dogma. Or doctrine, if you prefer that term.

This is an assertion unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

It is entirely unnecessary to fabricate certainty out of nothing, and then deny the verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that challenges and/or contradicts that certainty, so that we can put one foot in front of the other when we cannot be certain the ground will support us.

Faith is not fabricating certainty out of nothing, nor is it denying verifiable evidence or valid logic. As I said in the beginning, what you are calling "faith" isn't faith, its doctrine or dogma. In the case of putting one foot in front of the other, faith is acting in heartfelt confidence without certainty. It has nothing to do with what one believes, intellectually, to be true or false.

The problem with all of your repeated statements along these lines is that you are replacing the word "faith" in what I posted with your own misconceptions about what faith is, arguing against that misperception rather than against what I said, and so failing to say anything even remotely relevant.

Let me clarify it a little further. Faith has nothing to do with religious belief. Religious beliefs are not held on the basis of faith.

If you are talking about or against religious beliefs, you are not talking about or against faith. I believe, in fact I'm pretty certain, that everything you said in this post was about religious belief. My entire point is that you are confusing these two quite different things.

Regarding the benignity of the universe, I'm afraid I didn't express myself well. I was referring to the feeling that the universe is benign and that one has a personal relationship with it and/or that one is or can become one with it. This has nothing to do with any intellectual beliefs that one might hold regarding, for example, the need to responsibly husband natural resources or control our own numbers and breeding. It has, in fact, nothing to do with any intellectual beliefs of any kind or nature.

That feeling of being a part of a benign cosmos is faith. One makes no statements of fact on the basis of that feeling. One merely is, and acts. If one loses that feeling altogether, one commits suicide by one means or another, directly or indirectly. Faith is a necessity of survival.

Belief is the conviction of certainty in the reality of something. Faith is certainly belief; some kind of belief.

Faith is belief unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

You are wrong.

 

[pinqy]

First lie at 1 minute in: "the evidence is presented as irrefutable." Which is absolutely untrue. Astronomy and physics are always open to change and new theories.

Of course, since Veith's degree is in zoology, I'm puzzled as to his qualifications to speak on astronomy and physics and geology.

 

[Youwerecreated]

were you expecting honest discussion from someone with an education actually in the field being discussed? this is religious misinformation we're talking about.

Who cares his degree is in one field how do you know his experience in the field he is speaking about.

Anyone can read and learn from what they read.

Do you have this same view when let's say, your hero dawkins, speaks on subjects he is not educated in ?

I think you must be in love with this person. I have never spent so much time thinking about any person like this but my children.

I have yet to see any of you attempt to answer any of the questions he raised.

 

[Youwerecreated]

First lie at 1 minute in: "the evidence is presented as irrefutable." Which is absolutely untrue. Astronomy and physics are always open to change and new theories.

Of course, since Veith's degree is in zoology, I'm puzzled as to his qualifications to speak on astronomy and physics and geology.

Then you can explain why only the top layer of strata shows erosion which is the surface of the earth ?


Or how did a layer of strata that was formed over millions of years and is solid rock get mixed in with the layer of strata above it ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

First lie at 1 minute in: "the evidence is presented as irrefutable." Which is absolutely untrue. Astronomy and physics are always open to change and new theories.

Of course, since Veith's degree is in zoology, I'm puzzled as to his qualifications to speak on astronomy and physics and geology.

Someone is lying because they don't agree with your theory ?

Is that what they teach you in science classes today ?

 

[pinqy]

First lie at 1 minute in: "the evidence is presented as irrefutable." Which is absolutely untrue. Astronomy and physics are always open to change and new theories.

Of course, since Veith's degree is in zoology, I'm puzzled as to his qualifications to speak on astronomy and physics and geology.

Someone is lying because they don't agree with your theory ?

No, someone is lying when they say something that is untrue...such as claiming the physicists and astronomers claim that their theories are "irrefutable." They do no such thing and are constantly testing their theories.

 

[Youwerecreated]

First lie at 1 minute in: "the evidence is presented as irrefutable." Which is absolutely untrue. Astronomy and physics are always open to change and new theories.

Of course, since Veith's degree is in zoology, I'm puzzled as to his qualifications to speak on astronomy and physics and geology.

Someone is lying because they don't agree with your theory ?

No, someone is lying when they say something that is untrue...such as claiming the physicists and astronomers claim that their theories are "irrefutable." They do no such thing and are constantly testing their theories.

At what point in the video does he do this ?

 

[pinqy]

Someone is lying because they don't agree with your theory ?

No, someone is lying when they say something that is untrue...such as claiming the physicists and astronomers claim that their theories are "irrefutable." They do no such thing and are constantly testing their theories.

At what point in the video does he do this ?

Right around the 1 minute mark.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, someone is lying when they say something that is untrue...such as claiming the physicists and astronomers claim that their theories are "irrefutable." They do no such thing and are constantly testing their theories.

At what point in the video does he do this ?

Right around the 1 minute mark.

I see what you're talking about.

But what he say's is true,everything about evolution and science theories are taught as that it's irrefutable until it's refuted.

Example, Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I don't think you understand what an atheist is.

I also don't think you grasp the concept that disproving science, or failing to do so in your case, in no way proves religion.

I thought real science will correct itself as evidence presents itself ?

Oh good. More misdirection that has absolutely nothing to do with what was actually being said. But again, I expect religious nutjobs to use such underhanded methods in failing to make a point.

were you expecting honest discussion from someone with an education actually in the field being discussed? this is religious misinformation we're talking about.

Who cares his degree is in one field how do you know his experience in the field he is speaking about.

Anyone can read and learn from what they read.

Do you have this same view when let's say, your hero dawkins, speaks on subjects he is not educated in ?

You think Dawkins isn't educated? That's laughable.

 

[MarcATL]

I just watched 102 for like the 6th time. Awesome stuff!

I think I'd like some clarification from you about something.

When you say "Powerful stuff!" and "Awesome stuff!", do you mean powerful and awesome in their validity and consistency with reality ... or do you mean powerful and awesome in the breadth and depth of the deliberate misinformation these presentations bring, and/or the powerful and awesome stupidity of the people who embrace this misinformation?

Powerful and awesome period. So that would be the validity.

 

[pinqy]

But what he say's is true,everything about evolution and science theories are taught as that it's irrefutable until it's refuted.

Example, Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

That species change over time...that speciation occurs...is an observed fact. Creationists get around that by use of the ambiguous word "kinds" and shift its meaning as necessary.

The theories of evolution are theories...being backed up and supported by evidence until/unless contrary evidence occurs. Lamark's theory of evolution was proven wrong and replaced by Darwin's theory, much of which as also been proven wrong and replaced by neo-Darwinist theories. And there's some debate on specifics, especially mechanisms.

Something cannot be "irrefutable until it's refuted"...there are many things that could destoy the theory of evolution if shown to be true: modern variants far in the past, true chimeras, pigs with wings, dogs with feathers, etc. So far nothing has been found which contradicts the broad facts of evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't think you understand what an atheist is.

I also don't think you grasp the concept that disproving science, or failing to do so in your case, in no way proves religion.

I thought real science will correct itself as evidence presents itself ?

Oh good. More misdirection that has absolutely nothing to do with what was actually being said. But again, I expect religious nutjobs to use such underhanded methods in failing to make a point.

were you expecting honest discussion from someone with an education actually in the field being discussed? this is religious misinformation we're talking about.

Who cares his degree is in one field how do you know his experience in the field he is speaking about.

Anyone can read and learn from what they read.

Do you have this same view when let's say, your hero dawkins, speaks on subjects he is not educated in ?

You think Dawkins isn't educated? That's laughable.

No, I know he is educated and he is using that education to drive home Ideology and profit.

Really, you should be careful speaking for someone.

 

[LOki]

I just watched 102 for like the 6th time. Awesome stuff!

I think I'd like some clarification from you about something.

When you say "Powerful stuff!" and "Awesome stuff!", do you mean powerful and awesome in their validity and consistency with reality ... or do you mean powerful and awesome in the breadth and depth of the deliberate misinformation these presentations bring, and/or the powerful and awesome stupidity of the people who embrace this misinformation?

Powerful and awesome period. So that would be the validity.

Considering the heavy preponderance of verifiable evidence and valid logic that roundly contradicts the intellectually dishonest assertions that Veith makes regarding "what science teaches us" and his fatuous conclusions that have no valid basis in reality; what exactly do you find in these presentations to be so powerfully and awesomely valid?

 

[Dragon]

Belief is the conviction of certainty in the reality of something.

Belief is the intellectual conviction of certainty in the reality of some alleged objective fact. A belief must be something that can be put into words, and it must be in the form "X is true." In other words, belief must consist of a claim of fact, whether justified or not.

Faith is certainly belief; some kind of belief.

No. It is not. Faith is simply the confidence that allows people to go on living. Now, sometimes people may express that confidence in the form of a belief, e.g. "God loves me." But faith itself is not dependent on any such belief statements. One can have faith and be an atheist, or a believer in any religion, or an amorphous sort of theist, or a believer in non-personified cosmic principles (as the Buddha was), or really just about anything.

Frankly, I look at dogmatic theists and atheists such as yourself who make a big deal out of it and I see two sets of people making the same error: becoming fixated on overly-concrete, rigid ideas of the sacred. The dogmatic theists insist these ideas are true. You insist they have no basis. (You're closer to being right than they are, for what that's worth. But you're still wrong; they have a metaphorical basis and become meaningless, rather than false, if interpreted literally.)

I feel like I'm on the beach, and some theistic dogmatist is holding up a bottle and saying, "I have the ocean right here in this bottle." You demonstrate that that bottle is too puny to hold more than a puddle and insist, "There is no ocean."

Meanwhile, I think I'll go swimming. Or maybe surfing.

 

[Montrovant]

Belief is the conviction of certainty in the reality of something.

Belief is the intellectual conviction of certainty in the reality of some alleged objective fact. A belief must be something that can be put into words, and it must be in the form "X is true." In other words, belief must consist of a claim of fact, whether justified or not.

Faith is certainly belief; some kind of belief.

No. It is not. Faith is simply the confidence that allows people to go on living. Now, sometimes people may express that confidence in the form of a belief, e.g. "God loves me." But faith itself is not dependent on any such belief statements. One can have faith and be an atheist, or a believer in any religion, or an amorphous sort of theist, or a believer in non-personified cosmic principles (as the Buddha was), or really just about anything.

Frankly, I look at dogmatic theists and atheists such as yourself who make a big deal out of it and I see two sets of people making the same error: becoming fixated on overly-concrete, rigid ideas of the sacred. The dogmatic theists insist these ideas are true. You insist they have no basis. (You're closer to being right than they are, for what that's worth. But you're still wrong; they have a metaphorical basis and become meaningless, rather than false, if interpreted literally.)

I feel like I'm on the beach, and some theistic dogmatist is holding up a bottle and saying, "I have the ocean right here in this bottle." You demonstrate that that bottle is too puny to hold more than a puddle and insist, "There is no ocean."

Meanwhile, I think I'll go swimming. Or maybe surfing.

I think the problem is that you are using a definition of faith that is personal and not widely accepted (I cannot recall ever seeing someone else define faith as you have, either in person, or on a message board, or in the dictionary).

It's more like you are on the beach, someone is holding up a bottle and saying, "I have the ocean right here in this bottle." Someone else demonstrates that the bottle is too small to hold the ocean and replies, "No, you do not." Then you interject, saying, "That's not a bottle. A bottle is a large dog.".

Sure, by your definition, you may be completely correct; since no one else uses your definition, it's pretty irrelevant.

 

[MarcATL]

were you expecting honest discussion from someone with an education actually in the field being discussed? this is religious misinformation we're talking about.

Who cares his degree is in one field how do you know his experience in the field he is speaking about.

Anyone can read and learn from what they read.

Do you have this same view when let's say, your hero dawkins, speaks on subjects he is not educated in ?

I think I'd like some clarification from you about something.

When you say "Powerful stuff!" and "Awesome stuff!", do you mean powerful and awesome in their validity and consistency with reality ... or do you mean powerful and awesome in the breadth and depth of the deliberate misinformation these presentations bring, and/or the powerful and awesome stupidity of the people who embrace this misinformation?

Powerful and awesome period. So that would be the validity.

Considering the heavy preponderance of verifiable evidence and valid logic that roundly contradicts the intellectually dishonest assertions that Veith makes regarding "what science teaches us" and his fatuous conclusions that have no valid basis in reality; what exactly do you find in these presentations to be so powerfully and awesomely valid?

I didn't notice your answers to any of the questions that Professor Veith raised.

What is your response to them sir?

 

[LOki]

Belief is the conviction of certainty in the reality of something.

Belief is the intellectual conviction of certainty in the reality of some alleged objective fact. A belief must be something that can be put into words, and it must be in the form "X is true." In other words, belief must consist of a claim of fact, whether justified or not.

Faith is certainly belief; some kind of belief.

No. It is not.

It most certainly is; and is differentiated from rational beliefs (which are based in, and validated by, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic) by their being held in the absence of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and being validated by stoic defiance of contradicting verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Faith is simply the confidence that allows people to go on living.

Nonsense. Nonsense submitted to obfuscate the patently irrational nature of faith.

Now, sometimes people may express that confidence in the form of a belief, e.g. "God loves me." But faith itself is not dependent on any such belief statements.

Except for the implied (and necessary) premise--the statement of fact--that God exists. That is a faith held fact of reality.

One can have faith and be an atheist, or a believer in any religion, or an amorphous sort of theist, or a believer in non-personified cosmic principles (as the Buddha was), or really just about anything.

Precisely. And I have not been arguing otherwise. I have just been pointing out that the superstitious are necessarily exercising faith by believing in the supernatural.

I'm not attempting to let the non-religious, or atheists off the hook for faith, but if the belief held (whoever is holding it) is based in, and validated by, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, it is not faith.

Frankly, I look at dogmatic theists and atheists such as yourself who make a big deal out of it and I see two sets of people making the same error: becoming fixated on overly-concrete, rigid ideas of the sacred.

Oh? Dogmatic like me? Which am I Mr. Presumpto? Dogmatic theist or atheist? Dogmatic how?

I look at you and see someone uncomfortable with applying terms precisely when doing so casts so many nice people in an unflattering light. Show me a good reason why you're fabricating this new meaning (i.e. "confidence that allows people to go on living", rather than "a sub-category of belief") for faith, if my perception of what you're up to is wrong.

The dogmatic theists insist these ideas are true. You insist they have no basis. (You're closer to being right than they are, for what that's worth. But you're still wrong; they have a metaphorical basis and become meaningless, rather than false, if interpreted literally.)

I'm actually right; on the "metaphorical basis" you assert--believing that there is meaning in the meaningless is faith: it is belief unfounded in verifiable evidence or valid logic; it is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

I feel like I'm on the beach, and some theistic dogmatist is holding up a bottle and saying, "I have the ocean right here in this bottle." You demonstrate that that bottle is too puny to hold more than a puddle and insist, "There is no ocean."

Meanwhile, I think I'll go swimming. Or maybe surfing.

lulz. You didn't even try to disguise your misrepresentation of my position. Seriously. Your vignette disingenuously requires that I deny the patently verifiable existence of the ocean to come to the conclusion you assigned for me--the precise opposite of my position.

I feel like I'm at the beach with you, and some theistic dogmatist is holding up nothing and saying, "I have the mighty kracken right here in this bottle." I point out that that bottle is imaginary and insist, "That's just retarded." You turn to me and say, "How can you insist that this guy's assertion about the mighty kraken is retarded? His belief IN the bottle of ocean water he is holding is not the same as him believing THAT he is holing a bottle of ocean water. His confidence that he's actually holding ocean water in a bottle does not mean that he believes he's holding a bottle of water at all: they're just not the same thing. Besides, the bottle of ocean water that he's holding and the plankton in it are metaphors for the ocean and the kraken respectively; your insistence that there's no ocean is just as retarded." Then you start doing the backstroke in the sand; or maybe what you're doing on dry land is a metaphor for surfing.

To which I reply, "You're both retarded."