If Romney gets in which country will America start a war with next?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Twisted - explain the logical faults - calling it BS is your usual history whenever something doesn't fit your belief you resort to name calling and belittling. This tells me you have no solid footing and you clearly have none here.

You don't want to use your science training (engineers of course are merely the Oompa Loompa's of science so I kind of cut them slack) but to say you can't test it is intellectual dishonesty. No you can't prove/disprove God but the onus of proof is on the person making the claim - and unless you turn your brain off you KNOW THIS IS TRUE - calling it BS makes you look like a tool.

And you also KNOW but ignore that you most certainly can test "the Sky God" premise with first year basic logic courses which you must have taken to have an engineering degree - unless universities in the U.S. are so bankrupt they too have succumb to the religious right and don't make it mandatory. That basic logic and main point of my previous post which Frenchmon ignored, to blather on about his disagreement over Bible interpretation, didn't surprise me. He didn't want to go anywhere near the God is omnipotent or omniscient arguments and neither do you.

Regurgitated - I love that. 2+2=4 is a regurgitated question and answer found in numerous Grade 1 classrooms. Yes it is a regurgitated teaching - it also happens to be FACT.

Rather than address the issues of basic logic/paradox you resort to name calling - your faith is so fragile that you can actually look into it and say "gee this doesn't make the least bit of sense" maybe I should consider the possibility that at some point I was brainwashed. Most 5 year olds believe in Santa and then eventually have a chuckle that everyone fooled you - teachers, parents, siblings, and friends. You had no reason to distrust them so most people TRULY believe in him and even write letters and put out cookies. You get up and the cookies and milk are half eaten - every fiber in your being believes fully in this tale because everyone in your life reinforces it over and over and over. People you trust immensely - so of course you believe. Then one day a friend at school perhaps will let you in on the joke. "there's no Santa" - the child STILL believes until they confront their parents or teacher. Some kids cry.

Well I'm you're little school friend telling you that you've been had but unfortunately no one told the priest or your parents.

There are several avenues to test whether there is an "omnipotent and omniscient God " and those tests "knock down" the possibility and from several sciences/disciplines not just Biology. Dawkins makes several correct cases that destroy the notion of the creation of man - and it's irrefutable. And if the ship is still barely afloat Physics and Geology put a few more torpedoes into the ship - and if it still hanging on - Philosophy comes in with an A-bomb air strike to finish it off.

Dawkins is an easy read - pretty much spells it out as easy as it can get - You should be an Atheist by the time you get to chapter 4. Not an Agnostic an Atheist - Agnostics just want to cover their ass. Although plenty of Christians on boards have told me that "I should believe because what have I got to lose" or "if you don't believe what's to stop you from doing evil things like rape and murder." Really - the only thing stopping them from killing and raping is believing in God. In that case please believe away - if that's the kind of person you are at your core then please believe in God and don't kill people. And of course just "saying" you believe in God to cover your butt - pretty sure if there was a God he'd know you were just covering your butt. Don't think you can fake God out. And he might be three times more angry if you try than say "gee God I was wrong I didn't believe in you - why did you make me an Atheist?

This is something like a 3 minute read and should raise enough alarm bells to make objective minds seriously doubt any of the Sky God teachings.

God the all-powerful: The Paradox of Omnipotence

RGA,
If you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between science and religion, then how do you think you can convince me of anything? Science can be tested, faith cannot. Faith is not logical, and logic does not explain all things. Faith is personal, which is why I am not going to engage in a public conversation about it - especially not with a person I consider an Idiot.

I don't give a damn about you stupid links, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY BELIEFS PERIOD. So just give it up. If you want to be an atheist, good, be one. However, none of your soulless links or comments are going to move me one bit. Say take your link(and your stupid opinions), and shove it up you bum.

And you must know that your attempts at trying to insult me are as weak as your ability to use your brain. I have already written you off as too stupid to be believed. You must know after all these years that you cannot bait me with your stupid little comments.

[RGA]

RGA,
If you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between science and religion, then how do you think you can convince me of anything? Science can be tested, faith cannot. Faith is not logical, and logic does not explain all things. Faith is personal, which is why I am not going to engage in a public conversation about it - especially not with a person I consider an Idiot.

I don't give a damn about you stupid links, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY BELIEFS PERIOD. So just give it up. If you want to be an atheist, good, be one. However, none of your soulless links or comments are going to move me one bit. Say take your link(and your stupid opinions), and shove it up you bum.

And you must know that your attempts at trying to insult me are as weak as your ability to use your brain. I have already written you off as too stupid to be believed. You must know after all these years that you cannot bait me with your stupid little comments.

So it's back to name calling. Yup Idiots are the ones who question Hocus Pocus BS.

Soulless links? Please direct me to the links which have "souls" - oops I know silly me I'm gonna want evidence of "souls" that are in "links." Are these souls(ghosts) different than the other mythical types supposedly inside of us that you believe in?

[RGA]

Scientology devotees prove that people will believe anything they WANT to believe however ridiculous.

E.g. People can believe that abortion must be prohibited under any and all circumstances, but that one mustn't support the teenage single mother & child because that would reward irresponsible behavior.

Or they can believe that more Supply-Side, Trickle-down, Bribe the Rich tax schemes will create great jobs for the middle class despite 30+ years of the failure of that strategy.

And that abortion is wrong but it's perfectly fine to kill the abortion doctor and also be for Capital Punishment.

And then if you point to the logical faults you're called an idiot.

One of the great Professors I had in University had us select an essay topic. This was a philosophy course on contemporary moral problems - abortion, capital punishment, Euthanasia etc.

You selected a topic and a side. You submitted the proposal. The prof said great "You have selected to argue for Pro-Choice" And then the prof made a change to everyone's proposals - they got the topic they selected but not the side of the debate they chose. We were all forced to write for the opposing belief system. So the religious students had to write a paper advocating pro-choice and vice-versa.

You can make a lot of very good arguments for Pro-life without ever needing to cite Bible quotes.

I took a criminology course and the professor wanted a debate over capital punishment and asked for volunteers to argue for the death penalty - I was the only person to put up my hand. Eesh I took flack from classmates who thought I was for it. (Canada remember and many budding lawyers).

I argued from a world view population model, and "perceived" immorality. More people die in construction accidents than everyone combined from the the death penalty - and that media individualized the deaths of criminals. Even if they get the odd one wrong - so be it. etc.

Further the chicken and the egg argument of the following scenario. My case was as follows - It is wrong to put a man to death who is a confessed serial killer who video taped his murders and killed 20 children. DNA, Video, confession and witnesses - yes they say capital punishment is murder so you're no better because you too have resorted to murder.

Scenario 2 is a man is holding a knife over a kid's head and is about to murder the kid. You have a gun and only one clear shot to kill this would be killer to save the boy's life. Do you shoot. Answer from the anti-capital punishment crowd was of course.

But wait - this man has not actually killed anyone - to this point he has not committed any crime but it's ok to kill this innocent man but not okay to kill a serial killer after the fact. Of course the guy with the knife may have seen a snake on the boy's arm no facing you and he was about to stab the snake -- oops.

There is a counter to the above as well of course - one is to save a life so you choose the lesser evil to save or the evil to kill while the after the fact murder is more isolated etc.

As for trickle down economics - of course it works - it works for the rich.

This is a population that is analogous to the Ferengi in Star Trek Deep Space Nine. If you watched that show at all you will know that everything is about profit. But of course there were rich Ferengi and good businessmen who had the "lobes for business" Women were second rate (not too off the mark either as an analogy) but most Ferengi were poor.

So why didn't the Ferengi scrap the model and start over - why didn't they become more socialized? Because every Ferengi believed that someday they too would become rich. Kind of the "Ferengian Dream."

Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman" still ranks as my favorite play and is hugely relevant today and probably for all time under a similar economic structure. When people figure out that a "solid" income and a "solid" safety net for ALL is better than high risk high reward propositions then everyone is better off and the entire country gains. But it's the same play the lotto for a retirement plan belief system that people have.

The same people who don't want the government to "look after them" with tax dollars are perfectly fine believing that if you make billionaires hundred billionaires that they will "look after them" by giving them a job. It's just so dumb. The rich are not going to give you a job - they're going to use the tax break to open a plant in Whenzhou, China and hire 20 people who combined make less than 1 American worker. So you're ass is out of a job. You'd think these right wing dimwits would have learned from 2000-2008 that it wasn't Obama who lost your job.

The great thing about Star Trek is that it was basically Dicken's idealistic future. The trick is to get from A (the current mess) to the ideal (TNGish world view). At least move in that direction. Romney is a Ferengi but at least Quark was honest about it.

[Feanor]

RGA,
If you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between science and religion, then how do you think you can convince me of anything? Science can be tested, faith cannot. Faith is not logical, and logic does not explain all things. Faith is personal, which is why I am not going to engage in a public conversation about it - especially not with a person I consider an Idiot.

I don't give a damn about you stupid links, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY BELIEFS PERIOD. So just give it up. If you want to be an atheist, good, be one. However, none of your soulless links or comments are going to move me one bit. Say take your link(and your stupid opinions), and shove it up you bum.

And you must know that your attempts at trying to insult me are as weak as your ability to use your brain. I have already written you off as too stupid to be believed. You must know after all these years that you cannot bait me with your stupid little comments.

So it seems that almost nobody is above name calling -- I'll admit it was me that requested that this thread be closed.

I feel reasonably comfortable & safe with a person like you who can reasonably compartmentalize their conciousness between areas that require empirical evidence & reason from those where they can indulge in believing whatever makes them feel good.

I think I speak for RGA in this to an extent, though -- goodness knows -- he can speak for himself.

But the world has a whole lot of people who cannot so reasonably compartmentalize their beliefs, but permit their non-rational beliefs to predominate in areas where ignoring rational, empirical evidence is harmful. And who furthermore strive might-and-main to force the tenets of their non-rational belief on to the lives and actions of others.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So it's back to name calling. Yup Idiots are the ones who question Hocus Pocus BS.

Soulless links? Please direct me to the links which have "souls" - oops I know silly me I'm gonna want evidence of "souls" that are in "links." Are these souls(ghosts) different than the other mythical types supposedly inside of us that you believe in?

:You call it name calling, I call it identifying who you really are.

[JohnMichael]

So it seems that almost nobody is above name calling -- I'll admit it was me that requested that this thread be closed.

Your request alone was not why the thread was closed. I did not close the thread until calling one another inbreds began. I knew others were becoming uncomfortable with the thread. Yet others wanted to continue the lovely tone of the posts we had been reading. Maybe I should add a warning to the title?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So it seems that almost nobody is above name calling -- I'll admit it was me that requested that this thread be closed.

Bill, how could you? This is unthinkable that you would do such a thing. I am disappointed.......well maybe not! LOLOL

I feel reasonably comfortable & safe with a person like you who can reasonably compartmentalize their consciousness between areas that require empirical evidence & reason from those where they can indulge in believing whatever makes them feel good.

My faith is intensely personal. I do not recruit, or make any attempts to change anyone over to my way of thinking when it comes to faith. In other words, it is not exportable, and IMC not open for discussion. Besides, what is the logic in discussing my faith with an profoundly adamant atheist? Can you see what a waste of time that would be?

I think I speak for RGA in this to an extent, though -- goodness knows -- he can speak for himself.

And speak, and speak, and speak, and speak, and speak some more, and more, and more(and this can go on into infinity). He can so this while saying absolutely nothing in the process.

But the world has a whole lot of people who cannot so reasonably compartmentalize their beliefs, but permit their non-rational beliefs to predominate in areas where ignoring rational, empirical evidence is harmful. And who furthermore strive might-and-main to force the tenets of their non-rational belief on to the lives and actions of others.

Speaking to your last sentence, there is no way in the world I am going to do that....no way. I understand clearly what belongs to science, and what belongs to faith. The two are incompatible, and cannot be mixed together - hence why I reject Richard asinine comment about my adherence to science in one area, and not doing it in another. If Dawkins is so great, then why can't he get out of that wheelchair, breathe on his own, and heal himself?

Let's face it, even a atheist has some measure of faith. They breathe air they cannot see, and they believe they will live to see tomorrow(and plan their days just like I do with that in mind), they drive cars on the road, ride in airplanes and expect to reach their destination, and they believe that medication will heal their sickness. They may not believe in God, but they have faith in something right?

I have no understanding of why anyone would come here, insult people because of their faith, and make any attempt to dissuade them from believing in whatever they want to by presenting the opinions of a mere man. By presenting him as your definitive answer to all things, then he becomes the god - and sorry, I don't have that kind of belief in men, especially one that cannot heal himself. Dawkins does not know all there is to know, and that makes him an unsuitable vehicle to attempt to change what I believe in.

A sighted and double blind test has different objectives. That is clear. One establishes a personal preference, the other removes it as a basis of decision making. It is the same with science and faith(not religion). One seeks to make one a better person who interacts better with others(when done perfectly which we don't), and the other is a quest for knowledge where it is proven(of which we don't know 1/100's of in reality).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your request alone was not why the thread was closed. I did not close the thread until calling one another inbreds began. I knew others were becoming uncomfortable with the thread. Yet others wanted to continue the lovely tone of the posts we had been reading. Maybe I should add a warning to the title?

Rated NC-17? Not for the faint of heart? Beware of the rantings of a psychopathic atheist?

I like the last one.......

[Feanor]

...
My faith is intensely personal. I do not recruit, or make any attempts to change anyone over to my way of thinking when it comes to faith. In other words, it is not exportable, and IMC not open for discussion. Besides, what is the logic in discussing my faith with an profoundly adamant atheist? Can you see what a waste of time that would be? ...

Yes!

...
Let's face it, even a atheist has some measure of faith. They breathe air they cannot see, and they believe they will live to see tomorrow(and plan their days just like I do with that in mind), they drive cars on the road, ride in airplanes and expect to reach their destination, and they believe that medication will heal their sickness. They may not believe in God, but they have faith in something right? ...

Well, not necessarily "faith"; let's say they have "reasonable expectations" about some things like airplanes and doctors' advice.


Some people reject God for subjective reasons that can very well be non-rational. On the other hand, most atheists I've known are fundamentally skeptics who naturally tend to doubt rather than faith. Like good scientists, they might accept empirical evidence and work with theories based on it, but remain open to evidence to the contrary. So, no, these atheists don't have faith in the usual religious sense.

[RGA]

Science isn't faith and I don't have faith that a given medicine will work. It has been tested to work and deemed to work then it will work. If it has a 90% success rate then I have a "reasonably high" expectation that it will work for me - but I won't curse the devil if it doesn't.

Dawkins the Biologist isn't in a wheelchair. I assume you have him mixed up with Stephen Hawking (Physicist) both of whom are Atheists.

As for the air we breathe you can see it via tests and you can certain feel it. I don't need faith in air since when it's not there I'll be dead. I can't understand how you could even make the absurd analogy.

Philosophy and science (some disciplines viewed as stronger to weaker) are empirical and require testing and evidence to support theory. Physics, Chemistry, and Biology head the fields.

The reason I have trouble with DBT isn't because the methodology is wrong it is because it is completely misapplied by audiophiles and non science types. Further it enters the realm of psychology which isn't even called a science at most universities but is in fact part of the Arts degree program. Regardless, DBT in audio auditions is "weak science" and is open to numerous attacks - which is why so many people argue against relying on them in any kind of absolute way. On the other hand if someone wants to "go with them" then fine by me. Since believing in the difference or not isn't going to cause deaths who really cares?

And Sir T - As for long posts - Pot meet Kettle

Feanor

Yes you're right about compartmentalized beliefs. But I am not convinced that "truly" happens given the Sir T's analogies about Science or what equals the term "faith." He seems to think that if I can't see God I don't believe but I can't see "air" yet I have faith that it is there. Sight has nothing to do with it since the human eye is so bad. Surely if a designer made it I'd be able to see air. But it was never designed it evolved and it evolved into something it needs to be "which is good enough" for the purpose required.

As an aside - I am not adamant on Atheism - if someone can prove to me that there is a Sky -God I'll be happy to pray. Atheists have open minds to new evidence that comes along. In a vacuum of evidence however we don't fill in life altering feel good stories to explain stuff.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And Sir T - As for long posts - Pot meet Kettle

Yeah well, I actually say something. You on the other hand provide us with a long winded air sandwich that can be said in far fewer words(Which results in a little less air, but still no substance). My posts are technical in nature which requires an explainantion, yours is just long winded opinion pieces with absolutely no technical merit at all.

Feanor

Yes you're right about compartmentalized beliefs. But I am not convinced that "truly" happens given the Sir T's analogies about Science or what equals the term "faith." He seems to think that if I can't see God I don't believe but I can't see "air" yet I have faith that it is there. Sight has nothing to do with it since the human eye is so bad. Surely if a designer made it I'd be able to see air. But it was never designed it evolved and it evolved into something it needs to be "which is good enough" for the purpose required.

If you cannot see the compartmentalization, then this is a confirmation that not only are you an idiot, but you are a blind one. If Bill can recongnize it and confirm's it is there, that is the only reasonable explaination - you DON"T WANT to see it.

As far as the human eye being so bad - not only do you not have a audio clue, but you have no clue how acute the eye really is. Your comment is ignorant, and not based on fact, which is par for the course for you.

Who gives a damn about convincing you of anything? You should know by now that I don't give a damn what you think. It really should be crystal clear.

As an aside - I am not adamant on Atheism - if someone can prove to me that there is a Sky -God I'll be happy to pray. Atheists have open minds to new evidence that comes along. In a vacuum of evidence however we don't fill in life altering feel good stories to explain stuff.

Based on what I have read here, you are a adamant athiest. And what is worse, is you come here and insult and try and change my mind using the words of another man who is as fallible as I am.

How stupid is that?

I think the real reason why you are still here blowing out all of this hot air is because you weakly and ineffectively tried to goad me into religious arguement - and stupidly wanted me to analyze it using scientific methods, and I refused causing you to hurl your kidneys out of your nose and ears.

Pobre bebe', se siente frustrado y eso es una verguenza. Aqui es una toalla de pepel, limpia tu auto hasta.

[RGA]

Yeah well, I actually say something. You on the other hand provide us with a long winded air sandwich that can be said in far fewer words(Which results in a little less air, but still no substance). My posts are technical in nature which requires an explainantion, yours is just long winded opinion pieces with absolutely no technical merit at all.

Most of your windbag replies have nothing to do with practical experience - you remind me of a borderline Aspergers type who can't understand what people are actually talking about. Real world listening to real world albums versus technical comparisons of 1 recording done in isolation without providing specific information to allow anyone to verify (ie; peer review) your experience. No one cares.

If you cannot see the compartmentalization, then this is a confirmation that not only are you an idiot, but you are a blind one. If Bill can recongnize it and confirm's it is there, that is the only reasonable explaination - you DON"T WANT to see it.

Again learn to read - yes you compartmentalize but your analogy was patently absurd. You separate science from religion but you liken science to a MERE faith as if it is on the same level as religion in that we put "faith" in technology, medicine, and that the earth will be here tomorrow. No one can possibly be stupid enough to buy into that. Compartmentalized minds can also merely indicate a borderline split personality. You've said several times that it's all 'mere man' which implies that science is "lower" in fact and evidence than faith.

As far as the human eye being so bad - not only do you not have a audio clue, but you have no clue how acute the eye really is. Your comment is ignorant, and not based on fact, which is par for the course for you.

Again you're lack of science understanding is ASTOUNDING! The hack university you went to should revoke your degree.

I know you won't actually follow the link because you're too closed minded but how about listen to the world's BEST Biologist who Chairs Oxford University discussing the human eye. I know you're too much of an ego maniac to ever once on any topic EVER admit you're wrong - but the world's best biologist on the human Eye versus you (some "legend in his own mind" weenie who makes movies go boom boom real loud supporting a vacuous industry - LOL). Puhleeze!

Richard Dawkins on Eye Evolution - YouTube

The human eye is an example of why it would NOT be designed.

Incidentally, I have taught the very same simple blind spot experiment in the above link to grade 5 classes and at science fairs. No one walks away thinking the eye is any way shape or form perfect. And only an incompetent BOOB would design the human eye the way it's been designed. So either Evolution is true or God is an incompetent BOOB. And that's your ONLY choices. Let me guess, you're gonna compartmentalize that too.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Most of your windbag replies have nothing to do with practical experience - you remind me of a borderline Aspergers type who can't understand what people are actually talking about. Real world listening to real world albums versus technical comparisons of 1 recording done in isolation without providing specific information to allow anyone to verify (ie; peer review) your experience. No one cares.

Can you tell me what good is practical experience when you don't even have a basic understanding of what you are experiencing. How could you peer review anything, you don't know jack $hit about anything except what you think sounds good. This is a prime example of that.

Hi Resolution Audio article which may be helpful..

Getting a headache off of basic digital audio 101? So you are all opinion, and no education.

Now let's tackle the practical experience slant.

Why soundtracks should be remixed for hometheater

Can't write stuff like this without practical and educational experience can you stupid?

Again learn to read - yes you compartmentalize but your analogy was patently absurd. You separate science from religion but you liken science to a MERE faith as if it is on the same level as religion in that we put "faith" in technology, medicine, and that the earth will be here tomorrow. No one can possibly be stupid enough to buy into that. Compartmentalized minds can also merely indicate a borderline split personality. You've said several times that it's all 'mere man' which implies that science is "lower" in fact and evidence than faith.

See this is where your emotions blind your stupid a$$. You have a bad habit of smushing things together because you CANNOT compartmentalize anything. A mere man has nothing to do with science, but the fallibility of THAT or ANY man. Then you turn to a semantic argument as faith is not a religious construct at all. It is a human construct. Faith is not strictly a religious concept. You can have faith in your spouse, in your kids judgement, that the universe isn't going to collapse around you tomorrow.

1
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

There is a hairsbreadth of difference between "reasonable expectation" and faith. Using the term "reasonable expectation" is designed to distance yourself from anything related to religion, and based on the meaning of the word, it has both religious and non religious connotations.

Again you're lack of science understanding is ASTOUNDING! The hack university you went to should revoke your degree.

Another stupid statement from a stupid person. Nobody can call USC a hack university, and I didn't go there to get a science degree stupid!

I know you won't actually follow the link because you're too closed minded but how about listen to the world's BEST Biologist who Chairs Oxford University discussing the human eye. I know you're too much of an ego maniac to ever once on any topic EVER admit you're wrong - but the world's best biologist on the human Eye versus you (some "legend in his own mind" weenie who makes movies go boom boom real loud supporting a vacuous industry - LOL). Puhleeze!

Richard Dawkins on Eye Evolution - YouTube

The human eye is an example of why it would NOT be designed.

So you complain about being called names, and then you turn around and call names. HYPOCRITE, and a stupid one at that. This is not about the eyes, and you like to deflect to minor non topic stuff to make up for your lack on topic stuff. I have no interest in your link because the topic of this thread is not about the eyes.

Incidentally, I have taught the very same simple blind spot experiment in the above link to grade 5 classes and at science fairs. No one walks away thinking the eye is any way shape or form perfect. And only an incompetent BOOB would design the human eye the way it's been designed. So either Evolution is true or God is an incompetent BOOB. And that's your ONLY choices. Let me guess, you're gonna compartmentalize that too.

Who said the eyes were perfect? I didn't, and this is a prime example that you are so emotional about non emotional stuff, that you cannot even read what is on the page.

Why don't you open a new post so you can talk about the eyes. I sure in the hell am not going to talk about religion, and you stupid weak a$$ goading is not going to take me there.

So, you can take all of your comments and shove them straight up your stupid(to match the rest of you) a$$.

[RGA]

Man you are long winded saying nothing.

Once agauin you have it mostly wrong.

There is not a hairsbreath difference between faith (or reasonable expectation) in any of the things you just mentioned versus faith in God. People who have faith in God are 100% positive and KNOW FOR A FACT that God exists. Every single religious person I have ever met is 100% positive that God is there without question and without doubt.

No one has that same level of expectation of their buddy Joe meeting them at Starbucks at 6pm because he said so and is usually always on time. Science types will make the adjustments.

A person having Faith that flying themselves into buildings because it's the word of their God so they can go to heaven and get 72 virgins is just slightly different than me hiring Fred the accountant with the expectation and I suppose "faith" that Fred will turn the work in when he says he will. This usage of the term faith is not remotely the same as religious "Faith" and that is because if you ask me whether I am 100% sure Fred will absolutely without question and without doubt hand in the work when he says I will say No.

That's the key difference - doubt. I am reasonably sure I will wake up tomorrow but I am not 100% of this. A spider could come in and bite me - my heart could take a holiday a plane could crash into my apartment. I don't have absolute knowledge of future events.

The eye is an example to "test" the notion as to whether God is omnipotant. A perfect person/entity means that everything he/she/it does is perfect. They would never make mistakes in mathematics tests, they would throw a perfect game striking out every batter on 3 pitches, they would write perfectly and everything they design would be "perfect." Including the human eyeball and interface to the brain.

The human eye is often used by Christians to illustrate this "perfection of design" and used as "evidence" that God must be the creator. I genuinely apologise if you were unaware that the human eye is trotted out a "proof" of intelligent design on virtually every debate on religion. Perfection creates perfection. Now if we want to say God is not "perfect" well I could get on board somewhat - but the problem is the religious people don't accept or entertain the possibility. And then there is the Duck Billed Platipus!

We have been discussing religion - the eye discussion is pretty central to that. I understand I won't convince you not to have religious faith but I wonder why you are so loathe to even read about dissenting viewpoints. You started this entire thing attacking me for not believing in God and not to me but to Frenchmon. I know you like to keep attacking me calling me an idiot every post but I have presented sound loigic and scientific reasons and you've not once considered them - or even read anything on why people don;t believe and why it's not a real good reason to.

[dingus]

hey Sir Terrence the Terrible,

its not my fight and i'm not interested in making it mine, but i have to ask, what faith are you?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Man you are long winded saying nothing.

Once agauin you have it mostly wrong.

There is not a hairsbreath difference between faith (or reasonable expectation) in any of the things you just mentioned versus faith in God. People who have faith in God are 100% positive and KNOW FOR A FACT that God exists. Every single religious person I have ever met is 100% positive that God is there without question and without doubt.

If that is what they want to believe, then what business is that of yours? You are showing yourself to be a narrow minded judgemental prick. If you don't believe, and they do, then the discussion is over. There is no point in getting into a discussion on this issue when two polar opposites are involved. You are not going to change their minds, and they are not going to change yours - discussion over. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Faith is faith. Whether it is faith is science, or in religion. Scientist believe the universe was created by the big bang theory. My question to them is how do you know, where you there? Look at the second definition of faith I posted.

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

No one has proof this is how the universe was created, it is a theory they happen to think is correct. Scientist have faith in that theory. What you don't seem to get is faith by definition has a pretty multifauceted meaning. But faith is faith nevertheless.

No one has that same level of expectation of their buddy Joe meeting them at Starbucks at 6pm because he said so and is usually always on time. Science types will make the adjustments.

And so would anyone with any common sense.

A person having Faith that flying themselves into buildings because it's the word of their God so they can go to heaven and get 72 virgins is just slightly different than me hiring Fred the accountant with the expectation and I suppose "faith" that Fred will turn the work in when he says he will. This usage of the term faith is not remotely the same as religious "Faith" and that is because if you ask me whether I am 100% sure Fred will absolutely without question and without doubt hand in the work when he says I will say No.

This is not called faith, it is fanaticism - big difference. And sorry, but you are talking about situational faith, but it is still faith. You are parsing the meaning, and the definition is pretty clear whether you like it or not.

That's the key difference - doubt. I am reasonably sure I will wake up tomorrow but I am not 100% of this. A spider could come in and bite me - my heart could take a holiday a plane could crash into my apartment. I don't have absolute knowledge of future events.

This is faith no matter how you slice it. Once again, read the definition of faith that I posted. There is five pieces to it, not just one.

The eye is an example to "test" the notion as to whether God is omnipotant. A perfect person/entity means that everything he/she/it does is perfect. They would never make mistakes in mathematics tests, they would throw a perfect game striking out every batter on 3 pitches, they would write perfectly and everything they design would be "perfect." Including the human eyeball and interface to the brain.

The human eye is often used by Christians to illustrate this "perfection of design" and used as "evidence" that God must be the creator. I genuinely apologise if you were unaware that the human eye is trotted out a "proof" of intelligent design on virtually every debate on religion. Perfection creates perfection. Now if we want to say God is not "perfect" well I could get on board somewhat - but the problem is the religious people don't accept or entertain the possibility. And then there is the Duck Billed Platipus!

Can you walk straight? Can you run straight? Can you drive straight? Can you see 7 million colors? Can you recognize black from white? Can you see a predator if it is not hidden? Can you aim? If all this is a yes, then the eyes that we come with serve their purpose. They do not have to be perfect for man to survive, so you point is just a mere sidetrack to the original context of this post.

We have been discussing religion - the eye discussion is pretty central to that.[/quote]

No it is not, and that is best illustrated by the fact it was not mentioned earlier in the discussion. You are just mudding the issue PERIOD.

I understand I won't convince you not to have religious faith but I wonder why you are so loathe to even read about dissenting viewpoints.

Richard, what makes you think I have not already?. Do you know me personally? Have you ever lived with me? You are making an assumptions. Do you really believe this is the first time I have ever discussed this topic? If so, then you have a brain of a tsetse fly. I have had plenty of these discussion with athiests, and it goes nowhere....absolutely nowhere. This is why I will not bother with it, or waste my time - IT GOES NOWHERE.

You started this entire thing attacking me for not believing in God and not to me but to Frenchmon. I know you like to keep attacking me calling me an idiot every post but I have presented sound loigic and scientific reasons and you've not once considered them - or even read anything on why people don;t believe and why it's not a real good reason to.

Read what I said again. I told Frenchmon he is wasting his time talking with you on this issue, and I am right about it. Frenchmon is a believer in God, you are not. So why should he waste his time talking with a brickwall on this issue. Richard, you are too damn emotional for your own good.

You presented some off topic science, and your personal opinion. That is it. If you think you have contributed sound logic, then you are a legend in your own mind. It is not sound logic to spend your time disparaging what you don't believe in. That is idiocracy - hence why you get called an idiot.

You are still making assumption. I have heard many reasons why people don't believe in God. I have also heard many reasons why people do, and it has nothing to do with them being weak and incapable of coping with life.

You make so many assumptions it is pitiful. You don't know me PERIOD, and logically you have to recognize this.

You are just another person with another opinion. Like a$$e$ we all have them. Somebody's 100% belief is just as valid as your 100% disbelief. You are not all knowing, and neither is science.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

hey Sir Terrence the Terrible,

its not my fight and i'm not interested in making it mine, but i have to ask, what faith are you?

With all due respect to you, this is my personal business, and I don't discuss this on a audio forum - even in the off topic section.

I hope you don't take this negatively, as that is not the spirit that I am delivering to you.

[RGA]

If that is what they want to believe, then what business is that of yours?

Because what they "believe" impacts everyone and gets the likes of Bush elected. In other words people often die for their beliefs. If they want to die for them fine by me - but they also tend to take people with them. That's not judgment that's historical fact.

You are showing yourself to be a narrow minded judgemental prick. If you don't believe, and they do, then the discussion is over. There is no point in getting into a discussion on this issue when two polar opposites are involved. You are not going to change their minds, and they are not going to change yours - discussion over. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Most Atheists began as Catholics, Christians etc. Just this past Sunday evening I met an "ex" Catholic. It would seem it is very possible to be a polar opposite and then come around to something when looked upon a different way. In your case and Frenchmon's etc that will never be the case - I get that.

Faith is faith. Whether it is faith is science, or in religion. Scientist believe the universe was created by the big bang theory. My question to them is how do you know, where you there? Look at the second definition of faith I posted.

Faith is not faith. Scientific faith or "reasonable expectation" means that they are 100% willing to drop that placeholder theory when new evidence comes along and knocks it down. Religious faith is an entirely different animal. When confronted with 100% undeniable fact these people ignore it completely and believe whatever they want to believe. Which is fine by me but some country usually gets bombed because of it.

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Once again it is a questionable of reasonableness. For something to be held as significant theory in science it always has a tremendous amount of evidence (discovered through tests) to verify that it would be highly improbable and unlikely for the theory not to be true. That is different than saying "I have faith that it is true."

No one has proof this is how the universe was created, it is a theory they happen to think is correct. Scientist have faith in that theory. What you don't seem to get is faith by definition has a pretty multifauceted meaning. But faith is faith nevertheless.

I have been the one telling you that faith means different things - you just said it is multifaceted and then say it's all the same. It's not. Religious Faith implies belief beyond any doubt (based on ZERO evidence, ZERO facts) - scientists do not say the Big Bang Theory is absolute. They have numerous tests in physics, astronomy, mathematics that heavily point to this theory(and variations of it) being true. I personally am not up on the Big Bang but I know that it wasn't without problems. Interestingly it was a Belgian Priest who first came out with the theory of the Big Bang. There is also a difference between the Big Bang Theory and the cause of it. Science doesn't even attempt to answer the latter. A religious person could argue (and has argued) that God snapped his fingers (that would be a helluva bang) and thus began the Universe.

This is not called faith, it is fanaticism - big difference. And sorry, but you are talking about situational faith, but it is still faith. You are parsing the meaning, and the definition is pretty clear whether you like it or not.

I understand what you're saying - I am not lumping you in with people who go out shooting abortion doctors or blowing buildings up. But there are a lot of easily persuadable people out there who attend the Ted Haggert's and Jerry Falwell's of the world in football stadium sized numbers. People who send the "message" to lynch homosexuals or that Louisiana got what they deserved for being subversive etc. Sure the Westboro guys are written off as fanatical nuts (even buy Fox News) but Falwell is revered by them as a National Hero. And sure you and I may both agree that Fox is batcrap crazy but the last I checked they have the highest ratings for news in the U.S. So I am not sure you are in the majority. The fanatical parts of the religions seem to be in charge.

Can you walk straight? Can you run straight? Can you drive straight? Can you see 7 million colors? Can you recognize black from white? Can you see a predator if it is not hidden? Can you aim? If all this is a yes, then the eyes that we come with serve their purpose. They do not have to be perfect for man to survive, so you point is just a mere sidetrack to the original context of this post.

The eye has "evolved" and adapted based on the needs of the animal's environment. As I said the eye is adequate for human purposes to ensure the survival of our species. But it suffers a host of unnecessary problems. Had a human top flight optical engineer sat down and was given the power to be all powerful and could create exactly what he wanted for the eye brain interface the human eye would laughed off the drawing board.

And that's just a man. If an all powerful being who is perfect in every way creates something his creation would be perfect. That means there would be no gross blind spots, there would be none of this 7 year olds having to wear glasses because they fail badly so soon. Or lousy night vision etc.

No it is not, and that is best illustrated by the fact it was not mentioned earlier in the discussion. You are just mudding the issue PERIOD.

But it is because the argument is that there are no tests for a Perfect God. Using basic logic is not muddying the issue - it IS the issue. Now if you want to make the case that God is not perfect then that's something else entirely and yes the eye would not be central. God's not perfect and he made the eyeball at midnight on the 6th day and He was tired then great. Of course the problem then becomes - if he is not perfect and always right then it's possible he screwed up other things too. The slippery slop people don't want to go down.

Richard, what makes you think I have not already?. Do you know me personally? Have you ever lived with me? You are making an assumptions. Do you really believe this is the first time I have ever discussed this topic?

Actually I didn't make an assumption and that's kind of the point. You did not provide one argument to me that you have made such arguments in the past. Nor did you say that you did. So I did not assume that you have been in big religious debates. Over the last say 7 years Richard Dawkins has been pretty outspoken on this subject and since you didn't seem to know who he was mixing him up with a Hawking a scientist in a completely different field" you gave me no indication whatsoever that you have been in these debates previously. It would have been erroneous of me based on this to assume that you had engaged in the discussion.

I have had plenty of these discussion with athiests, and it goes nowhere....absolutely nowhere. This is why I will not bother with it, or waste my time - IT GOES NOWHERE.

Fair enough.

Read what I said again. I told Frenchmon he is wasting his time talking with you on this issue, and I am right about it. Frenchmon is a believer in God, you are not. So why should he waste his time talking with a brickwall on this issue. Richard, you are too damn emotional for your own good.

I am not posting from emotion - I outlined logical problems with Sky-God belief systems. You choose to read and think and apply reason or you choose not to. You've told me your decision. No problems

You presented some off topic science, and your personal opinion. That is it. If you think you have contributed sound logic, then you are a legend in your own mind. It is not sound logic to spend your time disparaging what you don't believe in. That is idiocracy - hence why you get called an idiot.

It's called educating people to look at one thing versus another and understand why one thing makes more sense than another. One clearly does and the other clearly does not. Critical thinking on religion is uncomfortable and I can understand that reducing ignorance and increasing people's knowledge and increase their ability to examine and think for themselves is my day job. That doesn't stop when I walk out of the classroom.

You are still making assumption. I have heard many reasons why people don't believe in God. I have also heard many reasons why people do, and it has nothing to do with them being weak and incapable of coping with life.

Not at all - there is lots of money to be made in religion. You can indeed be very successful and cope quite well with religion.

You are just another person with another opinion. Like a$$e$ we all have them. Somebody's 100% belief is just as valid as your 100% disbelief. You are not all knowing, and neither is science.

Science doesn't claim to be all knowing - Religious people however do claim to be all knowing - they KNOW God made the earth, is omnipotent and omniscient. They know what happens to them when they die, they know what will happen to RGA when he dies, they KNOW it absolutely.

[RGA]

Back to Mitt the git.

[noddin0ff]

People who have faith in God are 100% positive and KNOW FOR A FACT that God exists. Every single religious person I have ever met is 100% positive that God is there without question and without doubt.

Faith is faith. Whether it is faith is science, or in religion. Scientist believe the universe was created by the big bang theory. My question to them is how do you know, where you there? Look at the second definition of faith I posted.

I'm so totally not qualified to step in here but that doesn't seem to deter me. Morning coffee in hand, it pains me to see Science set up in opposition to Faith. As a scientist and current agnostic, both the extremes (acknowledging that there's been many good moderate points of views) presented here just don't ring true for me.

I would define Faith as the acceptance of statements regarding unknowable aspects of how the world works as true. (I shy away from 'belief' in the unknowable because that implies the absence of doubt and I would say the majority of the Faithful still have doubt.)

I would define Science as the process of synthesizing a description of how the world works from careful observation.

Both are approaches to understanding the world and on the whole both are frequently misrepresented.

The Faithful rely on existing statements about how the world works. These are deemed true so long as they don't obviously conflict with the individuals experience of the world. When there is conflict Faithful folk tend to narrow the sphere of their faith. I think most people apply Faith reasonably to areas of moral guidance and the truly unknowable (what is the experience after death, e.g.) and the interaction of the two. Faithful tend to accept statements (that pertain to Faith) about how the world works as true, when they observe that the world works similar to their Faithful understanding, Faith is affirmed. When it doesn't…well, honestly I never really figured out for myself what the plan was here… so I don't know what the answer is. Apply more or less Faith, I suppose…or argue about it. Faith is a personal thing, the quality of which is defined by the person with the faith. Some, I'm sure define their faith as the ability to hold a belief in the face of conflicting evidence. Personally, I think the quality of Faith should be measured by how well it accommodates and incorporates the conflicting evidence of experience.

Scientists rely on careful observation. Careful observation involves creating various hypothesis about how the world should work, predicting what the evidence for or against this would look like, and then looking to see if that evidence exists. If not, start anew with a different hypothesis. Not every scientist is 100% effective, some are pretty bad at this. But scientists are aware that people are imperfect and tend to doubt everything until the evidence is solid enough to suggest the most reasonable synthesis of how the world works. Scientists always consider argument and doubt to be healthy, however painful personally. The quality of a concept of how the world works is determined by how well it holds up against every doubt, and every potential bit of counter observation that you can throw at it.

Anyway, I think it's silly to attack a persons Faith as being wrong. Faith is Faith and Faith is a personal experience. It's also silly to beat back Faith with Science. Science is a process and not a belief system. We expect a lot of science to be wrong before we get any universal rights. I have Faith in Science but a could never prove if that Faith was right or not. It's a lot easier to have blind faith than it is to intellectually challenge faith. It's also much much harder to do good science than it is to jump to conclusions.

People do good things and people do bad things, both in the name of science and in faith. Crusades & Eugenics vs Charity & Vaccines. People will do bad things regardless of what they believe or know, either because they are just evil or because they don't care about others as much as themselves.

Civil argument is always good. Its a lab for working out ideas and differences. I guess I can see why some would want to close the thread. But, the mods are reminding all to be civil and people are testing out arguments. That seems to me a better good.

[noddin0ff]

An argument for more God...I think.

Craig’s Artisinal Pickles Philosophy

[Feanor]

An argument for more God...I think.

Craig’s Artisinal Pickles Philosophy

Wow! Dissing God! Tender feelings could be hurt and/or fatwahs issued.

I have noticed, though, that believers tend to feel that God should get all the praise but none of the blame. Wish I'd had it more like God during my career.

[Hyfi]

Funny article. It is interesting how believers think that they do nothing on their own and that all they do is God working through them.

But a non-believer gets thru the day all by themselves.

Another interesting observation is how I have never had an Atheist knock on my door to convert me but I have had many many Christian based, JWs, Mormons, and the likes try to convert me.

[noddin0ff]

I didn't read the article either as an attack or a defense of God. It was just a humorous parody of Godlessness. For balance, I'll put in some plugs for God and the faithful.

I have noticed, though, that believers tend to feel that God should get all the praise but none of the blame. Wish I'd had it more like God during my career.

Well, praise is really a form of thanks for blessings bestowed. From my Lutheran upbringings, my take on the doctrine is that we don't, on our own merits deserve blessings, so it's right to be thankful and praise God for the good in our lives. It's beyond man's ability to comprehend God or God's motives but not beyond us to be thankful for the good. When something 'bad' happens, well, its not in mankind's right to judge god, ergo you can't blame god. You can be angry with God, however. Lot's of examples of that.

Summary: I don't think there is any thing wrong with imbalance you point out. It's quite logical. Them's just the rules of Faith.

Funny article. It is interesting how believers think that they do nothing on their own and that all they do is God working through them.

But a non-believer gets thru the day all by themselves.

I'll disagree with this one too (except, I do think the article is funny). After all, "The Lord helps those who help themselves"

OK. That's not really anywhere in the bible. But it's pretty clear that there is no basis for a belief, along the lines of what Hyfi implies, that believers think they do nothing on their own. For example, there's second Thessalonians 3 verse 6-10

6*In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7*For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8*nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9*We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10*For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Plus there are several Protestant faiths that consider good works part of the path to salvation. Lutheranism isn't one of those, however. Most faithful would concede that God works in mysterious ways, and the best one can do is pray that God works good through you. It's vanity to assume that you know God's plan and are implementing it. ...Unless you hear the voice of God in your head telling you so. Then you're either a prophet or crazy. I don't know who get's to make the call on 'prophet'.

[Hyfi]

I'll disagree with this one too (except, I do think the article is funny). After all, "The Lord helps those who help themselves"

OK. That's not really anywhere in the bible. But it's pretty clear that there is no basis for a belief, along the lines of what Hyfi implies, that believers think they do nothing on their own. For example, there's second Thessalonians 3 verse 6-10

6*In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7*For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8*nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9*We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10*For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Plus there are several Protestant faiths that consider good works part of the path to salvation. Lutheranism isn't one of those, however. Most faithful would concede that God works in mysterious ways, and the best one can do is pray that God works good through you. It's vanity to assume that you know God's plan and are implementing it. ...Unless you hear the voice of God in your head telling you so. Then you're either a prophet or crazy. I don't know who get's to make the call on 'prophet'.

I have been involved with many different churches over the years and most recently Calvary Chapel, a non-denomination church and what I wrote above is how they act and think. I realize my statement should not have been all encompassing.

The point I was trying to make is that without faith, I get thru the day where many believers think that God gets them thru the day.

Now, just maybe, God gets both the believers AND the non-believers thru the day OR, Both the believers and non-believers both get thru the day because God does not do anything for either because he does not exist or he just does not get down to the minute level of each individuals complete life.

Just remember, God answers all your prayers.
The answer is just usually NO