Eden / The concept of Original Sin

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Jun 8 2005, 09:40 PM
It sucks, madam, that your church had to go and overstep the boundaries and start advocating political candidates, but maybe there was some good in it, it did open your eyes and make you see that maybe the truth you were seeking wasn't where you were looking.

Hey, I'm not invited for iced tea???

[post=318977]Quoted post[/post]​

GBO, in my earlier post, I suggested that you and I have philosophical discussion over cocktails; in the next sentence, I suggested the same to Mme, but substituted iced tea for the coctails. Just being egalitarian, or at least trying to be.

Oh, and to clarify a point I seem to have missed in previous my previous posts: I'm not just skeptical of the bible stories (for which there is no concrete "proof") I'm also skeptical of the gestalt of the evolutionists and "big-bangers", too. They have the artifacts, but I really have no way of knowing that they have interpreted correctly the significance of the bones and fossils that have been found. Both of the most vocal sides of the debate, IMHO, take their sketchy bits & pieces of "evidence" and jump to some pretty big conclusions, which they then label as "proven facts."

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

The best argument for evolution is the existence of super-bugs that are resistant to traditional antibiotics. If anyone here has taken a Biology lab at an accredited university, I'm sure they've seen the simple experiment where bacteria develop resistance to certain chemicals within a few generations.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

DC_DEEP, why do you think Creationist articles are never published (or even submitted by the writers themselves) in any scientific journals of any sort ever? The Creationists (read anti-evolutionists) don't even attempt to submit these articles to any scientific publications, and instead focus on lecturing to rooms full of Christian citizens during conventions and selling their books to them. If they really think they have a leg to stand on the scientific front, why do you think they focus their attention on driving their message home to the common folk of the Christian community instead of to the scientific community?

Articles are in scientific journals monthly about evolution. The same cannot be said about Creationism or even anti-evolution propaganda because that isn't the aim of it. The aim is to influence the Christians of the world, and that is so unscientific, it's laughable. Scientific research aimed at a certain group of people instead of the scientific community itself is most unscientific, and that's all creationism/anti-evolutionism does. It doesn't even attempt to be accepted by the scientific community. Creationism is a pseudo-science at best and anti-evolution arguments presented to the scientific community were thoroughly refuted decades ago.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper
Of course not. Satan was not a character of Sumerian/Babylonian mythology. But that doesn't mean that the Hebrews couldn't borrow the story and give it a distinctly Jewish interpretation complete with Hebrew symbolism. They did that to the Flood story, which was also borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Here's what Gesenius had to say about the Serpent:
The Hebrew people from ancient times have equated the serpent with the knowledge, especially occult knowledge. The creature had the power to prolong life, or extinguish life. It held the secret of rebirth. Of the several words that they used to refer to the serpent, one was seraph, a word identical in form to that order of angels closest to the throne of God. The Hebrews often identified the seraphim with serpents, and some Samaritan sculptures have been discovered that are in the form of serpents with six wings. In tradition, seraphim have three pairs of wings.

In later Shemitic legend, the serpent came to represent a being who invented evil occult knowledge, and that being was the same who became known as Satan. The mythology had Satan as having originally been the prince of the Seraphim before his fall by pride. Unquestionably the identification of the serpent with a fallen seraph was due to the Hebrew word that designated both. Rabbinic tales recount the serpent tempting the race of man with promises of occult secrets of eternal life. Whether these tales had their origin in the story of the fall of man in Genesis, or gave rise to the Biblical account is arguable. In either event, it cannot be doubted that the mention of a serpent that tempts those to reject Jehovah was meant to evoke the image of Satan or one of his emissaries. The stories were so common place that such identification was certain, and whatever word would be used to designate the serpent was synonymous with seraph and carried the connotations associated with it.

How is the serpent a Hebrew metaphor for Satan when the author of above text is using Christian definitions for Satan? for old school Jews, Satan is nothing more than one of a host of fallen angels and not God's "other" as Christianity has him, the warden of hell (as they have no hell), etc..

My interpretation is God has the serpent in the garden to make sure man eats of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to become moral beings above mere animals, and the whole tale is an allegory of man becoming self-aware by a divine hand.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick+Jun 9 2005, 08:33 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Jun 9 2005, 08:33 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>The best argument for evolution is the existence of super-bugs that are resistant to traditional antibiotics. If anyone here has taken a Biology lab at an accredited university, I&#39;m sure they&#39;ve seen the simple experiment where bacteria develop resistance to certain chemicals within a few generations.

[post=319122]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Dr. Dilznick@Jun 9 2005, 08:36 AM
DC_DEEP, why do you think Creationist articles are never published (or even submitted by the writers themselves) in any scientific journals of any sort ever? The Creationists (read anti-evolutionists) don&#39;t even attempt to submit these articles to any scientific publications, and instead focus on lecturing to rooms full of Christian citizens during conventions and selling their books to them. If they really think they have a leg to stand on the scientific front, why do you think they focus their attention on driving their message home to the common folk of the Christian community instead of to the scientific community?

Articles are in scientific journals monthly about evolution. The same cannot be said about Creationism or even anti-evolution propaganda because that isn&#39;t the aim of it. The aim is to influence the Christians of the world, and that is so unscientific, it&#39;s laughable. Scientific research aimed at a certain group of people instead of the scientific community itself is most unscientific, and that&#39;s all creationism/anti-evolutionism does. It doesn&#39;t even attempt to be accepted by the scientific community. Creationism is a pseudo-science at best and anti-evolution arguments presented to the scientific community were thoroughly refuted decades ago.

[post=319123]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]
Dr. D, you underestimate me. Yes, bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics. Humans can also develop resistance to some poisons, if given repeated, non-lethal doses. I&#39;m not sure that really qualifies as evolution. And I am not saying that any given species will not, over time, adapt to environmental changes. What I am saying is that assertions that all primates have a common ancestor is simply speculation based upon some similarities between different sets of bones. Speculation is not, in my opinion, fact, regardless of some observed similarities. I do have a grip on science and the scientific method. Otherwise, I would not have been able to make fairly good grades in college chemistry, college physics, organic chemistry, physical chemistry, general biology, and botany. By the way, I took physics, botany, and organic chemistry in the same semester. Not an easy feat, considering that I was also working about 36 hours per week to support myself.

As for the publishing of research and papers, I think you are once again presenting speculation as fact. Of course the creationists don&#39;t publish their "findings" in scientific journals - by the same token, the scientists don&#39;t generally submit theiir work to christian publications, do they? What seems obvious to me is not that one is more right than the other, but that they are simply submitting for publication to their own target audience.

I thoroughly understand the process of carbon dating; the part of that I don&#39;t totally buy into is the fact that over tens of thousands of years, can anyone prove to me that there have been no environmental factors that may have influenced the relative abundance of various isotopes present in the biosphere, or that the rate of decay has never, over those thousands of years, been influenced one direction or the other? Yes, finding fossils of 2 different species of plant or animal in the same strata proves that they coexisted. However, NOT finding them in the same strata does not mean they DID NOT coexist. The first is proof, the second is speculation. I am a scientist; flimsy science presented as fact irritates me more than non-science presented as fact, because people will believe that if it is a published scientific research paper, the conclusions must be fact. I know that is not always the case.

 

[Freddie53]

This is in response to the introduction in this thread of the term creation science.

Too many peple are missing some very important concepts.

One, religious beliefs are based on faith. Faith in believing that which is not seen but nevertheless believed.

Theories are scientific hypothesis of what scientists have potulated that may have happened. But they can&#39; be proved.

So we have the religious people who won&#39;t say this is what Christians beieve or this is what I believe. or I have faith that is is so. No they spout it off as "certain" truth that can&#39;t ever be proven.

Many in the science field spout theory as truth which is just as dangerous.

Neither religion or science can prove how the world was formed and the progression of events and the time line for these creation events to happen is strikingly similar. So as a devout Christian who believes that the Bible must be read as some factual, some allegory and myth and some parables, and as a person who studied science in both high schol and college: I believe both. But in religion, my beliefs are based on faith and in science my observations are based on theories subect to change as new scientific evidence is found and new theories are postulated. I tend to believe the present theories until another theory with more credibility is formulated and tested and presented with enough evidence to make the theory credible.

And believing both has folks in both camps ready to question strongly my beliefs.

Creation Science in its present form is not science.

I find it very interesting that the 7 day creation story parallels the order that scientist say was the order for the creatoin of the world. The Crop Story is a great story to show that God was creating. But to try to link it item by item with modern science is not necessary and not provable.

In comparative religions what each religion has as material about the origin of the world should be taught in social studies, not the science room. There is a place to explain faith. No religious belief should be presented by the teacher as fact. Stuidents may express religion as fact. It may even be revealed what the teacher probalby believes as students tell what house of faith the teacher attends. But "we believe" should never come out of the teacher&#39;s mouth. It should be The Jewish people believed. The Christians believed. The Muslims believed. The Hindus believe that... Some Native Americans believe that while other Native Americans believe......

Theories about the origin of the world should be taught in science classes with the students understanding what the word theory means. For students to not understand what the word theory means is to know that the basis of scientific discovery has not been learned.

In both the social studies classroom and the science room both subjects will be brought up by the students. Fine. Discuss away with the students leading the discussion.

But only test what is in the curriculum for that particular class and keep discussions on comparisons to a reasonable length of time considering what the rest of the curriculum for that class covers for that course. And don&#39;t call evolution - religion and creation - science. It does a disservice to both.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DC_DEEP)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dr. Dilznick
The best argument for evolution is the existence of super-bugs that are resistant to traditional antibiotics. If anyone here has taken a Biology lab at an accredited university, I&#39;m sure they&#39;ve seen the simple experiment where bacteria develop resistance to certain chemicals within a few generations.

Yes, bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics. Humans can also develop resistance to some poisons, if given repeated, non-lethal doses. I&#39;m not sure that really qualifies as evolution.
[/b][/quote]
It&#39;s the offspring of the bacteria that develop the resistance. This is why we have a new problem of super bugs.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@Jun 9 2005, 03:04 PM
Yes, bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics. Humans can also develop resistance to some poisons, if given repeated, non-lethal doses. I&#39;m not sure that really qualifies as evolution.

[post=319135]Quoted post[/post]​

the difference is that bacteria go through hundreds of generations every hour, and so obviously mutate far more quickly - an individual organism&#39;s immune system already includes some built-in ability to adapt, but only an actual mutation will be passed onto its offspring. individual bacteria did not become resistant to certain antibiotics - over millions of generations a mutation arose that happened to be immune to them, and obviously that mutation would be highly successful in an environment where those antibiotics were commonly used (e.g. the human body).

 

[GottaBigOne]

That evolution occurrs is a fact, how it happens is a theory.


Freddie: So "faith" as you define it is believing in things not seen. So then it is impossible by your definition to have "faith" in anything that is seen, so then one is only capable to have faith in the unseen, the unprovable. Whats the good in that? Seems like only a guess to me, and since its unseen, an uneducated one at that. What&#39;s the difference between having faith in Leprechauns and having faith in god? Both are equally as likely as the other to exist, what is the REASON for one to pick either or both of them? Choice? Are we to just flip a coin to decide which to believe? And if there is a reason to choose either than its not in the realm of faith, which is believing without evidence, without "seeing".

There are so many people who keep saying that "there are so many things that we pathetic humans cannot understand, or don&#39;t know, or don&#39;t see." Its the unseen they pay tribute to, the unknown that they worship. What is the unknown? Ignorance. What is the unseen? Blindness. What about what we do know, what we do see, what we do understand. Just because we don&#39;t know everything doesn&#39;t mean we don&#39;t know anything. Excluding solopsists, we know we exist, we know the universe exists, we know the earth, moon planets, sun, and stars exist. We know how light interacts with our eyes to let us "see". We know how to blow things up using the energy of the atom, we understand the basic forms of existence. We know how to love, we know how to hate, we know how to cry. We know that we laugh, and animals don&#39;t. We know that humor exists, and disgust, and admiration. We am therefore we think, and in thinking, we know a hell of a lot.

 

[jonb]

Yes, finding fossils of 2 different species of plant or animal in the same strata proves that they coexisted. However, NOT finding them in the same strata does not mean they DID NOT coexist.

Yes, we&#39;re familiar with Lazarus taxa (ones where their numbers are so small they seem to reappear). We&#39;re also familiar with Elvis taxa (ones which do go extinct but something comes along which looks a lot like it; in other words, dead but with a lot of impersonators). And with not-quite-alive-yet taxa. I guess the person most blamed for stuff which started before he was even alive would be Darwin.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Jun 9 2005, 06:42 PM
That evolution occurrs is a fact, how it happens is a theory.


Freddie: So "faith" as you define it is believing in things not seen. So then it is impossible by your definition to have "faith" in anything that is seen, so then one is only capable to have faith in the unseen, the unprovable. Whats the good in that? Seems like only a guess to me, and since its unseen, an uneducated one at that. What&#39;s the difference between having faith in Leprechauns and having faith in god? Both are equally as likely as the other to exist, what is the REASON for one to pick either or both of them? Choice? Are we to just flip a coin to decide which to believe? And if there is a reason to choose either than its not in the realm of faith, which is believing without evidence, without "seeing".

There are so many people who keep saying that "there are so many things that we pathetic humans cannot understand, or don&#39;t know, or don&#39;t see." Its the unseen they pay tribute to, the unknown that they worship. What is the unknown? Ignorance. What is the unseen? Blindness. What about what we do know, what we do see, what we do understand. Just because we don&#39;t know everything doesn&#39;t mean we don&#39;t know anything. Excluding solopsists, we know we exist, we know the universe exists, we know the earth, moon planets, sun, and stars exist. We know how light interacts with our eyes to let us "see". We know how to blow things up using the energy of the atom, we understand the basic forms of existence. We know how to love, we know how to hate, we know how to cry. We know that we laugh, and animals don&#39;t. We know that humor exists, and disgust, and admiration. We am therefore we think, and in thinking, we know a hell of a lot.

[post=319190]Quoted post[/post]​

This is exactly the kind of logic argument I dislike. You make assumptions that are based on mathematical equasions that don&#39;t necessarily hold true to language and it turns into a big waste of time. You don&#39;t have to invert every sentence a person says, nor can you often with any accuracy. YOU said "faith" must be exclusively in things unseen. Freddie just said that his "faith" in terms of religion, was in something unseen that he accepted. That in no way implies that things seen must not be worthy of faith, and I really think you know better. You are too good at arguing details, but at this point, I must ask you- why? It doesn&#39;t pass the "reasonble man" test. There is nothing to be gained by dissecting someone&#39;s simple sentences to put things there that you KNOW were not intended.

 

[jay_too]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Jun 9 2005, 06:42 PM
That evolution occurrs is a fact, how it happens is a theory.

[post=319190]Quoted post[/post]​

Well said. Moreover, observations tend to confirm the validity of the theory.

jay

 

[GottaBigOne]

Originally posted by madame_zora+Jun 10 2005, 01:47 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Jun 10 2005, 01:47 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-GottaBigOne@Jun 9 2005, 06:42 PM
That evolution occurrs is a fact, how it happens is a theory.


Freddie: So "faith" as you define it is believing in things not seen. So then it is impossible by your definition to have "faith" in anything that is seen, so then one is only capable to have faith in the unseen, the unprovable. Whats the good in that? Seems like only a guess to me, and since its unseen, an uneducated one at that. What&#39;s the difference between having faith in Leprechauns and having faith in god? Both are equally as likely as the other to exist, what is the REASON for one to pick either or both of them? Choice? Are we to just flip a coin to decide which to believe? And if there is a reason to choose either than its not in the realm of faith, which is believing without evidence, without "seeing".

There are so many people who keep saying that "there are so many things that we pathetic humans cannot understand, or don&#39;t know, or don&#39;t see." Its the unseen they pay tribute to, the unknown that they worship. What is the unknown? Ignorance. What is the unseen? Blindness. What about what we do know, what we do see, what we do understand. Just because we don&#39;t know everything doesn&#39;t mean we don&#39;t know anything. Excluding solopsists, we know we exist, we know the universe exists, we know the earth, moon planets, sun, and stars exist. We know how light interacts with our eyes to let us "see". We know how to blow things up using the energy of the atom, we understand the basic forms of existence. We know how to love, we know how to hate, we know how to cry. We know that we laugh, and animals don&#39;t. We know that humor exists, and disgust, and admiration. We am therefore we think, and in thinking, we know a hell of a lot.

[post=319190]Quoted post[/post]​

This is exactly the kind of logic argument I dislike. You make assumptions that are based on mathematical equasions that don&#39;t necessarily hold true to language and it turns into a big waste of time. You don&#39;t have to invert every sentence a person says, nor can you often with any accuracy. YOU said "faith" must be exclusively in things unseen. Freddie just said that his "faith" in terms of religion, was in something unseen that he accepted. That in no way implies that things seen must not be worthy of faith, and I really think you know better. You are too good at arguing details, but at this point, I must ask you- why? It doesn&#39;t pass the "reasonble man" test. There is nothing to be gained by dissecting someone&#39;s simple sentences to put things there that you KNOW were not intended.

[post=319314]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

How can you believe something to exist on faith when you see it with your own eyes? To me thats knowledge, not faith. Faith is not needed if you have direct knowledge of something, it is needed when you don&#39;t. Tell me where I&#39;m wrong.

And to clarify, since you say that I&#39;m not taking language into account, the type of "faith" freddie was talking about was not the type of "faith" usually equated with trust, as in: "I have faith in my girlfriend that she will show up for the orgy tonight." He was talking about believing despite the lack of evidence, having faith in the existence of God even though it is not provable, or even demonstrable. Therefore, in that sense, it is impossible to have faith regarding the existence in something you have evidence of. Would it make sense if I said: "I have faith in the existence of the sun."? I don&#39;t need faith, all I need is to look up at around 12:00 noon.

 

[madame_zora]

GBO, I&#39;m definitely not saying you&#39;re wrong&#33; I&#39;m saying this is nitpicking semantics, unless I misunderstand. If I am standing on a log bridge, I have faith that it will hold as I cross. I may have knowledge that the brigde has stood for some time, I may have knowledge to some extent on how bridges are consrtucted. Further, I may know something about the strengths of different kinds of wood and something about the time period of when it was built, but none of these things insure me that I will pass across safely, for that I have faith. Sometimes these things run so closely it&#39;s hard to tell the difference of where one ends and the other beings, and you wear me out, but I thank you for the exercise.

If you insist on defining faith as only being possible for things unseen, which cannot be proven, I guess I&#39;d have to agree. My point is, isn&#39;t that overstating the obvious? It is only things unknown that would REQUIRE faith, right? If you could see them or know them, your knowledge would prevail, but should I then never cross on a wooden bridge because I had to use faith? Faith is what we use every day in every minute detail to connect the dots between what we know and what we do not, without it we could accomplish little, including the drive to learn. I must take a few things on faith to find it interesting to have dialogue about such matters, and I do. By now, my experience has shown be that there is a good probablility that I and perhaps others will walk away from this discourse with a broadened view, but the first few times I could only place my trust in the belief that the intelligent minds of the people here would benefit each other in some practical way. That was faith, that I would be accepted, listened to, engaged in conversation, encouraged to grow.

So if someone calls "the set of things I don&#39;t understand" God, and someone else calls it "science" and someone else calls it "search", it is still the same dilemma. We all search for answers in different ways.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Madam, this is definately a misunderstanding in semantics. The type of faith you are talking about in regards to the bridge is probably closer to the type of faith that is related to trust, only that in your case you are trusting your prior knowledge of bridges or your eyes in being able to clearly discern whether or not the bridge looks like it will hold up or fall, this is not the same as faith in the existence of an unprovable being.
Yes, I was overstating the obvious, but to make a point. My point was that in some cases faith is worthless, because as it is applied to the existence of god it accomplishes nothing. It brings us no closer to truth. It is at best a guess, and at worst wishful thinking. So posing an psuedo-argument for the existence of god as saying its a matter of faith is a waste of time. No matter how much faith someone has that Leprechauns exist, it won&#39;t mean that they actually do. Faith is an assumption in most cases, and most times it is necessary and beneficial, in the case of god, or spirituality, or souls, or angels, or satan, it is worthless.



You said: So if someone calls "the set of things I don&#39;t understand" God, and someone else calls it "science" and someone else calls it "search", it is still the same dilemma. We all search for answers in different ways.

Yes, we all search for answers, but the only way to get reliable answers is to use reason. We can get all the answers we want from a flip of the coin, but the answers would not be reliable, the only way we could find out the validity of those answers would be to use reason. So my question is: Why even use faith, as it is defined in religious discussions, at all? Why use faith as a substitute for reason, when reason is the only way to obtain certainty or semi-certainty.

Another thing: When someone says "I have faith that gods exist" they are essentially saying: "I trust that gods exist" Trust is acceptable in some cases, but it also can be viewed as gullibilty when there is absolutely no reason to do so.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Madam, this should clear things up, I hope.


Faith and reason

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Jun 9 2005, 01:42 PM
That evolution occurrs is a fact, how it happens is a theory.


Freddie: So "faith" as you define it is believing in things not seen. So then it is impossible by your definition to have "faith" in anything that is seen, so then one is only capable to have faith in the unseen, the unprovable. Whats the good in that? Seems like only a guess to me, and since its unseen, an uneducated one at that. What&#39;s the difference between having faith in Leprechauns and having faith in god? Both are equally as likely as the other to exist, what is the REASON for one to pick either or both of them? Choice? Are we to just flip a coin to decide which to believe? And if there is a reason to choose either than its not in the realm of faith, which is believing without evidence, without "seeing".

There are so many people who keep saying that "there are so many things that we pathetic humans cannot understand, or don&#39;t know, or don&#39;t see." Its the unseen they pay tribute to, the unknown that they worship. What is the unknown? Ignorance. What is the unseen? Blindness. What about what we do know, what we do see, what we do understand. Just because we don&#39;t know everything doesn&#39;t mean we don&#39;t know anything. Excluding solopsists, we know we exist, we know the universe exists, we know the earth, moon planets, sun, and stars exist. We know how light interacts with our eyes to let us "see". We know how to blow things up using the energy of the atom, we understand the basic forms of existence. We know how to love, we know how to hate, we know how to cry. We know that we laugh, and animals don&#39;t. We know that humor exists, and disgust, and admiration. We am therefore we think, and in thinking, we know a hell of a lot.

[post=319190]Quoted post[/post]​

GBO,

I didn&#39;t mean to imply that it had to be unseen to be faith. True most religions follow that test. You can&#39;t see God nor can I. I believe I have felt God&#39;s presence. I have faith in God.

However, Jana&#39;s story of the bridge is very true in terms of defining faith. I use this anology for that.

Situation: There is a chair sitting in the room and the question is asked do you think that this chair will hold you up. And you answer of course I believe it will hold me up. Then the question is asked will you sit in it to prove you believe or have faith that it will hold you up. If the answer is No, I won&#39;t sit in it under any circumstances. Then that could be conscrued as lack of faith in the chair. Now I know that might other reasons why a person didn&#39;t sit in the chair. But this is only an analogy. So the point is that the person must sit in the chair to DEMONSTRATE that they have faith that the chair will hold them up. In this case the emphasis is on demonstrating faith, not having the faith. But I think it explains it well. Of course one can see the chair and judge whether one thinks the chair is substantial enough to hold them up. But that is still faith.

In my earlier posts I was refering to the Biblical application as it refers to God. Of course if one does not believe in God, then one would not have faith in God either.

And I could have faith in an old car to start and run long enough to get me to downtown. That doesn&#39;t mean the car will start much less operate long enough to get me to town. Faith is what you have belief in enough to "put your money where your mouth is" as the old saying goes. Faith in itself is neither true or false. It depends on what you have faith in. And the question of whether you were correct or not is not always immediately known. Taking Vitaman E to prevent brain and heart dissease. Not till life is over will I know if taking it is going to prevent either. And I will never know for sure if the Vitaman E helped slow down the aging process or not. I have nothing to compare it with. I can&#39;t live two lives one with the Vitaman and the other without it. So I act on what I believe and go on.

Take fundie religion. Regardless is if the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or any other religoin, if it is fundie then there is a hell waiting for the non believers. And most likely a heaven for the believers. Problem is in this life there is no proof in terms of scientific proof. It is a matter of faith, not theory. It is faith or what you believe strongly enough to act on that you believe and put your "money on the line."

GBO,

You are putting your "money on the line" that fundie land is an illusion of the fundies. In a sense I am too. While you may look at me as a religious person, the fundies will say my religion is false because it isn&#39;t exactly like theirs. So if fundies are really correct. Don&#39;t worry. I will be joining you in hell. But I have faith that they are wrong. Apparently you have enough faith to believe they are wrong too. It is just that you also have faith that I am wrong as well. Of course if I am right you won&#39;t have to worry about hell.

So in conclusion, while my earlier definition is correct in terms of the Biblical text I was refering to, faith is a belief in something that you believe enough that you would be willing to act on it if you wanted too. As opposed to me wanting to bungie jump at my age. I don&#39;t have the faith that I can do it and not hurt myself. I don&#39;t have the faith in myself. I have faith that I can drive to the coast. I just don&#39;t wish to do so right now.

I hope this clarifies what I define faith to be. I don&#39;t claim though to be the resident expert on vocabulary terms.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Freddie: I do understand what you meant when you used the word faith. As you said it is not a way to know if you are right or wrong, and that was my point. I misunderstood your motivations. I thought you were posing your faith as an argument, apparently you were not, only defending your belief. This is a point that Jana has made numerous times, loosely quoted "You can believe all you want, just don&#39;t expect me to agree with you just because you believe it strongly."

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by Freddie53
Theories are scientific hypothesis of what scientists have potulated that may have happened. But they can&#39; be proved.

LOL

And don&#39;t call evolution science.

Come again? I&#39;m about to head off to the gym but let me drop a quick reply before I go and I&#39;ll probably explain further when I come back if it is necessary.

Evolution is a fact, and that&#39;s, simply put, the idea all current forms of life came from past forms of life that were different. The Theory of Evolution refers to the mechanisms involved in how this fact probably occurs on a grand scale (i.e. Natural Selection or other). It&#39;s as much fact as the Law of Gravity is fact. Basically all it comes down to is:


Phenomenon of Gravity = observed fact
Phenomenon of Evolution = observed fact

Einstein&#39;s Gravitational theory = theory universally accepted, with huge explanatory force, an explanatory force which has not been surpassed but someday will be.

Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection = theory universally accepted, with huge explanatory force, an explanatory force which has not been surpassed but someday will be.


And to expound somewhat further,
Observable phenomena (fact) of Gravity: You drop a pen, it falls.
Observable phenomena (fact) of Evolution: Allele frequencies in a population change across generations.

Einstein&#39;s theory explains how this fact of gravity occurs. Darwin&#39;s theory explains how this fact of evolution occurs.

And BTW, Evolution starts from the premise that life is already existing. Before that requires the theory of abiogenesis. So, Evolution isn&#39;t an attempt to explain the ultimate origins of life, or rather, specifically—life from non-life.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Jun 10 2005, 01:16 AM
This is a point that Jana has made numerous times, loosely quoted "You can believe all you want, just don&#39;t expect me to agree with you just because you believe it strongly."

[post=319378]Quoted post[/post]​

<pre-emptive caveat: if this post does not apply to you, please do not take offense>
GBO and Jana, this is the part of it that just completely drives me mad. Most of the religious faithful, (and unfortunately it usually comes from their leadership) seem to forget this simple etiquette. The more strongly they believe it, the more adamantly they insist that I not only agree, but follow. Best case in point - the religious fanatics who believe homosexuality is wrong, is a sin, so they insist that NO ONE should do it. My view (if I happened to be straight and believed gay sex was a sin) would be, "Ok, I think it is wrong. Therefore, I won&#39;t do it. But as long as you harm no others, you may do as you wish."

Hmm, I just had a flash and pinpointed the exact moment I changed all my thoughts and beliefs in god and religion. It was when I was reading the book of Job. I was completely horrified and dumbfounded that this book was supposed to inspire Jews and Christians, and strengthen their faith. Supposedly the story tells that if you can maintain your faith through trials and tribulations, then your faith will be stronger and you will be rewarded. To me, it represented a god who was so cold and cruel and evil that he would stand by and allow these horrible things to continue over many years to one of his most faithful followers - yeah, right, in the end god gave Job "replacement" wife and children. I, for one, cannot believe in a god that thinks he can kill off my beloved children, then replace them, and everything is just fine and dandy. Then I came to the realization that if I could not accept this one segment of the story, I could not accept any of the story. So I just do not believe. Maybe it is just a cop-out, but I do think that perhaps for those who do believe, heaven does exist. For me, it does not.