Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stven Hawking SAYS SO!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Would Steven Hawking have the 'nads to go to Mecca during Their Pilgrimages and trot out that statement?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
      Many people get strength from their faith, so irrational, stupid... all those judgemental words seem, to me, to ignore the positives of faith.
      With respect, "irrational" isn't judgemental; it's a statement of fact. Yes, some people draw strength from their faith regardless of the fact that it's irrational by definition. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

      Belief can be divided into two broad categories: belief based on objective evidence (aka "facts") and belief without objective evidence (aka faith).

      Everything we "know" is based on some extent on faith; the faith that we exist and that our senses are reporting a reasonably accurate impression of reality.
      Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 09-04-2010, 04:11 PM.
      "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
      sigpic
      The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

      Comment


      • #33
        Here's a thought for those who challenge faith as silly outright -

        Quantum mechanics suggests that the observer determines the outcome of any experiment, simply by choosing beforehand which outcome he wants to see occur. Schrodinger's Cat is the famous case explaining it - is the cat alive or dead? It's neither until observed.

        It's (at least theoretically) possible that if everyone believed that God had ultimate control, that the universe would adapt itself to become beholden to the whims of a creator.

        The universe is a much more interesting place than you could possibly imagine.

        Comment


        • #34
          Faith is just that faith. It neither needs to be proved or disproved. It only needs to be believed. My faith is because I have chosen to believe. If you are concerned what others think maybe you should reflect own what you actually believe. Do you have faith because you believe in something great than yourself, or do you believe because of what others around you think?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by doughesson View Post
            Would Steven Hawking have the 'nads to go to Mecca during Their Pilgrimages and trot out that statement?
            Would that make his point less valid?
            I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
              Would that make his point less valid?
              Besides, infidels aren't allowed in Mecca.
              "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
              sigpic
              The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
                With respect, "irrational" isn't judgemental; it's a statement of fact. Yes, some people draw strength from their faith regardless of the fact that it's irrational by definition. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.
                We'll have to disagree on this point. What is rational to one person may not be rational to another.

                I don't think it's rational to jump out of an airplane with a parachute on for fun. Others think its just fine.
                I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                  We'll have to disagree on this point. What is rational to one person may not be rational to another.
                  I have to disagree with your disagreement. Rationality is a function of logic which follows a set pattern that doesn't vary with personal preference. "Faith" is irrational because it is not based on logical reasoning. If one were to base one's beliefs entirely on reason (aka rational thinking), one would be an agnostic atheist. Any deviation form that perspective is "irrational." That's just a matter of definition -- not judgement. Some beliefs operate in regions where rationality doesn't function; "faith."

                  I don't think it's rational to jump out of an airplane with a parachute on for fun. Others think its just fine.
                  Don't knock it until you've tried it. It's sure as hell not rational to run into burning buildings either but I'm not about to stop any time soon.
                  "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
                  sigpic
                  The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
                    I have to disagree with your disagreement. Rationality is a function of logic which follows a set pattern that doesn't vary with personal preference. "Faith" is irrational because it is not based on logical reasoning. If one were to base one's beliefs entirely on reason (aka rational thinking), one would be an agnostic atheist. Any deviation form that perspective is "irrational." That's just a matter of definition -- not judgement. Some beliefs operate in regions where rationality doesn't function; "faith."
                    By calling someone irrational, you are passing judgement upon them and their reasoning.

                    Also, a truly religious person would claim that there is evidence to support their faith.

                    Just like getting on a plane and trusting that it won't crash requires faith (unless you are personally doing the pre-flight checks, maintenance log verifications, and interviewing the pilots). Does it mean that we are irrational to fly in a plane?

                    In addition, you can only have faith that there was no jesus and he didn't rise from the dead. There is no evidence either way. So, it could be argued that it is irrational to not believe in it.

                    It's not black and white, like a lot of issues in our world.

                    Further: You or anyone can't prove that god does not exist. So you have a belief, just as a religious person does with no proof or evidence. So, the believer and the non-believer are both rational or both irrational.
                    Last edited by ChiefKN; 09-04-2010, 05:46 PM.
                    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                      By calling someone irrational, you are passing judgement upon them and their reasoning.
                      I beg to differ. The rules of logic are independent of personal opinion. Conclusions based on "faith" are, by definition, contrary to rationality. It's not judgement; it's just the meaning of the words.

                      Also, a truly religious person would claim that there is evidence to support their faith.
                      Where rationality is concerned, only objective evidence is valid.

                      Does it mean that we are irrational to fly in a plane?
                      One can fly on a plane based on rational judgement. Not that everyone bothers to understand or make rational analysis of the relative safety of flight. As there is no objective evidence for the existence of g_d(s) on which to base analyses, any such belief is inherently irrational.

                      There is no evidence either way.
                      Indeed, there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed outside of the pages of the Bible.

                      Further: You or anyone can't prove that god does not exist.
                      I think I stated as much several posts back.

                      So you have a belief, just as a religious person does with no proof or evidence.
                      Not at all. Without taking a stand either way; not believing that something exists (i.e. because of lack of evidence, for instance) is not the same as claiming that it does not exist.

                      So, the believer and the non-believer are both rational or both irrational.
                      False. You are overlooking the neutral position. It is irrational to believe that g_d(s) exist or that g_d(s) do not exist. It is entirely rational to neither believe that g_d(s) exist or that g_d(s) do not exist.
                      "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
                      sigpic
                      The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Indeed, there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed outside of the pages of the Bible.
                        There's no evidence that Julius Caesar existed outside of Roman scrolls, yet we don't question his existence.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                          There's no evidence that Julius Caesar existed outside of Roman scrolls, yet we don't question his existence.
                          False. The existence of Julius Ceasar is recorded in numerous independent contemporary documenatry sources. There's also the supporting physical evidence supplied by contemporary artwork and coins with Caesar's image...

                          Sorry, but Julius Caesar's existence is far better documented than Ieshua ben Ioseph's.
                          "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
                          sigpic
                          The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            What does that guy know?

                            He can't even talk.
                            Jason Knecht
                            Firefighter/EMT
                            Township Fire Dept., Inc.
                            Eau Claire, WI

                            IACOJ - Director of Cheese and Whine
                            http://www.cheddarvision.tv/
                            EAT CHEESE OR DIE!!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
                              I beg to differ. The rules of logic are independent of personal opinion. Conclusions based on "faith" are, by definition, contrary to rationality. It's not judgement; it's just the meaning of the words.

                              Where rationality is concerned, only objective evidence is valid.
                              Is the test now "objective evidence"?

                              As for the definition of faith, it's merely believing in something for which you have no proof, or an alternate definition is to merely believe in god. I see no requirement in the definition that it's an irrational belief or that faith requires a lack of logic.

                              There are many examples in science where there is a lack of "objective evidence" and yet we wouldn't consider their theories irrational. Why are we applying different standards to a belief for which there is no "proof".

                              Other comments from the believers is that logic is a limited man-made process being applied to something supernatural. This is especially problematic when we are discussing science that cannot be proven through any replicable experimentation (macro evolution), but is accepted as good logical scientific theory.

                              The mere fact that "logic" is not black and white blurs the test you are applying here.

                              One can fly on a plane based on rational judgement. Not that everyone bothers to understand or make rational analysis of the relative safety of flight. As there is no objective evidence for the existence of g_d(s) on which to base analyses, any such belief is inherently irrational.
                              There is no no objective evidence that the plane will make it safely to your destination, either. Therefore, you rely on faith.
                              I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                              "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                              "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                                There is no no objective evidence that the plane will make it safely to your destination, either. Therefore, you rely on faith.
                                But one has a reasonable belief that will happen based upon the history of the plane and the route taken.

                                The same can't be said for a supreme being that is not anthropomorphic.
                                I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X