ontwo i think ray addressed this your right just as sure as you know your wife is real, believers know the same about god, the faith comes with the things we havenot seen, future promises as an example. and your right the religous defination of faith is not always the same in a general sense
evolution vs God mr comfort
by unstopableravens 73 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
jgnat
Part of the problem is the English language. Faith has multiple definitions and you are using the word to fit two different realms.
Trusting in the result of experiment is not the same in trusting in the Christian dogma.
The physicist I heard talking about the Higgs-Boson discovery said he and his colleagues were hoping to find more particles with similar characteristics as the Higgs-Boson. So far they haven't. If there is JUST the Higgs-Boson, it has significant implications on how the universe is put together. The physicists cannot afford to set up PRO Higgs camps and ANTI Higgs camps. They must, by scientific discovery, allow the evidence to speak to them.
Christian dogma, by comparison, is a set of beliefs that a community of people agree to. In theory, it is flexible and is easily changed. There's no saying that the Southern Baptists are RIGHT for instance, and the Quakers are WRONG. It's simply different groups with different faith statements.
-
cofty
believers know the same about god
Keep telling yourself that.
-
jgnat
A True Scientist would poke his wife with a pin before he declares her real.
-
unstopableravens
jgnat: so what do you call belief in those things(in ur second to last post) the things that are in a slow prosses?
-
adamah
Cofty said-
The evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly compelling. No faith required. You know nothing about the evidence for evolution so you don't get an opinion.
(Well, USR IS entitled to an opinion, as we all are, but no one has to respect him for holding it, or has to find his opinion compelling....)
But there, in a nutshell, explains what Xians like Comfort and Cameron are doing by trying to place their 'faith' in creation on equal footing with 'conviction' in evolution: they're in essence projecting a statement about THEMSELVES, since, ignorant of the evidence supporting evolution (and unwilling to even examine it), accepting a belief in evolution WOULD be a matter of faith for them, alone! It's classic projection, but it's just not so, jumping back to Cofty's "willful ignorance is a choice" saying.
The argument above based on the "faith is a synonym for conviction" fallacy is actually resting on an 'appeal to personal incredulity', where in essence they're telling us even more about themselves, saying, "Well I cannot understand it, and therefore no one ELSE could possibly understand it, either". It's actually a very arrogant claim to make (the arrogance of ignorance), and no amount of prostrating before God makes it any less arrogant.
Adam
-
OnTheWayOut
Despite my saying that they aren't the same, you proceed to make them the same:
ontwo i think ray addressed this your right just as sure as you know your wife is real, believers know the same about god,
That is exactly what I addressed. It is not the same to have faith in a person, based on their track record, that they will be loyal or trustworthy or come through, as it is to have faith that God exists. It doesn't matter that they are just as sure of their faith as I am that my wife exists. It's still mixing two different kinds of "faith," and faith in God is reliant on lack of evidence.
The only reason I say that someone cannot see this is that they think personal "revelations" of types like Tammy's are genuine evidence. Search for Amazing Randi's Million Dollar challenge to see that nobody has every actually provided real evidence under tests for their ability to talk to or hear from God or any spirit realm.
-
unstopableravens
as far a southern baptist vs quakers, i personally believe the unchanging truth is in the bible, as far a southern baptist they are not were my faith is, thou i believe as a group they teach the truth, however some have strayed in some areas, so i cant have faith in everything they teach. but yet again thatsa different way to use the word faith.
-
zound
Hey Unstop, I'm glad you're beginning to look into evolution at least - try not to limit yourself to a one sided perspective though, you've seen Ray Comforts video now, maybe go to Ken Ham's Creation museum for another creationists perspective, then how about looking at a documentary on Evolution to get a balanced view on the topic?
Also looking at virtually any interviews with Ray Comfort show that he hasn't bothered to even learn the basics of evolution before making multiple videos debunking it. If you want to debunk something - you should first understand it. Ray Comfort doesn't understand (personally I think he's just playing dumb) even the most basic basic basic aspects - yet presumes to 'teach' others about evolution.
Good luck with your research.
-
jgnat
Unstopable: so what do you call belief in those things(in ur second to last post) the things that are in a slow prosses (sic)?
Throw out the words faith and belief when it comes to evidence and science. All these words do is muddy the waters. It's a false equivalence.
Let's call it reliance on the accuracy of the instruments, the calculations. For things that are too long, too small, or too far, we use calculations and instruments to learn more about them.
I find it interesting that I gave you two examples of Christian dogma, fairly apart from each other but relying on a few similar tenets, and you immediately judge them against your own dogma. Science does not and cannot work that way. We wouldn't be able to build ray-ban sunglasses if we had different "camps" of scientists, holding different dogma about how refraction works. Refraction works in a very consistent, observable way. So we can build refraction lenses.