Print

[MonroeMonkey]

did you cut and paste - or - did you, and those you are appealing to contact those who discovered the whales and refute their conclusions in an open forum?

After reading the rebuttal I did copy and paste a short section, for I was not familiar with this exact case. I have researched polystrate fossilized trees, etc., but I hadn't heard of this exact case of the whale.

But thanks, this gave me a simple knowledge of the so-called polystrate whale.

[ducksoup]

And Ducksoup took me out of context. Have I not discussed the benefits of having faith in reasonable things backed by reality?

You're committing an Equivocation Fallacy here.

Which fallacy is it that uses only one portion of a definition and excludes the rest for your point.  I based my comment on your post asserting that you disprove faith when you DO argue religion and NOT faith.  I cannot argue that you have faith in concrete things as you just said.  However, that is a distortion of the word FOR YOUR MEANING and not that of the topic or my meaning, which was clear.  You have not and cannot argue and prove that faith and belief in God is false.  You can argue a Bible or science, but that is not in any way proving that faith and belief is a falsehood.  You argue against a religion, not faith and belief.  It is very easy to attack any religion and makes points.  It is not so easy to disprove someones faith and belief.

I can argue that your science religion is false.  It is hard to believe that the fastest thing is the speed of light.  I think it will be proved that something else is. At one time they thought sound was fastest, before that maybe they thought the horse was I don't know.  Men are puny and think that they know all the answers, until a new one comes along. 

I believe that God made all those rules of science to make the world work.  Even the ones you don't know about yet. 

Anyway, if you want to argue logic, use it.  Don't use half a meaning inappropriately to score some points when you will just lose any credibility you have.

[MonroeMonkey]

Anyway, if you want to argue logic, use it.  Don't use half a meaning inappropriately to score some points when you will just lose any credibility you have.

That is some black and white thinking, with a subtle false dilemma. And you're the one attempting to use an equivocation fallacy here.

Let's define faith. Here's the dictionary's definition.

faith

noun

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.

When I make the argument of:

Genesis 1

And God called the dry land Earth... So the evening and the morning were the third day.

Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


God made the Earth before the Sun and stars?

You can't have a planet without a sun. The mass of a sun warps down space time, like a heavy bowling ball in the center of a trampoline. In this curvature there are grooves in which space debris from past supernovas (the explosion of dying sun) accumulate to make planets.

Suns come into being by massive hydrogen clouds collapsing and becoming extremely hot, which fuse together hydrogen atoms into helium, then other elements, until you get to iron. Once the sun's core is iron and cannot fuse anymore it becomes unstable and explodes, creating the elements of the universe. This space debris cools into meteorites, etc.

In these grooves, created by a sun's mass, space debris clashes together with great force and becomes molten and accumulates, until you have nice round planets that can later cool and harden. Other planets are gases accumulating in a space groove.

So, yeah, you can NOT have planets without a sun. Also, it can take millions or years for the light of some stars to reach Earth. When you view the stars at night, you're viewing ages long past. But the Bible says those stars were created a day after Earth?

Am I not using Science to void the FAITH, by its very definition, of people on that point? It appears YOU are trying to redefine the word according to your own needs and taking it OUT OF CONTEXT. It's the logical fallacy called Equivocation Fallacy.

Also, I've made the point that I don't think all faiths are unreasonable or stupid, as they can be reasonably explained, and how they are backed by science and reason.

[ducksoup]

That is some black and white thinking, with a subtle false dilemma. And you're the one attempting to use an equivocation fallacy here.

Let's define faith. Here's the dictionary's definition.


When I make the argument of:

Am I not using Science to void the FAITH, by its very definition, of people on that point? It appears YOU are trying to redefine the word according to your own needs and taking it OUT OF CONTEXT. It's the logical fallacy called Equivocation Fallacy.

Also, I've made the point that I don't think all faiths are unreasonable or stupid, as they can be reasonably explained, and how they are backed by science and reason.

Again, you try to distort to represent that only one meaning is available instead of the one I clearly meant.  Or maybe you can’t comprehend that last meaning and write it off as nonexistent. 

belief that is not based on proof:
and
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion

The last part of the last one is all you base your claims on.  Belief in the doctrines or teachings of RELIGION.  You skip over belief in God, and Belief that is not based on proof, and use only the last chunk.  Notice it does not say Belief in God AND in the doctrine or ...

So, what is it called when you make the straw claim that you don’t think that ALL religions are unreasonable or stupid?  I know that fits one don’t you?

Again, simple and clear, just for you.  You critique the Bible, you tear down people, but you do not tear down the wall of faith and belief.  Actually, you have not tried as far as I can see.  Again I go back to your post saying you destroy faith with your arguments when you only argue about the doctrines or teachings and NOT about faith.

[MonroeMonkey]

Again, you try to distort to represent that only one meaning is available instead of the one I clearly meant.  Or maybe you can’t comprehend that last meaning and write it off as nonexistent. 

belief that is not based on proof:
and
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion

The last part of the last one is all you base your claims on.  Belief in the doctrines or teachings of RELIGION.  You skip over belief in God, and Belief that is not based on proof, and use only the last chunk.  Notice it does not say Belief in God AND in the doctrine or ...

So, what is it called when you make the straw claim that you don’t think that ALL religions are unreasonable or stupid?  I know that fits one don’t you?

Again, simple and clear, just for you.  You critique the Bible, you tear down people, but you do not tear down the wall of faith and belief.  Actually, you have not tried as far as I can see.  Again I go back to your post saying you destroy faith with your arguments when you only argue about the doctrines or teachings and NOT about faith.

The comprehension problem is on your end. Your argument is incoherent.

When I make a claim against faith in a 6,000 year old Earth, that is NOT making a claim against the faith that all things have one fundamental substance. Take me in context, and don't tell me what I'm doing when I'm not.

When I made the argument, such as I did in the topic *Universe Without Thoughtful Design*, I pointed out how faith in thoughtful design may be unneeded, according to arguments using John Conway's "Life". Point was, why subscribe to a thoughtful designer when it's shown HIGHLY complex systems can arise without the need of a designer, and such systems appear to have design and appear to be driven by purpose, according to our minds that often commit the anthropomorphic fallacy. I employed Occam's Razor.

Context! By taking me out of context YOU are committing the Equivocation fallacy.

[MonroeMonkey]

And thanks.  You answered my question by not answering it.

Logical fallacy of Non Sequitur.

Does not logically follow.

[Frenchfry]

Don't let the gang get to you Xerxes.

To be honest....much of the subject matter you cover is over my head....but I still enjoy reading your contributions.

It's a shame some people prefer the low road....but I've watched you weather the attacks many times before...I guess it's just the nature of the MT clique.

And to those that enjoy marginalizing others....please remember that everybody is entitled to their opinion.

Okay back to your regularly scheduled programming.   

[ducksoup]

The comprehension problem is on your end. Your argument is incoherent.

When I make a claim against faith in a 6,000 year old Earth, that is NOT making a claim against the faith that all things have one fundamental substance. Take me in context, and don't tell me what I'm doing when I'm not.

When I made the argument, such as I did in the topic *Universe Without Thoughtful Design*, I pointed out how faith in thoughtful design may be unneeded, according to arguments using John Conway's "Life". Point was, why subscribe to a thoughtful designer when it's shown HIGHLY complex systems can arise without the need of a designer, and such systems appear to have design and appear to be driven by purpose, according to our minds that often commit the anthropomorphic fallacy. I employed Occam's Razor.

Context! By taking me out of context YOU are committing the Equivocation fallacy.

I see.. You cannot understand what I am saying and instead of asking for clarification you instead insult.  Which logical fallacy is that?

I have not said the Earth is 6000 years old.  I did not say humankind is 6000 years old.  Some RELIGIOUS people have added supposed ages and come to that amt.  Again, you take the section of meaning of “faith” as belief in a doctrine or teachings NOT belief in what cannot be proved, or faith in a God.  I am NOT talking about any of your supposed proofs that are aimed at the Bible or interpretations of it. 

Okay, so in another topic you showed that faith “may not be needed” according to or against some dude named Conway.  Again that is arguing about what some dude said or ascribes to. 

Even the claim that all of the systems COULD have all happened by chance is still debating doctrine and teaching not faith.  See, you use it to reinforce your idea that there is no god and everything happened by chance or trial and error maybe.  It does not preclude ME from having faith and belief that God set those systems in place.  It does not eliminate what I believe, but can be seen as a way that YOU have to make sense of the world.

As for your “CONTEXT!”

Huh? I guess examples of reality can scare people. Nature can be scary as hell.

If people read the arguments I'm presenting it could take root in time. It took me awhile of hearing good arguments against faith before they set in and choked out the weak roots of the religious brainwashing of a child.

Again, you say your arguments against ‘faith”  That is your words your context.  Read it and you see what I am saying.  You are choking out “the weak roots of the religious brainwashing”.  That sir is DOCTRINE AND TEACHING not faith.  You cannot be erasing faith as it is not provable so also not disprovable.  So, clearly you must use DOCTRINE AND TEACHING, while ignoring the rest of the definition of faith as believe in what cannot be proved, or faith in a God.  Even “religious brainwashing” cannot create real “faith” but rather just a brainwashed follower.  If that is what you think you are doing then I guess you cannot actually understand faith.  If you cannot then there is no need to continue.  I had assumed (possibly incorrectly) that since you say you once were a Christian that you once had faith.  It seems that may not be the case.

Before once again saying that I am taking you out of context, try and see what I said and not just the drive to “win” at any cost.

[MonroeMonkey]

I see.. You cannot understand what I am saying and instead of asking for clarification you instead insult.  Which logical fallacy is that?

Perhaps the one you used, in saying,  "Or maybe you can’t comprehend that..."

But really that was no fallacy, as there was an argument presented to point out why that statement was made.

I have not said the Earth is 6000 years old.  I did not say humankind is 6000 years old.  Some RELIGIOUS people have added supposed ages and come to that amt.  Again, you take the section of meaning of “faith” as belief in a doctrine or teachings NOT belief in what cannot be proved, or faith in a God.  I am NOT talking about any of your supposed proofs that are aimed at the Bible or interpretations of it. 

Okay, so in another topic you showed that faith “may not be needed” according to or against some dude named Conway.  Again that is arguing about what some dude said or ascribes to. 

Even the claim that all of the systems COULD have all happened by chance is still debating doctrine and teaching not faith.  See, you use it to reinforce your idea that there is no god and everything happened by chance or trial and error maybe.  It does not preclude ME from having faith and belief that God set those systems in place.  It does not eliminate what I believe, but can be seen as a way that YOU have to make sense of the world.

As for your “CONTEXT!”

Again, you say your arguments against ‘faith”  That is your words your context.  Read it and you see what I am saying.  You are choking out “the weak roots of the religious brainwashing”.  That sir is DOCTRINE AND TEACHING not faith.  You cannot be erasing faith as it is not provable so also not disprovable.  So, clearly you must use DOCTRINE AND TEACHING, while ignoring the rest of the definition of faith as believe in what cannot be proved, or faith in a God.  Even “religious brainwashing” cannot create real “faith” but rather just a brainwashed follower.  If that is what you think you are doing then I guess you cannot actually understand faith.  If you cannot then there is no need to continue.  I had assumed (possibly incorrectly) that since you say you once were a Christian that you once had faith.  It seems that may not be the case.

Before once again saying that I am taking you out of context, try and see what I said and not just the drive to “win” at any cost.

Ah, I see the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

"I've come to lose faith," said one.
"Then you never had TRUE Faith," said the one committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

"I've set out to make people question their faith in god," said one.
"You can't upset TRUE faith, or it wasn't really faith in god," said the one committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy.


Again, my use of the word faith is used in relation to a faith, or trusting, in absurd ideas, which lack convincing and tangible evidence. If there are naturalistic alternative explanations that are just as valid or more valid than the supernatural ones, then why needlessly employ some invisible god? Again, Occam's Razor.

Sure, you can make sense of it, in your own mind, with some miracle working god, but why employ a god where there's an equally valid naturalistic explanation that doesn't have to employ some invisible manlike deity behind the scenes? Now, if you say your god is nature itself, then I won't charge you with an anthropomorphic interpretation, which humans often commit in ignorance.

[ducksoup]

Perhaps the one you used, in saying,  "Or maybe you can’t comprehend that..."

But really that was no fallacy, as there was an argument presented to point out why that statement was made.


Ah, I see the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

"I've come to lose faith," said one.
"Then you never had TRUE Faith," said the one committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

"I've set out to make people question their faith in god," said one.
"You can't upset TRUE faith, or it wasn't really faith in god," said the one committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy.


Again, my use of the word faith is used in relation to a faith, or trusting, in absurd ideas, which lack convincing and tangible evidence. If there are naturalistic alternative explanations that are just as valid or more valid than the supernatural ones, then why needlessly employ some invisible god? Again, Occam's Razor.

Sure, you can make sense of it, in your own mind, with some miracle working god, but why employ a god where there's an equally valid naturalistic explanation that doesn't have to employ some invisible manlike deity behind the scenes? Now, if you say your god is nature itself, then I won't charge you with an anthropomorphic interpretation, which humans often commit in ignorance.

The problem with your Scotsman charge is that it invalidates truth without measure.  I can say that I used to like Fred, I thought he was a nice guy.  Now I do not like Fred because I realized that he never was a nice guy.  It means the friendship was based on falsehood later discovered.

However, that aside I see why you claim I am taking you out of context.  I do not, and never have thought that faith meant “trusting, in absurd ideas, which lack convincing and tangible evidence.”  I find no definition that represents faith as you made.  It is easy to see how you cannot fathom my reasoning when I was not able to MAKE UP a definition like you did.

Why do I have to accept your made up idea (or that you repeat) when it takes the same leap of faith? 

Just curious, why are you on a crusade to eliminate the dastardly Christian faith and happy to allow the equal belief of Mother Nature or some such?

Anyway, it is a relief that after several attempts to reword my views that it turned out to be something other than my word usage.

[MonroeMonkey]

The problem with your Scotsman charge is that it invalidates truth without measure.  I can say that I used to like Fred, I thought he was a nice guy.  Now I do not like Fred because I realized that he never was a nice guy.  It means the friendship was based on falsehood later discovered.

Strawman.

However, that aside I see why you claim I am taking you out of context.  I do not, and never have thought that faith meant “trusting, in absurd ideas, which lack convincing and tangible evidence.”  I find no definition that represents faith as you made.  It is easy to see how you cannot fathom my reasoning when I was not able to MAKE UP a definition like you did.

Why do I have to accept your made up idea (or that you repeat) when it takes the same leap of faith?

 

How many times do I have to say that I don't consider all types of faith to be absurd? I've said I oppose faiths that I believe to be absurd.

Just curious, why are you on a crusade to eliminate the dastardly Christian faith and happy to allow the equal belief of Mother Nature or some such?

Duck, this is a forum to discuss and debate. I'm in the Religion and Philosophy category. I enjoy studying, discussing, and debating Religion and Philosophy.

That said, at the end of the day it doesn't matter much to me, but there are some issues that concern me about religious faith. I believe it breeds segregation, division, homophobia, hatred, child abuse (by teaching fearful and guilt ridden doctrines), etc., etc., etc.

To quote Weinberg, again, "Without religion good people will do good, evil people will do evil, but it often takes religion for good people to do evil."

If the faith is based upon the unreal will it really hurt to lose faith/trust in it? And the idea that one can be harmed by abandoning a faith in the unseen is in itself absurd and cannot be backed with a reasonable argument.

Anyway, it is a relief that after several attempts to reword my views that it turned out to be something other than my word usage.

Maybe you could reword it better.

[ducksoup]

Strawman.

 

How many times do I have to say that I don't consider all types of faith to be absurd? I've said I oppose faiths that I believe to be absurd.


Duck, this is a forum to discuss and debate. I'm in the Religion and Philosophy category. I enjoy studying, discussing, and debating Religion and Philosophy.

That said, at the end of the day it doesn't matter much to me, but there are some issues that concern me about religious faith. I believe it breeds segregation, division, homophobia, hatred, child abuse (by teaching fearful and guilt ridden doctrines), etc., etc., etc.

To quote Weinberg, again, "Without religion good people will do good, evil people will do evil, but it often takes religion for good people to do evil."

If the faith is based upon the unreal will it really hurt to lose faith/trust in it? And the idea that one can be harmed by abandoning a faith in the unseen is in itself absurd and cannot be backed with a reasonable argument.


Maybe you could reword it better.

Well, as long as you are the one that can assign whether something is absurd or not, by all means.  I choose to not keep guessing how you misinterpret words for your argument.

BTW, you clearly just said one again you oppose the DOCTRINE...  that is not faith.  Also, I have FAITH that the speed of light is not the fastest thing measurable.  There is not one iota of proof.  I have FAITH that gravity will hold me to this planet even though I have no clear idea of how it forms or works.     Right now the DOCTRINE of science says that light is the fastest and gravity works somehow or other.  They can be wrong, does that make me float?

Faith - the belief in something that cannot be proved, also cannot be disproved.  In this instance faith in God cannot be proved or disproved.  Just as your faith that there is NO god cannot be proved or disproved.  Because they are not provable one must use other mean to try to quantify or qualify.  That is doctrines and teachings.  That is what you argue, not faith.  You cannot make me believe that there is no God, nor can I convince you that there is.  Your faith in no god is a belief that goes past doctrine.  My point being that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be decimating FAITH when you cannot.  You simply are arguing with doctrine and teachings.

[MonroeMonkey]

Faith - the belief in something that cannot be proved, also cannot be disproved.  In this instance faith in God cannot be proved or disproved.  Just as your faith that there is NO god cannot be proved or disproved.  Because they are not provable one must use other mean to try to quantify or qualify.  That is doctrines and teachings.  That is what you argue, not faith.  You cannot make me believe that there is no God, nor can I convince you that there is.

YOU say it cannot be proved or disproved.

Here's Russell's Teapot.

Quote: Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely. - End Quote.



Many think the hypothesis of god CAN be proven or disproved. What a HEDGE FALLACY to make such claims it cannot be disproved. What a product of faulty logic.

Your faith in no god is a belief that goes past doctrine.  My point being that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be decimating FAITH when you cannot.  You simply are arguing with doctrine and teachings.

Sometimes I debate doctrines based in faith and other times I debate against a faith in even the existence of certain types of god.

[MonroeMonkey]

You gotta love the terrible logic that says, "I believe in a god, and you can by no means disprove it! It's beyond that!"

LOL.

[marilyn.monroe]

Would a paradox be considered logical?