Agnostics or Atheists

The problem is that Phoe is using the term 'faith' in a rather misleading definition via which you have faith in something just if you think it exists, so she would call accepting something exists because of science is faith.

As I am trying to explain, faith when used as connected to a belief system means belief in the absence of evidence, as you are clearly using the term there, Fire. Or maybe more accurately- belief irrelevant to evidence one way or another.

Which is why atheism is not a faith. It is a decision to reject faith.

Phoenix> That you tell me, that you have no doubt that God exist is no proof whatsoever. You might as well tell me that flying saucers are real. I still require proof before I accept either statement.
And you still only BELIEVE. Once upon a time people on this planet thought it was flat. They "knew" that it was flat - lacking better observations and knowledge no doubt. But the Earth was still round.
So you do not KNOW that God exist. Knowledge requires proof. You have none. You have simply decided to believe in the existence of the supernatural - that is your choice but it is not knowledge.

Philosophical scepticism IS dull, I must agre with Ush.

Fire> No, if you prove the existence of God you prove that religion is right. What annoyes me in these religion/science debates is the comparison between the two.

The Bible's bull!

you can't prove god exists, you can try as much as you want to and you will still not get it. and I wouldn't call it faith anymore if it was proven, would take the basic element out of it IMO

I agree!

Originally posted by The Omega
Fire> No, if you prove the existence of God you prove that religion is right.

Do you? Maybe God exists, but he hates being bothered so he sends everyone who worships him to Hell.

This is so pointless because, nobody can prove God's existance and no one can disprove it...in reality. Just because we cant touch or smell or see something it doesnt mean its not there, equaly because we cant touch it, smell it, or see it we equaly have no evidence it is there.

Depends what you mean by God. I think thats the term that needs claifying. Many people have different concepts of what/who God is 😖
WE can argue in many different ways about this, because nobody gave clear deffinition as to what to them god IS?
An old man, with white beard sat in his big char? A young absolutely gorgeous man in pink fluffy thong(thats how i immagine god), a spirit, a feeling, a woman, a lots of women, a lot of men, a men and women, beast....

You know what? Everybody thinks that they know what God looks like, but I would laugh my ass off is God turned out to be like a black woman. 😄

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
This is so pointless because, nobody can prove God's existance and no one can disprove it...in reality. Just because we cant touch or smell or see something it doesnt mean its not there, equaly because we cant touch it, smell it, or see it we equaly have no evidence it is there.

Depends what you mean by God. I think thats the term that needs claifying. Many people have different concepts of what/who God is 😖
WE can argue in many different ways about this, because nobody gave clear deffinition as to what to them god IS?
An old man, with white beard sat in his big char? A young absolutely gorgeous man in pink fluffy thong(thats how i immagine god), a spirit, a feeling, a woman, a lots of women, a lot of men, a men and women, beast....

You have to prove things positive, Lil, not negative. Basic rule. It is up to someone to prove God exists before anyone has to make any move whatsoever to prove otherwise.

As those with faith are not interested in proof- because they have faith- I don't really see what your point there is.

Defining God would take us into an entirely different topic, though.

that is how everything in the world is done (except proving you are innocent)

Errr... you don't have to prove innocence unless someone can give evidence you are guilty. In theory.

that's what I ment 😄

Tho with Bush his patriot act you'd better be able to prove your innocence

So... that's the same as everything else, then?

yes except that you normaly never have to do it

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That is philosophical scepticism and, as handled in the recent thread opened about it, that is the most dull and pointless view to take about anything at all (and I am afraid it always loses respect from me when invoked); Descartes used it as a basis of self-examination, not as a means of viewing the world. You have SOLID EVIDENCE the table exists, evidence that forms part of a system via which this modern civilisation exists. You have no such evidence about God- instead you have faith. Your are, frankly, taking the mick if you try and equate the evidence behind the two.

Aside from anything else... if you didn't have any evidence for the table- could not see it, touch it, put things on it, see the process via which it was made- you would not believe it existed. You don't have evidence for God, but you do believe he exists, as you have that faith.

If you are going to invoke Philosophical scepticism in any argument, we may as well stop right now because anything we say at all at any point becomes worthless because you will invoke the possibility of doubt. It is an entirely pointless line to take as it denies just about everything. Fact is, you do not reject science in this world; I know you don't. You accept many many rules about existence- if you do not eat, you will die; if you stab someone, it will hurt them; you need money to survive in the world, and so on. By these logical rules that you accept, and most certainly do not apply scepticism to, you accept the table exists via a reasoned process of looking at available evidence. The mechanism by which you accept God exists is entirely different. There is no scientific evidence for it.

Belieivng in something because of evidence and believing in something because of faith, Phoe. No matter how much sceptiicsm you want to try and apply, if you accept things exist on these criteria- which you evidently do- then it has to be logically conceeded that you are accepting their existence for different reasons.

oooh! handbags at dawn! 😛

*hugs* don't be offended! 😄

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The problem is that Phoe is using the term 'faith' in a rather misleading definition via which you have faith in something just if you think it exists, so she would call accepting something exists because of science is faith.

It's not misleading, it's a dictionary definition.

Originally posted by Phoenix
It's not misleading, it's a dictionary definition.

When the dictionary definition contradicts the way people actually use the word, go with the way people use the word. Anyway:

faith: "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence"--New World Dictionary of the American Lanbguage, Second Colelge Edition

Originally posted by The Omega
Phoenix> That you tell me, that you have no doubt that God exist is no proof whatsoever. You might as well tell me that flying saucers are real. I still require proof before I accept either statement.
And you still only BELIEVE. Once upon a time people on this planet thought it was flat. They "knew" that it was flat - lacking better observations and knowledge no doubt. But the Earth was still round.
So you do not KNOW that God exist. Knowledge requires proof. You have none. You have simply decided to believe in the existence of the supernatural - that is your choice but it is not knowledge.

Knowledge is not necessarily poven. To take the example of the Middle-Eastern wars, the Palestinians (sp?) know they are right. The Israeli's know they are right. Ask them to prove it.

Originally posted by Arahael
The Bible's bull!

Please try to post a decent argument, rather than just insulting my faith.

But they both say they have proof, Phoe. Answer is simple- one, or both, of them are wrong.