UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

He is righteous.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And yet Benjamin Franklin believed in the power of prayer:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=98

He wasn't talking about faith.

Franklin was praying for wisdom. In my opinion one of the few subjects worthy of prayer.

[photon]

But Franklin's proposal didn't pass, opposed by all but 3 or 4 of the members, there was no prayer at the convention, and the convention went on to success. The power of not praying!

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No I was stating that the intelligent design argument didn't originate with Kirk Cameron or that other guy I was accused of sourcing.

Oh I know you didn't, I just threw that in my post cause that's were a lot of the goofy arguments and internet reasoning comes from. It was a bit of a humourous aside. For the record I never accused you nor believed you were sourcing them. And yes, I know that argument has been around a long time. Long enough that it has actually taken on different forms and meanings throughout history in fact.

[WhiteTiger]

I have to say that while I doubt that anyone will ever be able to actually change Calgaryborn's mind, I find reading the replies to his posts quite enjoyable and enlightening. So many things said so much better than I could say them (and I come from a family of religious zealots myself). What it's taught me is that you can't argue with a zealot, because no matter how reasoned, how logical or what evidence you can provide to them, it won't matter a bit, because their faith trumps anything and everything period. I've honestly long wondered that if folks like that could just sit back, and without the passion of their faith read and really absorb what they've written...if they'd realize just how foolish they 'sound'.

[MacGr3gor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And yet Benjamin Franklin believed in the power of prayer

Yeah, he was a deist. So what? His point still stands. He means putting faith above common sense is stupid, which it is.

[Reggie Dunlop]

David Barton and "Wallbuilders" is to historical study what Kent Hovind is to the study of biology.

[Dion]

Every tomorrow has two handles. We can take hold of it with the handle of anxiety or the handle of faith - Henry Ward Beecher

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by photon

But Franklin's proposal didn't pass, opposed by all but 3 or 4 of the members, there was no prayer at the convention, and the convention went on to success. The power of not praying!

Yeah, but they did get wisdom.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

O I'm paying attention alright. When your belief system is threatened you start showing your true colours. All of a sudden opinion is worthless unless it is backed up by a thesis by a scientist you respect. Of course that would never happen because anyone who suggested such a theory you would no longer respect. I havn't quoted any creationist apologists so you identify me with some anyway; All so you can belittle my opinion by association. For the record the intelligent design argument has been around longer than Darwin's theory and has been used several times in public debate.

This is a general forum. If you want to talk exclusively with other scientists you've come to the wrong place. Perhaps someone a little less indoctrined than you can see a little bit clearer.

Ok, fine I relent, I'll bite.

Scientific proof does not equal belief system. One is measurable and provable, the other isn't. Or at least, does not have to be and usually isn't.

You say I have a belief system when I'm merely stating facts. Facts like, the earth is round. And, because they are facts, I can come up with convincing arguments, or accredited sources to back them.

You argue based on circular logic and what fits your world view. That sir, is a 'belief system'.

They are not the same. And I'm sorry if you thought my response to you was rude, but since you continually try to trap within your misguided logic and poor sources I just let loose.

The funny thing was, it wasn't me who showed his true colors, but you. When the discussion/argument got too much for you, you packed up your ball, tried to make me look bad with a few random 'nice character's, I don't need to respond to this,' and left.

And I even gave you an out. I will forgo all sources if you can base your statements on logic theory. Go from one truth to make your next point. Can you give me a real A+B=C where you can start from a real truth and not an opinion?

Let's start at the beginning. The first question I asked you: Can you prove, either scientifically or logically that 'Complex design strongly suggests a designer. The more complexed the design; the more likely a designer is involved.' is more than just opinion.

Can you actually form a new thought? Or are you just regurgitating everything your books, community, and pastor tells you and passing it off as free thought?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You believe that everything evolved from lower forms of life without solid evidence. You have a fossil record that is a record of extinction. Others have put it in categories and said it shows creation ascending from simpler forms. You believe them. They have found the equivalent to 10 pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle and filled in the rest calling them missing links. You believe them. They have identified the origin of life as beginning as some chemical soup that doesn't exist naturally today and couldn't outside of the lab. This soup does not explain the formation of a genetic code. You believe them.

You believe that nature left alone becomes more complexed. You believe this despite what we can be observed. The difference between you and me is I recognize faith as faith. You call yours science and belittle mine.

Scientists replicate key evolutionary step in life on earth
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-....html#firstCmt

More than 500 million years ago, single-celled organisms on Earth's surface began forming multi-cellular clusters that ultimately became plants and animals.

Now scientists have replicated that key step in the laboratory using common Brewer's yeast, a single-celled organism.

The yeast "evolved" into multi-cellular clusters that work together cooperatively, reproduce and adapt to their environment--in essence, they became precursors to life on Earth as it is today.

The results are published in this week's issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

"The finding that the division-of-labor evolves so quickly and repeatedly in these 'snowflake' clusters is a big surprise," says George Gilchrist, acting deputy division director of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research.

"The first step toward multi-cellular complexity seems to be less of an evolutionary hurdle than theory would suggest," says Gilchrist. "This will stimulate a lot of important research questions."

[Gozer]

Video linked below:

Originally Posted by Bill Maher

“We’re not two sides of the same coin, and you don’t get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-mahe...the-same-coin/

[troutman]

Maher argued that treating atheism like a religion would be like saying “abstinence is a sex position.”

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Atheism is a doubt, not a faith...

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes atheism is a doubt...

You are both wrong in asserting that the opposite of "faith" is "doubt". In actual fact, the opposite of faith is certainty, and certainty is a very dangerous position to be in. A certain man is one who is not prone to think otherwise, even in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You are both wrong in asserting that the opposite of "faith" is "doubt". In actual fact, the opposite of faith is certainty, and certainty is a very dangerous position to be in. A certain man is one who is not prone to think otherwise, even in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Did you mean to write that the opposite of doubt is certainty? Otherwise, I'm confused by what this means. Isn't faith a form of unprovable certainty?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Did you mean to write that the opposite of doubt is certainty? Otherwise, I'm confused by what this means. Isn't faith a form of unprovable certainty?

Faith is misconstrued primarily by religious fanatics especially to mean a sort of intractable, irrational sense of certainty. You are no doubt correct in noting that faith is often used in this context, but I believe that this is likely as a result of the developed Western worldview and the high commitment that we have afforded to rationalism. Not that there is anything wrong with rationality, but our collective empiricism has precipitated a redefinition of "faith", and mostly on the part of adherents to religious faith. For religious fundamentalists, "faith" has come to mean something other than what it is, and in desperate reaction to the powerful arguments of rationalist philosophers. It conveys the sense on the part of critics that faith is some sort of irrational and blind commitment to an unsustainable set of ideals, and in the eyes of adherents it is believed to be an equivalent assertion of truth.

In actual fact—and I think that I am right in my understanding of the classical philosophers and the early Church fathers on this point—faith is not in any way an irrational ontological claim; rather, it is an intense hope or expectation in the absence of all the evidence. This is the furthest thing from certainty. This sort of faith remains fairly comfortable in acknowledging its limitations, and is much more malleable than how the fundamentalist apologists choose to exploit it.

[Dion]

You can have faith with or without religious affiliation - faith is a state of being. Faith is putting hope and power into that which we can not see now...but know we will see in the future.

"Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods" - C.S. Lewis

[Cheese]

n/m

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Dion

You can have faith with or without religious affiliation - faith is a state of being. Faith is putting hope and power into that which we can not see now...but know we will see in the future.

You can also have faith that you have one life to live(one and done)

The only afterlife is in memorys so live this life the right way and be remembered as a good person..

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

In actual fact—and I think that I am right in my understanding of the classical philosophers and the early Church fathers on this point—faith is not in any way an irrational ontological claim; rather, it is an intense hope or expectation in the absence of all the evidence. This is the furthest thing from certainty. This sort of faith remains fairly comfortable in acknowledging its limitations, and is much more malleable than how the fundamentalist apologists choose to exploit it.

I agree with your interpretation of faith here, but I think that it and doubt are still opposites. Or one might say they are opposite sides of the same coin. Specifically, they are opposite reactions to the same state; both can only exist in a state of uncertainty.
You equate faith to an intense hope or expectation, which I would agree with. But these things are a reaction to how we deal with uncertainty. Doubt is an equally valid reaction to the same state of uncertainty. Of course, part of the problem with describing faith and doubt as opposites is that they are not mutually exclusive, as opposites often (but not always) are. The nature of uncertainty means that no reaction to it is going to be mutually exclusive with any other reaction.