What if I went around saying there was an invisible leprechaun that sat on top of my shoulder all day? What would people say then?
Scientifically it cannot be tested. There very well may be an invisible leprechaun perched atop my shoulder but there simply is no scientific way to test it to "prove" it. There's no way of knowing if it is true.
Now what would you say if I came up to you and said there was an invisible leprechaun perched on my shoulder? You would probably use common sense to rationalize that I was crazy saying something so absurd. I view god, the devil, the afterlife, whatever you wanna call it the exact same way. Those things very well may exist but there is absolutely no way to prove it and using my common sense I don't believe in any of it.
What if I went around saying there was an invisible leprechaun that sat on top of my shoulder all day? What would people say then?
Scientifically it cannot be tested. There very well may be an invisible leprechaun perched atop my shoulder but there simply is no scientific way to test it to "prove" it. There's no way of knowing if it is true.
Now what would you say if I came up to you and said there was an invisible leprechaun perched on my shoulder? You would probably use common sense to rationalize that I was crazy saying something so absurd. I view god, the devil, the afterlife, whatever you wanna call it the exact same way. Those things very well may exist but there is absolutely no way to prove it and using my common sense I don't believe in any of it.
MLB -- You are allowed to believe what you choose. Myself personally believes that faith is a noble and beneficial quality, although I'm not sure how I was insinuating as such with my statement? Either way, I'm very much a "to each his own" type of person. I don't begrudge people for being Christian, atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, whatever. They can worship as they so choose.
MLB -- You are allowed to believe what you choose. Myself personally believes that faith is a noble and beneficial quality, although I'm not sure how I was insinuating as such with my statement? Either way, I'm very much a "to each his own" type of person. I don't begrudge people for being Christian, atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, whatever. They can worship as they so choose.
MLB -- You are allowed to believe what you choose. Myself personally believes that faith is a noble and beneficial quality, although I'm not sure how I was insinuating as such with my statement? Either way, I'm very much a "to each his own" type of person. I don't begrudge people for being Christian, atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, whatever. They can worship as they so choose.
The freedom to have faith and practice what you wish is paramount.
I'm with you as I share your sentiments. But faith can both be uplifting and detrimental.
MLB -- You are allowed to believe what you choose. Myself personally believes that faith is a noble and beneficial quality, although I'm not sure how I was insinuating as such with my statement? Either way, I'm very much a "to each his own" type of person. I don't begrudge people for being Christian, atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, whatever. They can worship as they so choose.
The freedom to have faith and practice what you wish is paramount.
I'm with you as I share your sentiments. But faith can both be uplifting and detrimental.
FYI Kapono, my apologies for assuming something that you didn't say outright....just the way you phrased it I guess made it seem like faith can do no wrong.
FYI Kapono, my apologies for assuming something that you didn't say outright....just the way you phrased it I guess made it seem like faith can do no wrong.
FYI Kapono, my apologies for assuming something that you didn't say outright....just the way you phrased it I guess made it seem like faith can do no wrong.
You were in the right. Kapono used faith as a reasoning for believing in something without proof. There is no logical reason for believing in something without proof. People just use 'faith' as a way to avoid argument. It's such a cop out.
FYI Kapono, my apologies for assuming something that you didn't say outright....just the way you phrased it I guess made it seem like faith can do no wrong.
You were in the right. Kapono used faith as a reasoning for believing in something without proof. There is no logical reason for believing in something without proof. People just use 'faith' as a way to avoid argument. It's such a cop out.
You were in the right. Kapono used faith as a reasoning for believing in something without proof. There is no logical reason for believing in something without proof. People just use 'faith' as a way to avoid argument. It's such a cop out.
You were in the right. Kapono used faith as a reasoning for believing in something without proof. There is no logical reason for believing in something without proof. People just use 'faith' as a way to avoid argument. It's such a cop out.
I am not religious and do not go to any church. I believe in the "live and let live" principle and support the idea that folks can believe as they like (even if some of them are way out, IMO). I do believe in God and the Devil and much of what is in the Bible. I think there are a lot of things that we do not understand and never will. Good luck to you in whatever you believe.
I am not religious and do not go to any church. I believe in the "live and let live" principle and support the idea that folks can believe as they like (even if some of them are way out, IMO). I do believe in God and the Devil and much of what is in the Bible. I think there are a lot of things that we do not understand and never will. Good luck to you in whatever you believe.
My argument may have been correct, but I shouldn't have put words in his mouth.
I understand; but I think you were right originally. You never put words into his mouth... because he was in fact insinuating that the benefit of faith is believing something without proof, and that that is somehow a logical and noble answer.
Mute point really... Just thought you could have stuck to your guns there and been in the right.
My argument may have been correct, but I shouldn't have put words in his mouth.
I understand; but I think you were right originally. You never put words into his mouth... because he was in fact insinuating that the benefit of faith is believing something without proof, and that that is somehow a logical and noble answer.
Mute point really... Just thought you could have stuck to your guns there and been in the right.
MLB -- Sure, faith can definitely be uplifting and detrimental. But I'm all for someone choosing on their own as to whether or not to believe/have faith. I don't believe anyone is really in a position to tell someone to believe or not believe. I think we are in agreement there.
DJ -- Logic has nothing to do with that. Faith and belief do not rely on logic as justification. They are separate spheres and separate worlds.
MLB -- Sure, faith can definitely be uplifting and detrimental. But I'm all for someone choosing on their own as to whether or not to believe/have faith. I don't believe anyone is really in a position to tell someone to believe or not believe. I think we are in agreement there.
DJ -- Logic has nothing to do with that. Faith and belief do not rely on logic as justification. They are separate spheres and separate worlds.
Free will is our gift from God, and whatever choices we make (bad or good) He will be there to help us through. Even if this means a little pain and suffering. I think a lot of people can agree to the saying, "What doesnt kill you, makes you stronger".
Free will is our gift from God, and whatever choices we make (bad or good) He will be there to help us through. Even if this means a little pain and suffering. I think a lot of people can agree to the saying, "What doesnt kill you, makes you stronger".
I have read through many of the opinions on this thread. It just seems many of you arent deep thinkers and just havent experienced enough in life to recognize the signs around you. We all take much for granted, just the fact that we all exist in a type of controlled chaos should give some perspective on the fact that someone out there gives a shit about us. Just the act of being born should be considered a miracle. I agree with live and let live but try to keep an open mind to the small miracles that happen every day. Ill bet some of you exctually getting laid is probably one of them. HAHA!!!
I have read through many of the opinions on this thread. It just seems many of you arent deep thinkers and just havent experienced enough in life to recognize the signs around you. We all take much for granted, just the fact that we all exist in a type of controlled chaos should give some perspective on the fact that someone out there gives a shit about us. Just the act of being born should be considered a miracle. I agree with live and let live but try to keep an open mind to the small miracles that happen every day. Ill bet some of you exctually getting laid is probably one of them. HAHA!!!
Just because you can't explain something (how perfect the chaos is), doesn't mean you chalk it up to something that doesn't exist.
I am also amazed by how how everything has a specific purpose and that if one thing was missing, it would all fall apart. However, I would never use anything but scientific reasoning to explain it. It's CALLED EVOLUTION.
Anytime a world record is broken, that is evolution at it's best.
When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Just because you can't explain something (how perfect the chaos is), doesn't mean you chalk it up to something that doesn't exist.
I am also amazed by how how everything has a specific purpose and that if one thing was missing, it would all fall apart. However, I would never use anything but scientific reasoning to explain it. It's CALLED EVOLUTION.
Anytime a world record is broken, that is evolution at it's best.
When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Its possible that we all have a destiny, but the fact we get to choose how we get there is on us. "thats life". basically, its possible that a beginning and ending have been written for us, but we get to fill in the rest. When I talk about God helping us, Im talking about prayer and opening of your heart to Him. As far as praying for your bets and such, I think this is the Devils arena, God says, "If you dable with that, your on your own."
Its possible that we all have a destiny, but the fact we get to choose how we get there is on us. "thats life". basically, its possible that a beginning and ending have been written for us, but we get to fill in the rest. When I talk about God helping us, Im talking about prayer and opening of your heart to Him. As far as praying for your bets and such, I think this is the Devils arena, God says, "If you dable with that, your on your own."
I love how some "nut job" works on a logical theory and gets vilified for it and then, some generations later, is proven to be 100% correct. Like a certain person who believed that the Earth and other planets revolved around the sun instead of the other way around. Bible thumpers of that era <Gasp> "Oh my BLASPHEMY stone and kill him~!" Now even the believers in God think it's amusing anyone could have believed the sun revolved around the planet or that the sun was fueled by coal. They believed it so deeply that they did the calculations and "proved" it to be true.
Science is based around three simple things: observability, repeatability, testability.
If God or anything to do with faith could adhere to even one of those things... It'd make me a believer. But NO ONE has seen Jesus or God or miracles or anything... It sure as hell hasn't been repeated, and there's NO WAY to test it.
Like, there's no other time or place in the world that you can make an absurd claim without substantiating it, except for religion.
I love how some "nut job" works on a logical theory and gets vilified for it and then, some generations later, is proven to be 100% correct. Like a certain person who believed that the Earth and other planets revolved around the sun instead of the other way around. Bible thumpers of that era <Gasp> "Oh my BLASPHEMY stone and kill him~!" Now even the believers in God think it's amusing anyone could have believed the sun revolved around the planet or that the sun was fueled by coal. They believed it so deeply that they did the calculations and "proved" it to be true.
Science is based around three simple things: observability, repeatability, testability.
If God or anything to do with faith could adhere to even one of those things... It'd make me a believer. But NO ONE has seen Jesus or God or miracles or anything... It sure as hell hasn't been repeated, and there's NO WAY to test it.
Like, there's no other time or place in the world that you can make an absurd claim without substantiating it, except for religion.
What if I went around saying there was an invisible leprechaun that sat on top of my shoulder all day? What would people say then?
Scientifically it cannot be tested. There very well may be an invisible leprechaun perched atop my shoulder but there simply is no scientific way to test it to "prove" it. There's no way of knowing if it is true.
Now what would you say if I came up to you and said there was an invisible leprechaun perched on my shoulder? You would probably use common sense to rationalize that I was crazy saying something so absurd. I view god, the devil, the afterlife, whatever you wanna call it the exact same way. Those things very well may exist but there is absolutely no way to prove it and using my common sense I don't believe in any of it.
I understand your argument and am not disagreeing with you. But the fact remains that you cant argue against it because you cant prove it DOESNT exist...
What if I went around saying there was an invisible leprechaun that sat on top of my shoulder all day? What would people say then?
Scientifically it cannot be tested. There very well may be an invisible leprechaun perched atop my shoulder but there simply is no scientific way to test it to "prove" it. There's no way of knowing if it is true.
Now what would you say if I came up to you and said there was an invisible leprechaun perched on my shoulder? You would probably use common sense to rationalize that I was crazy saying something so absurd. I view god, the devil, the afterlife, whatever you wanna call it the exact same way. Those things very well may exist but there is absolutely no way to prove it and using my common sense I don't believe in any of it.
I understand your argument and am not disagreeing with you. But the fact remains that you cant argue against it because you cant prove it DOESNT exist...
Post #56 hit it on the head! religion is bullshit and noone knows whos right or wrong in what they believe...never will. plus religion is the reason and cause for wars.
Post #56 hit it on the head! religion is bullshit and noone knows whos right or wrong in what they believe...never will. plus religion is the reason and cause for wars.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.