Just look at it like this. Science is based on the law of cause and effect. Unfortunately, at least for the atheists, that leads straight to God. So, they are left to try to explain how creation is random, and evolution is a scientific concept, and, without a scientific leg to stand on, they are left with nothing but ridicule. For, if a result cannot be repeated, and "random creation" and "evolution of the species" cannot, then what else can they do? You see, if creation was not random, but had a first cause, and everything produces after it's own kind, then, as I stated, it meets the qualifications for being true science, and leads straight to God. These principals cannot be refuted, so I would look for much scorn to be heaped upon this post.
American Heritage Dictionary faith (fāth) n. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs. It seems that in the context of our discussion, #2 is the most appropriate. Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. So it is certainly irrational. Or you can tell the dictionary publisher to remove #2 from their list.
I have no problem with their beliefs, their faith. None. They may think it is illogical to say, "I believe in God, and if they believe in no God that is okay." In fact, they may both be true at their own levels. I certainly don't think I am at the "highest" level, so I don't think their position is unreasonable per say, I think they have a good reason to hold their beliefs, just as I have a good reason to hold my beliefs. This game of "my beliefs are better than your beliefs" seems quite silly to me...especially when there is no method to gain the type of certainty necessary to be so dogmatic in a personal belief system as to suggest that others are wrong in theirs...
Refreshingly reasonable. But then you why do you insist that it is impossible to not having a belief at all? Isn't that the dogma of your own belief system?
no scorn just a chuckle. you are wrong on almost every point. here is a good video on the subject by a christian biologist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Once a concept is understood three things are possible: 1. Belief 2. Doubt 3. Neither Atheists doubt God. Theists belief in God. Agnostics have neither faith nor doubt in God. My personal belief system is not dogmatic for others, as it doesn't require others believing the same thing as I do, nor is it part of my belief to recruit or convince others. I just see the atheists here acting like evangicals, and I find it amusing to see such emotionalism in the name of "rationality." As I have said, I have no problem with the atheistic faith and their practice of it, not my job to find problems with others and their personal faith. God may have a problem with it, time will tell...
Whoa!! I feel a little dizzzzy. Hard to know where to start - this is almost all assertion. Z? Did you register up another alias?
I would chose #1, because atheism is an idea that the atheists have belief in as true, trustworthy, and valuable for them.... Or are we now going to argue that atheism is not an idea... LOL!
Once a concept is formed, three things are possible, 1. belief 2. doubt 3. rejection I don't know what your "neither" means. Rejecting one idea does not necessarily mean to replace it with another one. If there is nothing to replace it with, then we're left with no ideas. Don't tell me that it's impossible to have no ideas.