Hey you evolutionists...

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Then why are you Jewish?

Isn't "Jewish" considered a race?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion, those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion.

So he could be Jewish by his parents, not by a choice.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

So he could be Jewish by his parents, not by a choice.

:::

This is going in circles. Culturally I was given an impression of god. By choice I chose to accept this god as I am more religious than my parents. By faith along with lack of evidence otherwise I choose to maintain belief. And along the spaghetti monster lines there is no specific form of god in my religion so who knows. Maybe for shits and giggles god likes to take that form.
I have about a half hour of work left today for you to belittle and berate me. Get the good ones in.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

Our situation is this: most of the people in this world believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book. We have the misfortune of having many such books on hand, each making an exclusive claim as to its infallibility. People tend to organize themselves into factions according to which of these incompatible claims they accept—rather than on the basis of language, skin color, location of birth, or any other criterion of tribalism. Each of these texts urges its readers to adopt a variety of beliefs and practices, some of which are benign, many of which are not. All are in perverse agreement on one point of fundamental importance, however: "respect" for other faiths, or for the views of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses. While all faiths have been touched, here and there, by the spirit of ecumenicalism, the central tenet of every religious tradition is that all others are mere repositories of error or, at best, dangerously incomplete. Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed. Once a person believes—really believes—that certain ideas can lead to eternal happiness, or to its antithesis, he cannot tolerate the possibility that the people he loves might be led astray by the blandishments of unbelievers. Certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one.

The point is that most of what we currently hold sacred is not sacred for any reason other than that it was thought sacred yesterday. Surely, if we could create the world anew, the practice of organizing our lives around untestable propositions found in ancient literature—to say nothing of killing and dying for them—would be impossible to justify. What stops us from finding it impossible now?

It is time we admitted, from kings and presidents on down, that there is no evidence that any of our books was authored by the Creator of the universe. The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology. To rely on such a document as the basis for our worldview—however heroic the efforts of redactors—is to repudiate two thousand years of civilizing insights that the human mind has only just begun to inscribe upon itself through secular politics and scientific culture. We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilization is not merely religious extremism: rather, it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself. Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed.

Sam Harris

http://www.amazon.com/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393327655/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244081375&sr=8-1

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

It's not hard to tell which posters ITT are going to bust Hell wide open.

 

[zealous 10+ year member]

If you refuse to believe a given proposition due to a lack of evidence, then your refusal is still built on an evidentiary basis. I think DevilDriver is pointing to the stark difference between a belief or lack thereof that is based on evidence and one based on faith. Faith, almost by definition, is belief in the absence of any evidence. It is the antithesis of evidence, and this, it seems to me, is what wu36ca is failing to understand.

I fail to see how a lack of evidence can be viewed as evidence. If you were asked to provide evidence in order to support your case in a court of law and you presented a lack of evidence as evidence, you would be laughed out of the building.
Also, I think it is just plain silly to assume that faith cannot be supported by evidence. I know that my own faith faith is corroborated by both historical and scientific fact.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

you guys get this one figured out yet?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I fail to see how a lack of evidence can be viewed as evidence. If you were asked to provide evidence in order to support your case in a court of law and you presented a lack of evidence as evidence, you would be laughed out of the building.
Also, I think it is just plain silly to assume that faith cannot be supported by evidence. I know that my own faith faith is corroborated by both historical and scientific fact.

No you wouldn't. If the plaintiff is trying to prove "x". The defense claims there is no evidence of "x". That is how a normal case works. Are you mentally defective?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I fail to see how a lack of evidence can be viewed as evidence. If you were asked to provide evidence in order to support your case in a court of law and you presented a lack of evidence as evidence, you would be laughed out of the building.

You're still not fully understanding the point.

I won't believe in anything until I have reasonable evidence to suggest it is true. Any person can make a claim, but until there is positive evidence supporting it, I will remain skeptical.

My disbelief of god is not a choice, or a denial of anything; it is an appraisal of all the evidence that has been put before me. Part of the reason why I continue to have the god conversation is because I'd like to find a reasonable explanation for why so many people believe what they do, and I really have yet to hear a sound argument.

Unlike the religious, I am open to changing my mind when the evidence supports a different position. Evolution is a favourite of mine because it is so strong and misunderstood but I would drop it in a second if there was something more plausible, or if it was demonstrated as false.

Anything that I don't know the answer to, I will acknowledge as unknown although I may put forth the different ideas that might explain it.

Also, I think it is just plain silly to assume that faith cannot be supported by evidence. I know that my own faith faith is corroborated by both historical and scientific fact.

It is not an assumption; you must have had a poor history and science education if you think any of it corroborates a particular faith and god as "real".

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

I fail to see how a lack of evidence can be viewed as evidence. If you were asked to provide evidence in order to support your case in a court of law and you presented a lack of evidence as evidence, you would be laughed out of the building.
Also, I think it is just plain silly to assume that faith cannot be supported by evidence. I know that my own faith faith is corroborated by both historical and scientific fact.

Yet you are sworn in on a bible....//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

YMy disbelief of god is not a choice, or a denial of anything; it is an appraisal of all the evidence that has been put before me. Part of the reason why I continue to have the god conversation is because I'd like to find a reasonable explanation for why so many people believe what they do, and I really have yet to hear a sound argument.

From my best guess, it's that it makes them feel good.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I wonder what their thoughts are on opium, then.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I wonder what their thoughts are on opium, then.

They'd be curious why you put a comma after opium. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/tongue.gif.6130eb82179565f6db8d26d6001dcd24.gif

 

[zealous 10+ year member]

No you wouldn't. If the plaintiff is trying to prove "x". The defense claims there is no evidence of "x". That is how a normal case works. Are you mentally defective?

A lack of evidence means your case gets thrown out because of a lack of evidence, not because the lack of evidence becomes evidence.

 

[97gp 5,000+ posts]

A lack of evidence means your case gets thrown out because of a lack of evidence, not because the lack of evidence becomes evidence.

You must be mentally challenged.