Looking forward to a DNA Hard Drive

[FresnoJoe]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 0:02 PM, siegi91 said:

If we consider the fact that the vast majority of people have, and have had, a faith....
and that we do not seem to be on the verge of extinction....

I would say that faith is, at worst, neutral for what concerns our evolutionary fitness and prosperity....
At least, until now....

Our

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

Evolutionary Fitness

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22

Until Now

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Matthew 3:7

~

He Came Down From Heaven Above

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

With Mercy And Love

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Jesus~!

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Corinthians 5:20-21

Love, Joe

[LuftWaffle]

On undefined at 7:04 PM, Bonky said:

Right, so a more accurate way to put it is that faith can be or is useful, but just not necessarily useful in determining what is actually true.  Hebrews 11:1  pretty much comes out and tells us that faith is substance of things hoped for and [somehow] the evidence of things unseen.   

As a skeptic and a rationalist, I obviously reject what that verse is implying.  

Hi Bonky,

It's been a while since I've contributed here. Hope you had a good Christmas and New Year.

I'd like to respond to what you've said here. It seems that you're incorrectly setting faith up as a kind of epistomology, a way of knowing things. Often times atheist blogs will define faith as "belief without evidence" or "pretending to know what you don't know" etc. but looking at the overall view of scripture and Christian history that's quite a bad mischaracterisation.

Throughout scripture evidence is presented, Jesus did signs and wonders, John records eyewitness testimony "so that you might believe", Paul speaks of nature and morality declaring the glory of God etc. In fact if the Bible really taught that faith is an epistomology that replaces evidence, then most of Jesus' actions recorded in the gospels would be contra-faith, not so?

If you were to ask Paul why he believed do you think he'd say "faith" or do you think he'd say it's because he saw the resurrected Christ? Same with all the disciples.

The Hebrews passage that you've cited and that many atheists pull into service to support the idea doesn't set faith up as an epistomology. In fact just a few verses on the author lists a bunch of historical evidences in the hopes that it'll convince the readers to remain faithful not the other way around. The context of that verse that given the trustworthiness of God, as evidenced by the great things God has done and shown in the past, there is good reason to remain faithful during the severe oppression that the Jewish Christians were experiencing at that point. That's why the author is appealing to historical Jewish evidences to appeal to these people.

In short then the Hebrews passage isn't exhorting the suffering Christians to abandon rationality and replace evidence-based epistomology with faith, but rather something to the effect of, "based on what you know to be true about God you can be confident in God's providence for the future even now when it looks like God has abandoned you and everything is turned against you."

Faith is not an epistomology, but rather trusting in that which you know to be true.

So I guess in closing I would say that as a Christian, along with most thoughtful Christians and a wealth of Christian history, I would happily agree with you that faith isn't useful in determining what's true. Faith isn't an epistomoly... despite what you might read from popular atheists.

[Bonky]

Good morning Luftwaffle and thanks for offering your thoughts.  Even after reading what you have responded with I feel that my view is still valid and here's why.  

Walking on water, turning water into wine, rising from the dead, being born of a virgin does NOT prove what scripture claims it proves.  Nevermind the fact that these claims are just that, claims.  We weren't there to see these things happen.  Some of many of these claims are written about by people who weren't even there!  There are claims today that people make [Lourdes in France comes to mind] by the dozens or hundreds and we wouldn't necessarily be impressed by them.

So what I'm saying is that we don't have direct access to these claims and even if we did I'm not sure where we'd go from there.  Eye witness testimony is not exactly a solid way to determine what happened, studies and real life experience have shown us that much.   Paul may [or may not have] seen Jesus but what should that mean to me?  Can you really apply someone's personal subjective supernatural experience to people almost 2000 years later?  

So while I might see what you're saying for folks back then, I don't know that it applies to us today.   

Edited January 10, 2016 by Bonky

[LuftWaffle]

Hi Bonky,

It seems you're making a different point now, though?
Initially you said that faith isn't necessarily useful in determining what is actually true, as well as "Wouldn't we all agree that as a mechanism, faith is an insecure way of discovering truth in our lives?"

Now it seems you're saying that the claims in the bible aren't convincing to you today, which is fine and somewhat obvious seeing that you're an atheist.

I have agreed to the former and actually went further by saying faith isnt an epistomology at all. In other words it's not a mechanism for arriving at truth but rather an act of trusting in what you believe to be true.

The latter point you're making is subjective and autobiographical, so at best I can say, "sure". If you say that it doesn't convince you then I'm not in a position to say that it's false. Subjective statements about your psychology are just that.

We have talked a little bit about my own rationale for believing in God and I think there's a cumulative case that can be made, that would convince a reasonable person that God is more likely than not. Often times atheists, at least when it comes to arguments for God require a standard that not even courts use: They want 100% certainly or "beyond possible doubt". As such they believe that they dismissed arguments for God by simply imagining some undercutting defeater.

So out of curiosity, what is your standard? Do you want 100% certainty? Do you want beyond reasonable doubt? Do you want more than 50% probability?
Second question, do you apply that same standard to all areas of life?

 

[LuftWaffle]

Hi Siegie,

It been a while since we spoke. How are you?
I like to respond to something you've said that ties in with the discussion I'm having with Bonky.

You said, "And my point being that there are no known water proof arguments to prove the existence of (any) God. And that is why faith is required. If there were proof, there would be no faith."

2 + 2 = 4 doesn't require faith, because there's nothing at stake. Faith is an act of trust in a certain proposition where there is something to lose.
When I jump out of a aeroplane I have faith in the guy who packed the parachute. It's not as if his experience as a packer and his qualifications as a packer makes me 90% confident and so faith makes up the 10% remainder. Rather I can trust based on the evidence that I should be safe, so faith is the act of trust demonstrated by me jumping out of the plane. If he was drunk and untidy, such evidence might convince me to not jump, and so I wont be placing my faith in him.

Faith is not an epistomology, it's simply acting on what I believe to be true.

The reason why jumping out of an aeroplane requires faith is because something's at stake. With 2 + 2 = 4 nothing's at stake.

On the other hand, if I put a gun to your head and had an illusionist place 2 rabbits in a black top hat, and then placed two more rabbits in the hat, and then asked you to guess how many rabbits he'll pull out with the warning that if you're wrong, you're dead, now the stakes would be different and guessing four would be an act of trust. I mean you saw 2 + 2 rabbit going into the hat, right?

I'm sure your retort will be that with the illusionist example uncertainty is introduced, to which I would respond that virtually nothing in life has the levels of certainty that mathematics provides. Life is full of uncertainty.

Faith is an act of trust upon what one believes, not an epistomological tool.

[Bonky]

Luftwaffle:

 

Ok so you're saying faith isn't a method of figuring out what is true, it's holding onto what you believe to be true.  This also sounds like something that isn't advisable.  This sounds a lot like "I trust that I can't ever be wrong about X".  Why is that a good thing?   I don't have faith that what I believe to be true is unshakable.  Anything should be up to scrutiny and review.

This is why we have people [and organizations] saying "No matter what you put in front of me, I'll never change my view".  What is the difference between faith as you've defined it and dogma?  Or am I misunderstanding?

I still find this idea of faith to be overall to be risky business.  

With regard to your questions, I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't think there's a way to figure out if there is a God or not.   I have bones to pick with theism for sure but the idea that our Universe may have been created, on purpose, by a sentient being is completely possible.  I'm afraid I don't know how to quantify what I would need in order to believe in a creator.   I can try to put it this way, it would need to be something that I could defend.

I'd like to wrap up by saying that I don't look down on Christians for believing in the gospel accounts.  I don't view them as crazy or stupid.  What I do have concern over is how the rest of the contents of the Bible can shape a persons mind.  The bible has wonderful things to say but it also contains very polarizing language that I feel gets in the way of our social discourse.   It's not good enough to just look at someone like me and say "Ok this guy isn't convinced".  I hear that I'm a liar, lost, blind, not REALLY trying to find truth etc etc.  What drives this?  Isn't it faith?

 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Bonky

[completedbeliever1]

First, DNA would have to KNOW to make a copy of itself.  Where would it get this knowledge?

Why do cells divide?  Why/how did it do it in the first place without losing information?

We need to have a rational discussion about creation.

Evolution is a poison that is killing our youth. 

[Bonky]

How is evolution poisoning our youth?

[completedbeliever1]

4 minutes ago, Bonky said:

How is evolution poisoning our youth?

By taking away responsibility.

"Since we are animals, we just do what we do."  

There is no accountability.

Why worry about law?
 
Why even care about anything but survival?  

It drives abuse, and selfishness.  It gives people a way out of sympathy/empathy.  

So, eat, drink, and be happy because tomorrow you will die...  

[FresnoJoe]

56 minutes ago, Bonky said:

How is evolution poisoning our youth?

~

Because Man's Idol (Scientism)

And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 18:12

Preaches It Is Greater Than The Holy God Of Israel (Jesus)

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. Deuteronomy 32:39-40