carl wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Also why pray at all or live a devout life, if God has already decided whether you got heaven or hell.

God decided?

1) I have free will to choose God and to be thankful for the life He gave me or...
2) I can be unthankful and spend my energies telling others He doesn't exist.

The worst thing my own child can tell someone is that his own dad doesn't even exist as far as he's concerned. Now that's pure hatred.

Except that telling your child you don't exist would be absurd. Biological fathers are demonstrable, carl. Stories about big-giant-liveum-sky aren't.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

carl wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Except that isn't faith, since we have evidence pointing to natural origins.

You said "pointing"?

Yes and I know that you were going to wibble about that.

carl wrote:To bridge the gap from "pointing" to 'scientifically confirmed', your faith is used.

Except I haven't said it is scientifically confirmed.

ok, so you do 'believe' by faith and if not by faith, then what, since there is no scientific confirmation?

carl wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

carl wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Except that isn't faith, since we have evidence pointing to natural origins.

You said "pointing"?

Yes and I know that you were going to wibble about that.

carl wrote:To bridge the gap from "pointing" to 'scientifically confirmed', your faith is used.

Except I haven't said it is scientifically confirmed.

ok, so you do 'believe' by faith and if not by faith, then what, since there is no scientific confirmation?

No.
And you know how you can know I don't?
Because I haven't expressed that or any similar position anywhere.

Stop talking to imaginary people in your head and start adressing what people actually write carl.
I don't do blind belief carl.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

carl wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

carl wrote:

You said "pointing"?

Yes and I know that you were going to wibble about that.

carl wrote:To bridge the gap from "pointing" to 'scientifically confirmed', your faith is used.

Except I haven't said it is scientifically confirmed.

ok, so you do 'believe' by faith and if not by faith, then what, since there is no scientific confirmation?

No.
And you know how you can know I don't?
Because I haven't expressed that or any similar position anywhere.

Stop talking to imaginary people in your head and start adressing what people actually write carl.
I don't do blind belief carl.

You do believe in the natural origins of the universe and life on this planet, right?

I am asking how you can believe WITHOUT scientific confirmation?

carl wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

carl wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Yes and I know that you were going to wibble about that.


Except I haven't said it is scientifically confirmed.

ok, so you do 'believe' by faith and if not by faith, then what, since there is no scientific confirmation?

No.
And you know how you can know I don't?
Because I haven't expressed that or any similar position anywhere.

Stop talking to imaginary people in your head and start adressing what people actually write carl.
I don't do blind belief carl.

You do believe in the natural origins of the universe and life on this planet, right?

I accept that there is plenty of evidence that there life evolved naturally on this planet.
I have no evidence for any specific origin theory, though certain abiogenesis theories are partially surported.
I accept the evidence for stellar birth and the big bang theory, beyond that I claim neither knowledge or belief.
Like I said above carl, I don't do blind belief.

carl wrote:I am asking how you can believe WITHOUT scientific confirmation?

You're poisoning the well by asserting I believe.

Occam's razor carl. It's perfectly simple. You don't explain stuff with things you don't have evidence for. If we don't know how stuff works, we merely say that. Claiming invisible unicorns, fairies or deities did it to plug gaps in your ignorance is lazy and dishonest.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I accept that there is plenty of evidence that there life evolved naturally on this planet.
I have no evidence for any specific origin theory, though certain abiogenesis theories are partially surported.
I accept the evidence for stellar birth and the big bang theory, beyond that I claim neither knowledge or belief.
Like I said above carl, I don't do blind belief.

Is "accept" code for 'believe'?

You are using your faith and are avoiding admission of it, and dishonestly so, for your own purposes.

Here is another human universal truth: We all use faith. Not admitting so doesn't change our human nature.

BlackBart wrote:Occam's razor carl. It's perfectly simple. You don't explain stuff with things you don't have evidence for. If we don't know how stuff works, we merely say that. Claiming invisible unicorns, fairies or deities did it to plug gaps in your ignorance is lazy and dishonest.

So you admit believing something for which there is insufficient information. You are using your faith. Thank you.

carl wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Also why pray at all or live a devout life, if God has already decided whether you got heaven or hell.

God decided?

1) I have free will to choose God and to be thankful for the life He gave me or...

Oh you have free will to choose God? Ok. Choose to be an atheist. Go on.

2) I can be unthankful and spend my energies telling others He doesn't exist.

So much mess. This is a false dichotomy, carl, an informal fallacy.

The worst thing my own child can tell someone is that his own dad doesn't even exist as far as he's concerned. Now that's pure hatred.

Yeah but you see the thing is it's blatantly obvious that you do in fact exist.

carl wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I accept that there is plenty of evidence that there life evolved naturally on this planet.
I have no evidence for any specific origin theory, though certain abiogenesis theories are partially surported.
I accept the evidence for stellar birth and the big bang theory, beyond that I claim neither knowledge or belief.
Like I said above carl, I don't do blind belief.

Is "accept" code for 'believe'?

You are using your faith and are avoiding admission of it, and dishonestly so, for your own purposes.

Here is another human universal truth: We all use faith. Not admitting so doesn't change our human nature.

When are you going to learn that your idiotic assertions do not equal fact? Your personal opinion holds no weight here, carl. In addition, you need to stop contorting other people's comments to fit that idiotic opinion if you want to keep posting here.

carl wrote:

BlackBart wrote:Occam's razor carl. It's perfectly simple. You don't explain stuff with things you don't have evidence for. If we don't know how stuff works, we merely say that. Claiming invisible unicorns, fairies or deities did it to plug gaps in your ignorance is lazy and dishonest.

So you admit believing something for which there is insufficient information. You are using your faith. Thank you.

You are violating the FUA.

carl wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I accept that there is plenty of evidence that there life evolved naturally on this planet.
I have no evidence for any specific origin theory, though certain abiogenesis theories are partially surported.
I accept the evidence for stellar birth and the big bang theory, beyond that I claim neither knowledge or belief.
Like I said above carl, I don't do blind belief.

Is "accept" code for 'believe'?

No.
I have already made it perfectly clear I do not speak in code.
If I support something or wish to express something, I will state it clearly.

carl wrote:You are using your faith and are avoiding admission of it, and dishonestly so, for your own purposes.

Fuck off with this pathetic hypocritical lecturing carl.

carl wrote:Here is another human universal truth: asinine blind assertion We all use faith. Not admitting so doesn't change our human nature.

carl wrote:In the meantime, do I need all of the answers to believe?

No, but you need a fuck of a lot more answers than you would to simply not believe.

Fallible wrote:

carl wrote:

BlackBart wrote:Occam's razor carl. It's perfectly simple. You don't explain stuff with things you don't have evidence for. If we don't know how stuff works, we merely say that. Claiming invisible unicorns, fairies or deities did it to plug gaps in your ignorance is lazy and dishonest.

So you admit believing something for which there is insufficient information. You are using your faith. Thank you.

You are violating the FUA.

Can you say misrepresentation? Misrepresentation. That's a big word isn't it?

Correct me if I have misunderstood but, as I understand it, if you are a theist, you accept as fact certain things about your god: 1.Omniscient
2.Omnipresent
3. All powerful
viz--
1. He knows all there is to know about everything.
2. He is/was/shall be everywhere.
3. He has the ability to accomplish anything.

Now consider our world and the state of it at present, bearing in mind the above three statements re god.
It follows rationally that he is aware of the suffering people are enduring but he does nothing to alleviate it.
He lacks either the power or the will to rid the world of it.
The standard believers' response to this dilemma is to say that we humans are the cause of our own situation and all the evil on earth. Seemingly freewill is the scapegoat. We have made all the wrong choices. Who's fault is that, then? It can't be ours because God made us "in his own image" (according to believers) so it follows that what went wrong is down to him after all. He made a huge mistake; he can't or won't put it right therefore he is a fake at best or a figment of human imagination.

Sorry-the above post is in the wrong thread. It should be in the thread about freewill. Please move it for me, mods.

carl wrote:So you admit believing something for which there is insufficient information. You are using your faith. Thank you.

Do you believe there is no poison in your breakfast cereal?

Have you checked, or are you 'just' trusting the manufacturer?

There's a world of difference between trusting to some extent in human nature in situations where cheating is likely to be discovered and punished, and trusting in promises carefully crafted to be beyond disproof.

Much social activity and much science comes into the first category.
Much myth-based religion evidently comes into the second, as can be seen not simply from the countless claims of 'other/wrong' religions which a believer often considers false but can't disprove, but from the ease of fabricating spoof or scam religions (like Pastafarianism or $cientology) which while bogus, seem hard to distinguish in terms of underlying logic and evidence base from mainstream ones.