Faith vs blind faith

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is a difference between the definition of the word and if there are different types surely. A fact is something which us known or proven to be true. Based on this what different types of fact are there?

OK let's stick to that definition.
In which we can say that there is no one here who has claimed to have proved God.
Which leaves us with those people who say that since God has not been proved we can assume that God is proved to be  NOT.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Type of fact?  Are there different types?

It's Vlad. If you asked him what the capital of Italy is and he didn't want to answer, he'd come back with "depends what you mean by "capital"", "can you define "Italy"?", "what law-making body do you think designated capital city status?" and wearily on until eventually the question he was originally asked is forgotten and everyone has lost interest. He clearly knows what's meant by "fact" in the context of "God is a fact" but doesn't like thinking about why the statement "I know God is a fact because that's my faith" should be taken seriously so he ducks and dives instead until the problem goes away.

It's actually a variant on the Gish Gallop, only instead of drowning you in assertions he drowns you in prevarications and obfuscations, and when you won't play he has the Grand Canyon-sized front to accuse you of "evasion".

'Twas ever thus.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

OK let's stick to that definition.
In which we can say that there is no one here who has claimed to have proved God.
Which leaves us with those people who say that since God has not been proved we can assume that God is proved to be  NOT.

Why are you lying again?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maeght,

It's Vlad. If you asked him what the capital of Italy is and he didn't want to answer, he'd come back with "depends what you mean by "capital"", "can you define "Italy"?", "what law-making body do you think designated capital city status?" and wearily on until eventually the question he was originally asked is forgotten and everyone has lost interest. He clearly knows what's meant by "fact" in the context of "God is a fact" but doesn't like thinking about why the statement "I know God is a fact because that's my faith" should be taken seriously so he ducks and dives instead until the problem goes away.

It's actually a variant on the Gish Gallop, only instead of drowning you in assertions he drowns you in prevarications and obfuscations, and when you won't play he has the Grand Canyon-sized front to accuse you of "evasion".

'Twas ever thus.

I know God is a fact because that is my faith? Who is saying that?

[Maeght]

OK let's stick to that definition.
In which we can say that there is no one here who has claimed to have proved God.
Which leaves us with those people who say that since God has not been proved we can assume that God is proved to be  NOT.

What?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
- ie, whether someone is guessing or knows he's guessing are different matters.

You mean like whether someone is Goddodging or knows he's Goddodging are two different matters.

[Outrider]

Noah's ark is not God, Exodus is not God.

No, but then what is? They are claims from the same source, that are testable, and that so far have failed those tests. Given source material making outlandish claims, why would be accept the outlandish claims when the commonplace claims are demonstrably unreliable?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, but then what is? They are claims from the same source, that are testable, and that so far have failed those tests. Given source material making outlandish claims, why would be accept the outlandish claims when the commonplace claims are demonstrably unreliable?

O.

But a belief in God does not necessitate belief in the ark or exodus as anything more than myth.
Sorry you seem to be arguing with me as a biblical literalist.
Pure New Atheist caricature on your part.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I know God is a fact because that is my faith? Who is saying that?

Christians. Have you even been to a CofE funeral service for example - all those "sure and certain knowledge" claims?

You mean like whether someone is Goddodging or knows he's Goddodging are two different matters.

No - you'd need to demonstrate as a fact "God" before the claim could be "dodged", whether knowingly or unknowingly. If you think otherwise, is your leprechaun dodging deliberate or inadvertent?

So anyway, back to the difference between blind and non-blind faith: I'll put you down as a "no answer offered" then shall I?

[ippy]

I don't know if it's absolutely impossible. Do Moslems have visions of Mohammed?

I'm sure you understood my post you're not quite as thick as you make yourself out to be, could be you do really understand but don't like to face it, like quite a few of your fellow delu travellers.

ippy

[Outrider]

But a belief in God does not necessitate belief in the ark or exodus as anything more than myth.

No, but if a belief is based on nothing, it can surely be dismissed on the same basis?

Sorry you seem to be arguing with me as a biblical literalist. Pure New Atheist caricature on your part.

No, just trying to determine what basis you have for the claim 'gods'.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - you'd need to demonstrate as a fact "God" before the claim could be "dodged",

I would have thought demonstrating the act of Goddodging would act as evidence for God even in your madcap ontology.....and we can courtesy of Messrs Brian Greene and the very wonderful Mr N De Grasse Tyson....

Coming shortly to a message board near you GODDODGING EXPOSED........the END OF ATHEISM?

[floo]

I would have thought demonstrating the act of Goddodging would act as evidence for God even in your madcap ontology.....and we can courtesy of Messrs Brian Greene and the very wonderful Mr N De Grasse Tyson....

Coming shortly to a message board near you GODDODGING EXPOSED........the END OF ATHEISM?

Oh dear!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I would have thought demonstrating the act of Goddodging would act as evidence for God even in your madcap ontology.....and we can courtesy of Messrs Brian Greene and the very wonderful Mr N De Grasse Tyson....

Bizarre. What act do you think you have "demonstrated" rather than just pre-emptively asserted?

I would have thought demonstrating the act of Goddodging leprechaun dodging would act as evidence for God leprechauns even in your madcap ontology.....

[Shaker]

I would have thought demonstrating the act of Goddodging would act as evidence for God even in your madcap ontology

This is a joke of sorts, right?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

This is a joke of sorts, right?

It's as close as he can get to humour I think.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is a joke of sorts, right?

Only to somebody who wouldn't accept demonstration of Goddodging as Goddodging although heaven knows what IS being dodged by continually pushing the button for ''not god'' in any and every debate.

[Owlswing]

Again we have to look at how God's are being believed.

In my book therefore tales of carousing and shagging on mount Olympus are about as religiously edifying as tales of carousing and shagging at a New Atheist convention i.e. not very.

Shagging and carousing!

This is evidence of the difference betwen your sanctmonious old prick of a God who gives his children (humanity) the gift of sexual pleasure and then makes it a sin to enjoy thgat pleasure unless you follw his rules as interpreted by his celibate priesthood andf the Gods of Olympus who are subject to all the frailties of the humans whose form if not function they share.

As one atheist of my aquaintence, involved in a discussion of standards of sexual behaviour with a devout Christian, was driven to say "there are three kinds of unmarried Christian men - the wankers, the fornicators, and the liars!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Only to somebody who wouldn't accept demonstration of Goddodging as Goddodging...

Veeeeery slooowly now: you cannot "demonstrate" "goddodging" unless you can demonstrate FIRST that there is a god to be dodged.

Something?

Anything?

...although heaven knows what IS being dodged by continually pushing the button for ''not god'' in any and every debate.

One of your favourite lies. You do know that investing heavily in a mistake is not a good reason to stick with it right?

[floo]

Vlad,

Veeeeery slooowly now: you cannot "demonstrate" "goddodging" unless you can demonstrate FIRST that there is a god to be dodged.

Something?

Anything?

One of your favourite lies. You do know that investing heavily in a mistake is not a good reason to stick with it right?

Now, now you are being a bit hard on someone still struggling with a Janet and John starter book!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Veeeeery slooowly now: you cannot "demonstrate" "goddodging" unless you can demonstrate FIRST that there is a god to be dodged.

Something?

Anything?

One of your favourite lies. You do know that investing heavily in a mistake is not a good reason to stick with it right?

And my contention is that for all the debate what is actually going on for several is that people are goddodging and therefore have an inkling of what it is they are dodging. St Augustine was one such person who worked out that all his explorations amounted to, yes, Goddodging.

Now I'm sure there will be people who will be running but never turning during their lifetime. There may be people who actually acknowledge that they are Goddodging. There may even be people who never realise that is what they are doing.

There may be people who have made such a big case for themselves against God they would prefer any fate except admitting they were wrong.

But all that is needed is demonstrating that the only object they have in the question of God is not the science or the philosophy but just God.

Acceptance of simulated universe and denial of ID is that demonstration.

[Outrider]

And my contention is that for all the debate what is actually going on for several is that people are goddodging and therefore have an inkling of what it is they are dodging. St Augustine was one such person who worked out that all his explorations amounted to, yes, Goddodging.

You classifying something as 'god-dodging' doesn't make the classification valid. I could suggest that you are Leprechaun dodging, and unless I can demonstrate Leprechauns that's a meaningless concept.

Now I'm sure there will be people who will be running but never turning during their lifetime.

Unfortunately, those people are usually the ones that don't have opportunity to turn before their explosive waistcoat goes off...

There may be people who actually acknowledge that they are Goddodging.

I fail to understand how anyone that is not mentally ill would do such a thing - if you believe in a god what's the benefit of not acknowledging that?

There may even be people who never realise that is what they are doing.

If they don't realise they're doing it, can they be classified as doing it? Are you dodging something if you don't believe it's there?

There may be people who have made such a big case for themselves against God they would prefer any fate except admitting they were wrong.

Possible. You don't seem to hear about them, you only hear about the ones that want to shout it from the rooftops...

But all that is needed is demonstrating that the only object they have in the question of God is not the science or the philosophy but just God.

I can't get a handle on what you're trying to say here.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You classifying something as 'god-dodging' doesn't make the classification valid. I could suggest that you are Leprechaun dodging, and unless I can demonstrate Leprechauns that's a meaningless concept.

Unfortunately, those people are usually the ones that don't have opportunity to turn before their explosive waistcoat goes off...

I fail to understand how anyone that is not mentally ill would do such a thing - if you believe in a god what's the benefit of not acknowledging that?

If they don't realise they're doing it, can they be classified as doing it? Are you dodging something if you don't believe it's there?

Possible. You don't seem to hear about them, you only hear about the ones that want to shout it from the rooftops...

I can't get a handle on what you're trying to say here.

O.

Anybody reduced to arguing against something because there is still a bit of God in it, is obviously at that point merely wrestling God and i'm afraid, that is religion. As is trying to find a way out of ending up in that predicament.

Apparently Fred Hoyle didn't like Big Bang because it left a role for the man upstairs.

[Outrider]

Anybody reduced to arguing against something because there is still a bit of God in it, is obviously at that point merely wrestling God and i'm afraid, that is religion.

It's about religion, but that doesn't make it religious. People might argue about the last vestiges of 'god-ness' in a concept because they find gods to be pernicious ideas that spread from innocuous roots into dangerous world-spanning terrorist organisations.

Apparently Fred Hoyle didn't like Big Bang because it left a role for the man upstairs.

He preferred an eternal universe with spontaneous emergence of matter periodically, and supported panspermia over abiogenesis as any hypothesis for the origin of life on Earth. Turns out he was probably wrong on at least the first part, given the evidence we currently have.

Bear in mind that, for all of his capacity in some areas, Hoyle thought flu bugs were carried to Earth on the solar wind, which was why we had epidemics correlating with low solar activity. In his defence, he also supported the case for Jocelyn Bell to be included in the Nobel Prize nomination for pulsar work that went to her colleague/supervisor...

It's almost as though he was a complex person who could be right on some things and wrong on others, isn't it?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's about religion, but that doesn't make it religious. People might argue about the last vestiges of 'god-ness' in a concept because they find gods to be pernicious ideas that spread from innocuous roots into dangerous world-spanning terrorist organisations.

Sounds like you might be dodging God by raising a desperate objection there.

What about those who abandon religion on those grounds but not God?

[/quote]