Active Users:289 Time:29/03/2024 11:02:18 AM
A snide response. The Logic Ninja - 12/04/2004 09:13:12 PM

Then you went and said that. Dammit! (Yes, I spelled it wrong because I pronounce it that way sometimes, to seem more southern, like I'm missing a tooth or something.)

People who limit themselves to logic, reason & "facts" can never understand that a person with faith doesn't care what their proof is. Proof isn't necessary when you have faith. That's what faith is: believing without proof.
And do you not realize how ridiculous and unreasonable a thing to do this is? Not just with proof, without *evidence*. Having faith in God is no different than having faith in Santa.
Why in the world would you believe something unevidenced? If there's no evidenced, there's *no reason to believe it*.

Something people often forget, though, is that fact is a very problematic word. Nothing is fact, save perhaps for things previously recorded (but recorded how? And interpreted how?). Anything else, things that haven't yet occurred, are merely highly-probable events. It's not a fact that the sun will "rise" tomorrow. It's just a likely thing to expect, given our understanding of the solar system. We won't know for sure that the sun will rise until it does. Similarly, it's possible (though the chance is so small as to be non-existant) that I'll fall through my chair, as the molecules in my chair and myself, in constant flux, could somehow line up in such a way as to no longer support me. Again, it'll never happen, but we won't know that for sure until the chair is destroyed or I am. Until one of those two things happens, I'll just have to get by on my faith that what we hold as facts will continue to occur.
You're playing semantics with the word "fact", and not the useful let's-figure-out-exactly-what-the-other-person-is-saying kind of semantics either. That we don't know something "for sure" because hypothetically, we could be wrong is a generally recognized assumption that, well, has no bearing on anything.

Anyone who places all their faith in facts should always remember that facts are subjective, and across time, the way of judging facts has changed. What once was sufficient proof is often not, now, and 100 years from now, the claims of someone like The Logic Ninja may be laughed at as infantile.
Maybe. And if I live that long and am presented with that evidence, hopefully, I'll be rational enough to change my viewpoint.

Sorry TIP, but you always feel it's necessary to spout logic at anyone who purports their faith round here, so I just thought I'd put things in perspective.
Believing in something based on evidence is sensible. It could turn out that you're wrong, in which case you ought to change your mind, but it's sensible. Believing in something that *nothing* evidences is NOT sensible. Faith is of *no* value as a way of figuring out what's true. Your argument is "there's a margin of error in what we percieve as facts, so blind evidenceless guesses are just as good as such facts", basically. It's erroneous.

*awaits snide response*
Well, there you go. You're not giving any sort of an argument as to why faith is good. All you're saying is, "well, you could be wrong."
Yeah, I could. But modern facts and scientific theories are WAY less likely to be wrong than plain old faith.



I am not yet born, console me.
I fear that the human race may with tall walls wall me,
with strong drugs dope me, with wise lies lure me,
on black racks rack me, in blood-baths roll me.




View/create new replies Sign up for a premium account to add posts to a list of favourites!
I find it odd that many religious people are still anti-evolution - 11/04/2004 06:08:32 PM 260 Views
Not everyone acknowledges the Pope. *NM* - 11/04/2004 06:15:07 PM 13 Views
I'm sorry... but this was somehow extremely funny. *NM* - 11/04/2004 06:20:20 PM 12 Views
I can see it now..."You just knocked over the Pope!" - 11/04/2004 06:25:47 PM 63 Views
Heh. Cool smiley. *NM* - 11/04/2004 09:49:25 PM 6 Views
I forgive you. *NM* - 11/04/2004 06:43:04 PM 7 Views
For one thing, while most Christians respect him, not all are Catholic - 11/04/2004 06:24:41 PM 62 Views
of course, that can be referred to my post lower on the board - 11/04/2004 07:03:31 PM 26 Views
As to Catholics - 11/04/2004 07:56:18 PM 23 Views
Shouldn't it be the other way around? - 11/04/2004 08:37:27 PM 36 Views
Of course not. - 11/04/2004 09:34:38 PM 25 Views
You know... - 12/04/2004 04:25:25 AM 20 Views
Also, where did Caine's wife come from? - 12/04/2004 06:35:28 AM 25 Views
Exactly! - 12/04/2004 02:19:40 PM 16 Views
Wow, what an original point!!!! - 13/04/2004 05:01:22 AM 12 Views
Demonsesese! *NM* - 13/04/2004 11:07:02 AM 6 Views
Mel Gibson's dad - 12/04/2004 05:27:41 AM 22 Views
Well, to be fair, Jews are not Christians... - 13/04/2004 11:12:03 AM 11 Views
Not my meaning - 15/04/2004 07:14:24 AM 5 Views
*arrives in a hijacked popemobile* - 11/04/2004 07:15:03 PM 45 Views
Do you have some good papal history links? *NM* - 12/04/2004 05:30:09 AM 7 Views
id reccomend reading books on it - 15/04/2004 12:55:01 PM 5 Views
People that don't are mostly literal-believers. - 11/04/2004 07:37:35 PM 24 Views
I feel that too many people are becoming Arian-type Christians. - 13/04/2004 11:16:48 AM 10 Views
are you really suprised? - 11/04/2004 08:11:01 PM 31 Views
Please note - 11/04/2004 08:45:22 PM 26 Views
Re: Please note - 12/04/2004 01:45:31 AM 15 Views
I agree. Evolution may be the method reason understands... - 13/04/2004 12:01:24 PM 8 Views
people prefer mysticism and faith to fact and science - 11/04/2004 10:41:41 PM 32 Views
Thought I was gonna have to disagree with you. - 12/04/2004 01:27:16 AM 30 Views
A snide response. - 12/04/2004 09:13:12 PM 14 Views
But there IS evidence. Just not published in Science journals. - 13/04/2004 05:12:40 AM 14 Views
Geez. - 13/04/2004 08:00:07 AM 18 Views
The point of faith is that you don't need scientific proof. - 13/04/2004 11:39:14 AM 11 Views
You do realize - 13/04/2004 03:49:06 PM 13 Views
Science is based on sensible assumptions... - 13/04/2004 11:49:54 AM 12 Views
Yeah, *sensible assumptions*, - 13/04/2004 03:13:43 PM 11 Views
But not proven - 13/04/2004 03:15:50 PM 10 Views
Huh? - 13/04/2004 03:54:38 PM 12 Views
True - 13/04/2004 04:05:10 PM 12 Views
You can't prove existential negatives. - 13/04/2004 04:22:17 PM 11 Views
Re: You can't prove existential negatives. - 13/04/2004 04:34:02 PM 9 Views
See THEOLOGY for Reason in support of Faith. *NM* - 13/04/2004 11:53:43 AM 7 Views
Like what? - 13/04/2004 04:23:31 PM 7 Views
Next time you're in the barber chair... - 13/04/2004 11:19:52 AM 12 Views
You still don't get it. - 13/04/2004 03:09:56 PM 14 Views
Furthermore, the age of the world is a separate issue from evolution. *NM* - 12/04/2004 12:08:34 AM 9 Views
Not entirely. If a Christian found a way to prove the Earth was young - 12/04/2004 01:36:12 AM 23 Views
Yeah, but they're still two separate issues. - 12/04/2004 02:12:50 AM 17 Views
They are linked, and one requires the other. - 13/04/2004 11:43:43 AM 12 Views
No. No, not really. - 13/04/2004 03:51:51 PM 7 Views
*shrugs* - 12/04/2004 06:19:05 AM 16 Views
I think it is silly to hold onto beliefs from a book written by , you - 12/04/2004 10:31:13 AM 26 Views
it's not the catholics - 13/04/2004 03:55:14 PM 13 Views