Thanks ewv.
I didn't want to get even this involved with nonsense. All I can say is for you to read any half-way decent book on the nature of the solar system. Those are facts not theory. I was about to post something rude, but I'll keep it to myself -- for now.

The angel that floated by said he was just a rumor and wings are antigravity devises

No

2. No - However, I refuse to force my lack of belief upon those I care for, who do believe. They may think I'm destined for Hell, but since I don't believe in Hell, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Probably, the worst thing that could have ever happened to a prospective Christian (me) was when, at 14 years of age, a local pastor told me the story of the young boy who was struck and killed, by an errant vehicle, before he had made up his mind to give his life to Jesus. Even then, I could smell a con.

"Absence of proof" means you need a better test, not dogma to fill in the blank.

Oh, indeed, I would hate to try to list all the bad, evil things done in the name of "religion". I do not cal cutting off the heads of 20 people just because they do not share your "faith" population control: it is pure, malevolent evil, and trumpeted by "religious people". And do the shamans of their religion tell them tat is is evil? Even our own goofball politicians can't seem to figure it out. Religion has served little if any good purpose in the world, except to stimulate scientific discovery to get away from it.

No
2. No, but I can be OK with the NA Indian "Great Spirit" idea. I see enough in nature to know I do not comprehend all that is there, and marvel at my horses and other animals in their empathy and knowledge.

Nice joke, the God question can be quickly unraveled just with seeing how much crap his kids can get into....let alone a rock.

I would say that following Jesus Christs example as a role model is not the equal of "being Christian". In that, a lot of the Christian Community is just as "do it our way" as any other religion. Having been on the pointy end of that spear, I canunderstand the admiration for the guy, but no more than any other "good" person.It is the individuals self knowledge, values, morals, and basic life rules that seem the paramount thing I look for in them, and most are sadly lacking in any civil framework. To me Robert Heinlein had a good framework for character admiration, yet most Christians would think he was the Devil incarnate.Self rule and responsibility seem more important than trying to emulate a character.

I think you have a point. If something is not seen, it does not mean it does not exist. The part missed was: it does not mean it exists either. To further the discussion, look at:
http://www.amazon.com/Weve-Never-Been...
This book alleges that the whole religion thing was foisted on us by alien beings as a means of control. They hauled out, and humans have taken advantage of the control to perpetuate it. The author uses lots and lots of "facts" from historical and worldwide records to make his hypothesis. Is he right? I don't know but his "facts" seem to fit things as well as any current dogma does. It would be interesting to find out the Middle East wars have been fought for 2000 years because one alien dude was pissed at another. And they bailed out a long time ago and no one told anyone. So, there is an example of "just because it is not seen does not mean it does not exist".

You seem to be mixing apples (no pun intended here) and oranges. The rational scientist uses observation, then a theory, then proves the theory to come to an explanation that can be codified and repeated with "knowledge" that it will result in the same action. There is a differnce between "blind faith" and "informed theory". Edison had performed experimentation, and had built his knowledge up over time with facts. By putting his facts together, he had :faith" he could make a light bulb. Took a lot of ties because his "facts" and experimentation, did not show all the needed materials and designs needed.

Uh, woodlema, I would opt for the safety harness, and skip the faith thing...I think that may be the point some are making. All the faith in the world will not help on the way down.

Excellent point, if Faith included the clause, "do no violence to others or yourself" and those "faithful" kept to it, things would be a hell of a lot better...

I have hope we will someday find an honest politician who will actually represent the people who elect them, but I have no faith it will ever happen.Faith never takes into account reality. The designers of the Titanic had "faith" their little boat was unsinkable, but science trumped that idea. Faith can never be associated with knowledge, in that knowledge is based on truth, and exactly how you define truth can effect the outcome. Another example is the space shuttle. NASA had "faith" it could launch in cold weather, and even had some "truth" to back up their faith, but in the end, their truth did not match reality, their rings failed to seal the boosters and a shuttle went down, even though others had truth, facts and knowledge that that would happen, Faith won the day and a crew was killed, along with a few billion in craft. They sang hymns on the ole Titanic as they went down, and they still drowned. Faith, as a basis for making decisions, is a very poor tool indeed.

Woodlema, having been in your position in some discussions in the Gulch, here is some things I have found to be useful in evaluating this whole area of "Faith". Faith is, in and of itself, an emotional value, the belief that something is right or true just "because". The Sun came up yesterday and today, so it will come up tommorrow "because" it always has. This is the emotional "science" that a lot of the agitators in our society use to justify all their great rip offs "because it is the "right" thing" or "fair" or, the best one, "for the people". You see it all around us today, where they want to blame the cops for their efforts, when it is the criminals who cause the issue. Science is based on observation, then developing a reasoned explanation, then proving that explanation through experimentation. The rinse and repeat. If you get the same results, again and again, you can then assume (or have faith), that what you are testing is true. Then you have to develop a model that can explain what you see and why, that leads to a specific, repeatable proof of truth and http://fact.My problem with all religion, is that it first seeks to impose controls on my behavior, then is usually followed up with social control and financial obligation. This is always based on "faith", andf the facts they use seem to always be in some book or another that has been manipulated by the same parties. My best example of why religion fails is today's ISIS idiots: they kill Christians and other Muslims who do not have their "faith" yet their "faith" is the same basic framework, God, rules, books and secret sauce as those who heads they are cutting off. That isn't faith, it is insanity. My faith in God might be a little stronger the day I wake up and find every violent Muslim has magically transported of this rock. Until then, I will put my faith in E=mc(sq) and have faith it gets used. There is way too much conflict and contradiction in any religion to give it serious attention as something you could ever prove. I respect your right to your faith, go for it, just do not try to apply it as a logical tool for argument, as it doesn't fit well, IMHO.

Thoritsu, amazing how a Catholic can dispense with dogma when convenient, in that divorce is not sanctioned (as far as I know), and my wife and I could not get married due to her being divorced ( and not being Catholic). I was raised Catholic and gave it up as a bad job before even learning to think in a rational manner, as so much of it is in conflict with itself.It mirrors exactly the state of our laws in the country, when so many have added their little bit to the insanity so that almost all law is meaningless and unenforceable. Let alone all the holes in the stories that are used to justify the magic...

For Christians the Bible from the first word, the cmmandments given to Moses, to the teachings of Jesus are all gifts of knowledge on what we need, the right way to obtain these things and how to take care of ourselves, our family, each other everything else on mother earth.

Ayn Rand is one of the ones who got it and has passed on the basic principles of the knowledge in a way that makes it understandablel, if you are tuned in, in the context of the world today (covering 75 yrs. +/-)

Yes, that is very common, but I wonder about the general meaning of "ethnic Christian".

Agreed, proof and evidence are not the same thing. Thats why it would be INCORRECT if I had said "faith is belief without evidence".
Evidence means nothing in this context because it is subject to interpretation, based on biases (beliefs). Whereas proof requires reason, therefore requires the absence of faith.

This is all appeal the final consequences.

Even if I accepted the good consequences of people keeping their word, which I don't, it wouldn't make the claim true.

Personally I would be more likely to trust someone who follows an objective morality based on the requirements of their own life according to reason, rather than someone whose claim to morality is they are too scared of an invisible Punisher to do what they would really want to do if they thought they could get away with it.

You have no understanding whatever of science, scientific method, the nature of scientific understanding, and the nature of rational conceptual thought to understand and predict the nature of the world. Your anti-conceptualism leaves you a complete skeptic resorting to faith in your feelings in desperation. If you can't understand why the "sun comes up" that is your problem.

Your promoting religion and its fallacies does not belong here. You know that. This is a forum for interest in Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and egoism, the opposite of religion.

The reasons for rejecting religious faith are clear enough. It is not possible to rationally argue within someone's theology immersed in faith and sacred text, accepting that approach as a premise. Diving into that mud is hopelessly futile. I do not either quote or misquote from scripture. Faith in sacred text is entirely irrelevant. So are misrepresentations of science as "random" as a false alternative.

No one is trying to or expects to "convert" you. There is no "stalemate", only your obstinate inappropriate religious proselytizing. Please take it somewhere else.

My grandparents were Lutheran and Catholic, going back many generations. Judeo-christian-islamic values probably influenced me.

You say illogical? The problem is you just don't like what I posted. All I see are people scoffing, not offering a counter.

So PROVE to me tonight that the Sun will rise Next Sunday. Unfortunately you can only reference previous "evidence" then state based on previous observation it will, which is faith, since you cannot really provide it will rise until it actually has.

All you can do is "theorize" it will rise.

I loved this article from Adam Kemp about science.

http://adamkemp.newsvine.com/_news/20...

In the debate between religion and science a common argument is that the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang theory, or some other scientific theory is "just a theory". "It hasn't been proved!", they argue. "That means my theory is just as valid."

This argument shows a very common misconception about science that needs to be cleared up. Science never proves anything. Ever. Let me repeat that with different emphasis: Science never proves anything.

For instance, gravity is "just a theory". Like evolution it cannot be proved correct. I pointed this out in a debate recently, and my opponent attempted to mock the example. He, like most people who make these arguments, did not understand how science works or its limitations.

Science is based on inductive reasoning, which is a method of drawing generalized conclusions based on finite observations. Inductive reasoning can be used to disprove a theory, but it cannot be used to prove one. for example, take the following observation:

The grass outside my window is green.

Using inductive reasoning I can conclude:

All grass is green.

This conclusion is valid in inductive reasoning so long as all observations support it. As soon as an observation contradicts the conclusion, the conclusion is proved false. However, the only way to prove theory is true would be to observe all grass. This limitation is due to the fact that a conclusion is being drawn from a subset of possible observations.

Since science, by its very nature, attempts to draw conclusions from observations of the natural world inductive reasoning is necessary. In science, though, it is literally impossible to make every possible observation to prove a rule. Therefore, it is also impossible to prove any theory in science. Every conclusion science has ever made is an unproved theory, including gravity.

Still not convinced? Consider the theory itself (in a Newtonian sense for simplicity): all mass is attracted to all other mass in a manner which fits a specific equation (F = Gm1m2/d^2).

How would we test this? We can try dropping objects with various masses, measuring their acceleration, and then use the above equation (along with Earth's mass for the second object) to verify. If the math works out then the theory is supported. Up until Einstein (maybe even up until now, but I'm not sure) this always worked. However, the only way to prove that the equation is right would be to test every object in the Universe against every other object in the Universe. This is (essentially) an infinite number of observations, which can't be done.

Some might argue that this only applies to the equation itself, but not the fact that gravity occurs. They would say "I can prove gravity by dropping something". However, they are wrong. The only thing you can prove by dropping something is that gravity worked for that test. The only thing they're changing in their test versus the test I described above is loosening the requirements for success: instead of requiring that the equation fit the observation, they are checking that the acceleration is positive (F > 0). The reasoning being used to prove the theory hasn't changed. It's still inductive, and you would still have to make an essentially infinite number of observations in order to prove that gravity works in that way every time.

Some people find this unsettling. If nothing can be proved then how can we know anything? What good is science? The problem is that people are wanting more from science than we actually need. We don't need to know that gravity always works. We just need to be confident that it works under given circumstances. After enough successful tests a theory may be considered a fact in practicality, even when it is not technically proved correct.

Science is not about proving things. It never has been, and it never will be. Instead, science is about observing the Universe around us and using those observations to try to understand how the Universe works. This understanding is always subject to change no matter how confident we are.

Inventors do have rational reasons. An inventor's confidence in his goals is not "faith" and has nothing to do with primitive belief in the supernatural.