He did a great job for the most part, especially because he was walking and tired. I didn't post it because when he mentioned that if some one wakes up in the morning with faith nothing can go wrong. This clip actually inspired me to do a post breaking down the differences between the word belief and faith. My conclusion was that belief is good. Faith is shit and should only be used as shit in a sentence.What cracks me up about this video is that it was obviously the Christian mongers that were taking the video. They must have published it somewhere thinking it was an example of there good work. We all know they were buttheads and their arguments where crushed by our PFunk brother.
Why is belief good? Yes, I thought he was a bit off when he said "It works for you." I don't exactly see how it "works."
The video inspired me to look up the difference between faith and belief. I'm not well read and my vocabulary is pathetic so I'm always using the dictionary to clear things up in my head. I have dubbed the dictionary the Atheists Bible. This is my condensed version of the definitions of the two words.Faith1 : allegiance to duty2 : belief in a God, firm belief in something for which there is no proof3 : a system of religious beliefsFaith is obviously shit. 1? This is good if the duty is to keep the earth in an environment that is conducive for life but it could also be the duty to a corrupt company which would be bad. Duty is not defined enough for this to be good or bad. 2? is self explanatory. 3? AKA a system relating to faithful devotion to a deity through beliefs. This is redundant. It wouldn't be bad if there was evidence for a deity but we all know that has not happened and we can be relatively sure it's never going to.Belief1 : a state of mind in which trust is placed in something.2 : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group.3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.Beliefs are good. 1. We put trust in things all the time. Putting trust in your friends, family and co-workers is necessary for smooth social interaction. This is not to say that we should be blind to the evils people can do but we can't live in a state of paranoia all the time. 2. This is good if the group is reliable, such as the scientific community. They have plenty of tenets written out in black and white and ask the entire community to check for errors. This is the scientific method and it helps mankind advance. 3. this is similar to #2 in faith except there is evidence to back it up. This has lead the enlightened to believe there is no God and that all things are Natural.
Big Bang Theory is just a hypothesis?There's more than 9 planets?Science sucks! I'm goin to church!What a bunch of bullcrap.
BigeBlind what makes you so angry and scared?The only thing any of us can be absolutely positive of is our own personal existence. With relative certainty I can believe that allee also exists. A Scientist following the scientific method, the golden rule #2, has allegiance to only on thing, the truth. Scientists and philosophers create ideas or theories and then let it lose in the community asking for people to prove them wrong. The religious do the opposite. They come up with fake gods that can't be proved wrong and claim that they and their laws are irrefutable truths. To quote Dawkins, "That is barking mad."
In my opinion, science isn't a faith system because it is a belief with questions. Faith which being religious allows no questions. I could be wrong though.
I think that bigeblind is on our side.I don't agree with you, Southside. You don't have to "believe" things. As far as groups go, you probably shouldn't "believe" in group tenets. You have tools at your disposal with which to evaluate group tenets. I don't see any reason we have to "believe" anything. I don't see a big difference between belief and faith. Science is not a group that holds tenets. Science is defined either as a methodology or information. By its very definition, there is no need to place belief in it.
I like your opinion kathryn. The big difference between faith and belief is that beliefs can be proved wrong and are indeed open to change via evidence. Every intelligent person realizes they may be wrong. Only idiots think that there beliefs are infallible and that exact act, is the process of not thinking found at the core of all faith. I debate with myself all the god damm time.Atheist Bible "the source of divine light"; tenet = a principle, a fundamental lawIf we didn't put trust in the tenets of friction, inertia and gravity it would be impossible to ride a bicycle. We don't have to give names to the tenets to believe in them for nearly all animals with brains use these tenets. It is essential to put trust in things one has tested. That's what childhood is all about. Without trust in voltage and current no one would plug their computers in. Life as our Pfunk friend explained, should have a belief that the laws of science will remain consistent. If we don't have belief in this, we would be too scared to get out of bed.I'm glad you don't agree with me alleee. I actually search for people that are willing to debate that don't agree with me. I find it even more intriguing that we are on the same "side" but we obviously are on polar ends of "our" nofaith spectrum. The only side I'm on is the truth. If a person of faith would present evidence that their god it true I would switch sides in a heart beat.
Southside, you said "If we didn't put trust in the tenets of friction, inertia and gravity it would be impossible to ride a bicycle." and "Without trust in voltage and current no one would plug their computers in."This goes a little too far into a bad semantic area, and could be attacked by religious people. Friction, inertia, and gravity would all work whether we put trust in them or not. A monkey or a bear can ride a bike, without having to wonder if gravity will still work.People who plug in their computers do not need to trust voltage or current. They have a simple test ahead of them -- turning the computer on. Perhaps you could use the word "experience" rather than "trust," but even that is not necessary. A person with no experience can follow a list of instructions, not knowing about computers or electricity, or even knowing that something is supposed to happen when they follow the instructions, and the computer would still turn on if they followed everything properly.Even when the computer does NOT turn on when it's plugged in, trust still does not come into the picture -- neither trust that the power company is still providing power, nor trust that the computer is not broken, for then we perform tests to rule things out (plugging other devices into the same socket to see if they work, for instance).The point of all this is that no, we do not need to trust anything. The sane person does not stop and wonder if the laws of physics will suddenly change before taking an action. We simply do things the way they've always worked before, and only need stop and assess the situation if things perform in an anomalous way.You seem to be saying that people would not take action unless they actively believed that things would continue to function as normal. But no. People take action without thinking about it all the time. Having stumbled barely awake to the bathroom in the middle of the night, and then had no memory of it in the morning, I can say that from experience.
Post a Comment