Euler's Identity

I LOVE chess lol. I was outright addicted for a while a few months back but haven't played since then. I was just about to start playing in some tourneys and receive a USCF rating but that's when a nasty gaming thing kicked in and I haven't played much at all since . I'm JUST NOW getting back into the game as of yesterday, I imagine my rating will be horrible again and I'll have to go back to square 1 lol.

Yeah that's what I meant (falsifiable meaning). Yeah, I have come to realize that in terms of the biblical god if taken literally you can show evidence (though short of scientific of course) to be false, or if not the actual biblical god themselves, the claims that the bible makes about this god. What you CANNOT do is show evidence that this actual god or any god doesn't exist at all.

Wouldn't you have to search the whole universe to disprove that X does not exist as well? When we discuss the most popular religions, this is even more difficult because God X is outside of the reach of the universe and laws of the universe. Therefore you could never say for sure that God X doesn't exist.

Actually, YOU have been interpreting my posts that way every since, NEVER did I say that theist are "stupid" or "wrong". Maybe you should check back with my posts in the past. As we both seemed to agree many theists do not base their faith on nothing, but in my personal experience as I also stated many do, but this has been used against me to say that I believe that theists are "stupid" or "have no common sense". pears: How am I shifting the goalposts here? We're still talking about blind faith with nothing to support it and I asked you a question to get your opinion, perhaps I did get the wrong impression on you're beliefs, I was already getting charged up anyways. I should probably take a good break from the thread for a while because we don't appear to be getting anywhere anyways.

So it wouldn't be your strong opinion that I shouldn't take my child to the hospital with a serious illness because I believe that my lord "dog shit" is going to come down and cure her illness based on nothing but 100% blind faith? Should I tell her that if you do not worship my pile of dog feces she will burn in fire for eternity after she dies? Would you not be strongly opinionated that me believing in this dog feces as a deity based on nothing but blind faith is incorrect? The scientific method isn't necessary here, my pile of feces CLEARLY isn't a deity (dodge and say its a matter opinion all you want) and I shouldn't be teaching my children to believe this either. You can say subjective, subjective, subjective and throw that at everything, and yes that is valid within the realm of science, but we're not discussing science. We are discussing the "rationale behind religion" I believe the forum description says something similar to that.

Hmm I thought despite that it isn't perfectly defined it was quite unambiguous (common sense that is), what I mean is that baseless blind faith with no explanation for why you really believe it is clearly misguided. I don't see why this is so difficult to swallow, if I wanted to believe that a "pile of shit" was going to come down and save me in my time of need with NOTHING guiding me to believe so, I think we could all agree that I am completely misguided. (In this hypothetical that is )

You've misread my post again, I didn't make the assertion as fact that most peoples faith is baseless based on common sense, I said that blind faith is baseless based on common sense.

Actually that's incorrect, my stance does not rely upon this assumption. The idea that a huge majority of peoples faith is baseless relies upon this assumption. My stance is that completely blind faith makes no sense, which relies upon common sense, rather than assumptions.

I would be willing to estimate that at least 80% of those that believe in a god have never experienced anything miraculous to sway them in that direction, but I'm not those people and I wasn't there so I could never say that for sure of course. Blind faith is used in the context that you don't really know why you believe it and you don't question it, just believe it.

Me either

I never claimed that science can disprove the existence of a god as you seem to believe I have, I claimed (multiple times) that without anything pointing you to the belief it makes no sense. Neither did I say that "Believing in god is wrong", i cannot prove that because the existence of a god IS possible. But as I have also stated in the past it makes no sense to believe this with absolutely nothing in the way of an experience to make you believe so. I've heard a million times that it is outside the realm of science and believe so, I don't need you to repeat that back to me as its obvious. Completely blind faith makes absolutely no sense at all, it has never shown any results to people that rely on it. Yep a god is possible, never claimed it wasn't, but again without anything that gives you the impression that one does exist, why would you worship and put your life in the hands of this possibly imaginary being?

I haven't been here the whole thread but I BELIEVE he is asking you to demonstrate how they are different.

Without something strong to influence you personally as I stated, blind faith based on nothing makes no sense whatsoever. You're belief that chocolate is the best flavor is not flawed logic, because its a matter of how you receive each flavor in particular and is a matter of opinion and PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, not to mention that your opinion that chocolate is best doesn't break multiple well established laws of nature. The existence of some deity which breaks all of the laws of nature and is the supposed creator of all things, on the other hand, is on a different scale. With NOTHING to support such a claim and it being based on blind faith alone, how does this belief make any sense? Matter of personal belief or not without something extraordinary it seems to make 0 sense.

I disagree, unless you have a personal experience which provokes you to believe something (really strong event) then blind faith can be questioned with reason. Its simple, unless you have experienced what I have stated above there is no reason to believe anything that doesn't make rational sense to the natural world without empirical evidence to support it. If you HAVE experienced something like that then I would suggest its no longer faith anyways, but as everyone seems to agree you shouldn't expect anyone else to take it as evidence.

Fair enough, which translation do you suggest is correct? I have abt 5 versions in my house here, in addition to whatever one I want on the internet where I can go cite that version. Yep, I agree, a lot of the NT stuff is pretty cool and warm, but that doesn't make it truth. As for your argument that we're just taking our logical beliefs on faith, I challenge you to put down all of the anatomical, genetic, and cellular evidence for common decent. Make sure that if you do not have a thorough understanding of evolution and its mechanisms you learn it. Here's some good resources for getting started: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgHd6HKtvE&list=PLB225304713046D4F The book and theory that is most famous for starting it all as I'm sure you know: http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/darwin/originspecies.pdf Also just in case you do not understand exactly how DNA & RNA work to make proteins you should find a book or playlist by a legitimate source, I do not have one because I rigorously learned genetics in the classroom, so I have not yet learned more about it though I'm sure the resources are out there. Afterwards I challenge you to counter all of the types of evidence I stated.