Atheists, quit confusing the two.

[Tricky]

I can see how both statements would be more clearly understood and appropriate if stated as:

Fundamentalist: I *have faith* in the biblical story of creation as to the origin of life forms on earth.

Biologist: Well, I *have confidence* in abiogenesis and evolution as to the origin of life forms on earth.

Not only (to my perceptions) is this more clearly accurate of what the two are (or probably should be) stating, but it distinguishes between supported evidentiary understandings and unsupported conjecture/conviction, without a lot of necessary additional qualification and clarification.

I don't doubt that for you, that is more precise. Same with Slingblade above. But we have to deal with language the way that most people use it, and for most people "believe" just means "I think it is true". At least, I believe that is the case.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

Nonsense. Everything that is currently in the realm of science was once in the realm of religion. Turns out, religion's explanations were wrong.

 

[Trakar]

I don't doubt that for you, that is more precise. Same with Slingblade above. But we have to deal with language the way that most people use it, and for most people "believe" just means "I think it is true". At least, I believe that is the case.

The problem comes from a variety of people involved in a conversation using the same words in many different ways, with fundementally different definitions for some of those words. All I can do is clarify my own usages and hope that others will do the same. I don't expect others to adopt my conventions, but neither do I accept that they should get to define the words I use by their conventions.

 

[Trakar]

Words, twisted beyond recognition, convey no meaning.

I agree, fully. unfortunately even dictionary meanings and definitions are in a constant state of flux and change, and there are multitudes of dictionaries with significant variance, one to the other. Wherever possible, I try to avoid such confusions by sticking to scientific and legal terminologies, and generally opt for terms with extremely specific definitions as opposed to synonymous terms of more popular usage that may have a range of meanings and interpretations.

 

[dafydd]

The problem comes from a variety of people involved in a conversation using the same words in many different ways, with fundementally different definitions for some of those words. All I can do is clarify my own usages and hope that others will do the same. I don't expect others to adopt my conventions, but neither do I accept that they should get to define the words I use by their conventions.

You are not Humpty Dumpty. How can we discuss with you if you give your own meanings to words? Perhaps you could supply us with a glossary.

 

[dafydd]

I agree, fully. unfortunately even dictionary meanings and definitions are in a constant state of flux and change, and there are multitudes of dictionaries with significant variance, one to the other. Wherever possible, I try to avoid such confusions by sticking to scientific and legal terminologies, and generally opt for terms with extremely specific definitions as opposed to synonymous terms of more popular usage that may have a range of meanings and interpretations.

Is the phrase 'hot air' in your dictionary?

 

[Trakar]

Or you can honestly accept and admit - "I don't know".

To my understanding that is largely what you are saying when you say "I believe."

The problem with faith/beliefs is they are most often claimed/accepted to be knowledge/truths.

To fill in the blanks in knowledge with faith/beliefs is an irrational (aka stupid) and potentially dangerous thing to do.

Agreed, especially those who hold and adhere to beliefs that are actually contradicted by available compelling evidences, and provided that "blanks in knowledge" refers to personal knowledge, as opposed to total accumulated knowledge. The gaps in modern total accumulated knowledge are so far removed from everyday experience and practicality that there is little danger in an erroneous belief filling that gap.

 

[dafydd]

To my understanding that is largely what you are saying when you say "I believe."

'I believe' is not synonymous with 'I don't know'. Is English your first language,you appear to be having trouble with the meanings of words.

 

[dirtywick]

First provide evidence a god exists, othwise all god claims and speculations are moot.

Smokey the Bear doesn't need to exist to teach people not to start forest fires.

 

[Trakar]

'I believe' is not synonymous with 'I don't know'. Is English your first language,you appear to be having trouble with the meanings of words.

Believe - Hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose (definition #5)
- to think, assume, or suppose (definition #5)

Know - Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information (Defintion #1)
- Have knowledge or information concerning (Definition #2)

If you don't "know" (have evidence to support) some thing you are stating or commenting upon, then you must merely "believe" (be assuming or supposing) that thing. The lack of precision and consistency in your use of language suggests a lack of cognitive discipline and/or acumen, did you graduate from high school?

 

[ynot]

Smokey the Bear doesn't need to exist to teach people not to start forest fires.

That's fine if you admit that God is a completely fictitious character like Smokey Bear.

 

[ynot]

Believe - Hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose (definition #5)
- to think, assume, or suppose (definition #5)

Know - Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information (Defintion #1)
- Have knowledge or information concerning (Definition #2)

If you don't "know" (have evidence to support) some thing you are stating or commenting upon, then you must merely "believe" (be assuming or supposing) that thing. The lack of precision and consistency in your use of language suggests a lack of cognitive discipline and/or acumen, did you graduate from high school?

Utter rubbish! Not knowing doesn’t involve or require having any belief, assuming, supposing or opinion.

A person that is stating or commenting on a subject without evidence is merely guessing, fantasising, deluded or telling lies.

 

[Trakar]

Utter rubbish! Not knowing doesn’t involve or require having any belief or opinion.

No one said that "not knowing" required anything, that said, when I hear someone say that they believe some thing, then my understanding is that they are expressing an opinion, consideration or supposition that is without substantive or compelling support,...otherwise they would say they *know* that thing, not that they merely believe that thing.

 

[ynot]

No one said that "not knowing" required anything, that said, when I hear someone say that they believe some thing, then my understanding is that they are expressing an opinion, consideration or supposition that is without substantive or compelling support,...otherwise they would say they *know* that thing, not that they merely believe that thing.

You’re dancing too far from the music again.

That has nothing to do with your earlier claim we are currently debating . . .

You said . . .

“Without evidence all you have is faith/beliefs“.

To which I replied . . .

"Or you can honestly accept and admit - "I don't know".

 

[ynot]

Agreed, especially those who hold and adhere to beliefs that are actually contradicted by available compelling evidences, and provided that "blanks in knowledge" refers to personal knowledge, as opposed to total accumulated knowledge. The gaps in modern total accumulated knowledge are so far removed from everyday experience and practicality that there is little danger in an erroneous belief filling that gap.

Great! So you agree that your creator belief is irrational (aka stupid).

Regardless whether your belief is contradicted by available compelling evidence s (FTFY) or not it isn’t SUPPORTED by available compelling evidence (correct word to use). So you DON"T KNOW and you are merely guessing, fantasising, deluded or telling lies.

 

[dirtywick]

That's fine if you admit that God is a completely fictitious character like Smokey Bear.

Okay, done. It has little to do with the discussion. When an adherent to a religion says that God is right simply by virtue of being God, theology fails as a tool to determine right action. Smokey the Bear doesn't, as there are many reasons why forest fires are bad and his message is correct. Existence has little bearing on that. I don't know why you're pushing that point.

 

[godless dave]

To my understanding that is largely what you are saying when you say "I believe."

Then your understanding is very, very wrong.

To use slingblade's example, when she says "I believe it will rain", she is basing it on evidence - the dark clouds in the sky. She has access to evidence that suggests it might rain.

The belief you are talking about - belief based on no evidence - is analogous to not being able to see the sky at all and having no information about past or current weather conditions, and saying you believe that frogs carrying pink umbrellas will fall out of the sky.

That's what believing in the deistic god is like. You agree that we have no idea why the universe is here, so you posit a specific explanation and choose to believe it while admitting that it has no evidence to support it.

 

[hgc]

Then your understanding is very, very wrong.

To use slingblade's example, when she says "I believe it will rain", she is basing it on evidence - the dark clouds in the sky. She has access to evidence that suggests it might rain.

The belief you are talking about - belief based on no evidence - is analogous to not being able to see the sky at all and having no information about past or current weather conditions, and saying you believe that frogs carrying pink umbrellas will fall out of the sky.

That's what believing in the deistic god is like. You agree that we have no idea why the universe is here, so you posit a specific explanation and choose to believe it while admitting that it has no evidence to support it.

Personally, I'll go with the frogs carrying pink umbrellas theory of creation... just as a back-up.

 

[Trakar]

You’re dancing too far from the music again.

That has nothing to do with your earlier claim we are currently debating . . .

You said . . .

“Without evidence all you have is faith/beliefs“.

To which I replied . . .

"Or you can honestly accept and admit - "I don't know".

Actually, this response was made to my statement of:

Believe - Hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose (definition #5)
- to think, assume, or suppose (definition #5)

Know - Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information (Defintion #1)
- Have knowledge or information concerning (Definition #2)

If you don't "know" (have evidence to support) some thing you are stating or commenting upon, then you must merely "believe" (be assuming or supposing) that thing. The lack of precision and consistency in your use of language suggests a lack of cognitive discipline and/or acumen, did you graduate from high school?

at least as the links seem to indicate. So you wish to ignore all the clarifications and discussion and restart the conversation? I really see little reason to repeat what has already been stated in order to give you the opportunity to try a different tact.

 

[Trakar]

Great! So you agree that your creator belief is irrational (aka stupid).

Regardless whether your belief is contradicted by available compelling evidence s (FTFY) or not it isn’t SUPPORTED by available compelling evidence (correct word to use)...

Your qualification:

...The problem with faith/beliefs is they are most often claimed/accepted to be knowledge/truths...

Please indicate anywhere that I have claimed or accepted my beliefs as "knowledge\truths." Yes, my beliefs are empirically unsupported speculation and purely subjective opinion, with no connection or relation to demonstrable fact in the natural world, thus the reason that they entail a measure of faith to hold.

btw, when speaking of different categories, some of which are potentially self-exclusionary types of evidence, the term "evidences" (3rd person singular present, plural of ev·i·dence) is an acceptable, if somewhat archaic in common parlance, phrasing. It is much more common in professional/research scientific and medical discussions (where again, different categories of evidence are referred to in composite or comparison).

PubMed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e... AND eng[LA] "Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A"[Jour]

Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...le:+evidences&as_sdt=1,5&as_ylo=2011&as_vis=1