The cancer lady. [locked]

Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
The cancer lady. [locked]

Was it just me or was that lady in the audience who kept pushing Kirk to answer her question a complete moron? He was trying to answer her, and she kept interrupting him and accusing him of avoiding the question which he wasn't doing. What a retard. Why did God allow cancer? The answer to that question is the same answer to why God allows any and all suffering to befall us. And Kirk was trying to answer that broader question, when he kept being very rudely interrupted. God didn't create suffering. He didn't create cancer. He created people with free will, and those people's decisions have caused all the evil in the world, including cancer.

The bible says that the world itself was condemned because of man's sin.

Granted that was a Christian-biblical answer to the question, but that is what was being asked. That question was being asked assuming God was real and Christianity was real. If that is true, then the bible must be the source of the answer to that question.

One angel originally created evil. Then one man recreated it. Evil is nothing more than disobedience to God. For disobedience to God to exist there must be some created thing with the ability to choose whether or not to obey God. That is why sin did not exist prior to the creation of angels. God did not make the angel sin, nor did he make the man sin. He only told them what to do and gave them the free will to obey or not. They chose to not obey. They have suffered the consequences.

 

That just irked me a little. And then I think I saw somewhere on this website bragging about the fact that Kirk couldn't even answer an audience member's question. Please.....Maybe if she would've shut up long enough for him to answer he could have.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly

ShaunPhilly wrote:
Musicdude wrote:

To say that there is no evidence of God is a statement of ignorance. I didn't agree with every word that came out of Kirk and Ray's mouthes at the debate, but one thing I will give them credit for is they provided plenty of evidence of God's existence. There is source after source of theistic apologetics online, available if you only look for them. More evidence than you can imagine. Proof? No. Evidence? Plenty.

There is plenty presented as 'evidence,' but what many here, including myself, have been trying to explain is that these presentations don't support any god--or anything supernatural--at all.   

I'm afrain we've returned back to the beginning of the conversation, and thus the eternal return is, yet again, demonstrated.  

The question is whether I, like Camus, will find happiness in pushing this boulder up this hill again, and again, and again...

If I didn't, I wouldn't be here.  It is in my nature, I suppose. 

Shaun 

 

I always enjoy being challenged. It causes me to dig deeper, and in the end I am either more certain of my beliefs, or I have to reconsider them. But I (unlike many Christians) want the truth, regardless of what that might be. I think I have found it. But I'm not above being wrong. But it's going to take some serious proof to convince me I'm wrong. Proof I have not seen here, nor expect to. 

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: A:

Musicdude wrote:

A: Science advances to the point that it can actually PROVE that God doesn't exist.

What would you accept as scientific proof that god doesn't exist?

 

Musicdude wrote:
B: You'll find out that there is a God, when you're kneeling before Him prior to your judgement.

You may want to get on your knees for this god of yours -- I certainly won't.

Musicdude wrote:

He has proven Himself to me, but not before I accepted Him first by faith alone. I had to take that first step, and then He proved to me that I made the right choice.

If you had accepted allah or any god first on faith, that god would have proven itself to you.

Interesting experiement:  Accept the non-existence of god on faith, then see if the non-existence proves itself to you. 

Musicdude wrote:

I don't expect you to believe that, and I'm not asking you to.

Then why bother talking about it?

 

Musicdude wrote:
But there are many more reasons why I believe in God other than just what the bible says.

"What the bible says" is a deplorable reason in itself, regardless of what other "reasons" you have.

Musicdude wrote:

I have lived the life He offers for about 21 years now. In that 21 years, I have seen Him accomplish the supernatural specifically for me on countless occaisions. Each time, proving that this is real. But proving it only to me, and no one else.

Sounds a lot like Joseph Smith to me.  

"Accomplish the supernatural"?   Is that supposed to make sense?

Well if none of us get to see god's little magic show besides you, then none of us have to believe, do we?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: I am

Musicdude wrote:

I am mainly frustrated because it's a little exhausting arguing with about 8 people at once.

Understandable.  If you wish, we could discuss this in a more one-on-one fashion.  feel free to contact me via email if you would rather keep it from being too over-whelming.  

I used to discuss in Christian forums, and know what it is like to be in the minority in these situations.  It was only through such onslaughts that I was able to hone whatever discussion skills I have.  My goal here is not primarily to convince you to be an atheist, but to have you understand why I think atheism is the rational position.  If you understand then disagree, fine.  So far, I'm not convinced you underastand, thus your disagreement is thus far irrelevant.   

[email protected]

Shaun 

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


JWMaher
JWMaher's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
I don't have an answer to that. But let me ask you again. What difference does that make to you? You have heard the gospel and rejected it of your own free will. You're eternal future should be your main concern, not that of some guy with amnesia or an elder of the bura bura tribe in zimbabwe.

You see, that is my concern and the concern of a lot of people here. It's one of the conclusions at which, if given enough time to sit and think about one's faith, any logical person should arrive. If I am subscribing to a faith that not only rejects the wicked, but the naive for no good reason, and my job is to sit there and say, "Such is the will of God. He is just and fair, though he is so just and fair I just can't wrap my head around his fairness and justness if pressed hard enough." is not a position in which I want to find myself.

Totally excluding the other lines of argument this thread has gone through, you would have to conclude...

Musicdude wrote:
If I answered yes, and you said, "well that means God isn't fair."

And I'd be 100% correct. However...

Musicdude wrote:
And let's say that we have established the fact that according how we define fairness, God's condmnation of those people is not fair. Are you gonna go to Hell to make a point to God about his lack of fairness? How is your suffering for eternity gonna help the situation?

If my reason for disbelieving in God can be traced to a desire for all of mankind to be treated with equality and fairness in the eyes of an supposedly all-just creator who has slanted reality to favor an arbitrary selection of them, that's misguided? And I came to that conclusion using a pretty lax view on the power of God, actually. Given the Christian view, it wouldn't be arbitrary, God would KNOW who was screwed. So, with this knowledge, that their is no equality, fairness, or justice as defined by us, who translated the Bible into those terms, I think taking a stand based on the presumption that if such a huge flaw exists, other do, too, and I'll remain unbeliving until a more coherent argument is made. Then, changing my mind won't be too hard a step to take, you know, in the name of following a true just and fair God whose followers took the time and effort to translate ancient texts into a format that makes logical sense.

Musicdude wrote:
So this argument is invalid, and completely irrelevant. If the coach lays down the rules of the game, you must play by those rules, whether you think they are fair or not.

And if a five-year old kid wanders onto the court during a pick-up basketball game, can I trample him if his feet aren't planted? I don't want to be called for charging, after all.

David Cross: So I was watching this one show where - there's a guy on stage and he pretends he has contact with the dead and people are watching.
Audience Member: Crossing Over.
David Cross: No, not Crossing Over. It was uh, church.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: The

Musicdude wrote:

The creation implying a creator was fairly compelling evidence I thought.  

The whole chair example was a little lacking, since as your guys said, you can go to the chair factory and see the build record. But let's take Stonehenge as alternative example. There is no stonehenge factory. There are no records of who built it and when. There are no other stonehenges to compare it to. But most of humanity assumes that it was built by someone. Why? Because of organization that is far too unlikely to be coincidence.

Saying that a building has a builder is merely using deductive logic.  

Saying that the universe had a builder is also logically sound. However, where we come into the problem is the definition of this "builder".

Let me give you an example:

The tree exists therefore it must have a "builder". The builder happens to be a seed, water, and sunlite.

The universe exists therefor it must have a builder. What are the variables that make up this builder? That is something that science has put a great deal of effort into finding out. Thus far they have some pretty amazing theories based on the information that they have access too (Big Bang and Evolutionin buffs please correct me if I'm wrong).

To say that the existance of the universe proves that there must be a superwizard with a big hat and a long suple beard has no logical backing whatsoever. That is merely plugging in the word "god" where there is only "lack of information".  


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Musicdude

BGH wrote:
Musicdude wrote:
A: Science advances to the point that it can actually PROVE that God doesn't exist.

The burden of proof lies with the positive claim, you make the POSITIVE claim god exists, you are required to back up the statement in an argument. 

Musicdude wrote:
B: You'll find out that there is a God, when you're kneeling before Him prior to your judgement.

Vague variation of Pascal's wager.

You may be kneeling before a diety you didn't worship and you'll find out you were wrong.

Musicdude wrote:
I never said I could prove God. I don't believe it is possible to prove God, at least not possible for men.

So you will not continue on with anecdotal evidence to support your claim, will you?

Musicdude wrote:
He has proven Himself to me, but not before I accepted Him first by faith alone. I had to take that first step, and then He proved to me that I made the right choice. I don't expect you to believe that, and I'm not asking you to.

Awww, CRAP!! You ARE trying to prove it with anecdotal evidence.

Do you not understand MANY of us here were once believers or tried to have belief? Your anecdote of a god who reveals himself to those who open themselves to him does not work.

Musicdude wrote:
But there are many more reasons why I believe in God other than just what the bible says. I have lived the life He offers for about 21 years now. In that 21 years, I have seen Him accomplish the supernatural specifically for me on countless occaisions. Each time, proving that this is real. But proving it only to me, and no one else.

More anecdotal evidence you felt the need to throw in though you said it was not needed, nor able to prove god.

Musicdude wrote:
But again, I don't have to give an account for you. I only have to give an account for myself, and I'm convinced that I will be blameless in the last day, because Christ gladly took my blame.

Is this the core of your belief? Being able to shrug off your shortcomings in life to supernatural scapegoat is where your faith is founded?

Musicdude wrote:
I know there are some who have had some bad experiences with religion.

I had good experiences with religion and bad experiences, mostly indifferent experiences though. I just realized I was deluding myself with the hope that a magic sky daddy was watching over me.

Musicdude wrote:
So I can switch my faith in God to faith in mankind? From what I've seen of mankind, that would be misplaced faith. Humanity will let you down. God will not.

This is very sad, you have no faith in your fellow humans?

Do you know why your god will never let you down? You feel this way because you can adjust your concept of this diety to fit whatever 'feels' good to you and meshes best with your worldview and morals. 

Good luck.... 

The point I was trying to make with all the "anecdotal evidence" as you put it, was why I strongly believe what I once took merely on faith. I didn't suggest that it would be proof to anyone other than me, in fact, I literally stated the opposite.

 

I don't shrug off my shortcomings. I constantly work on improving them with God's help. My voluntary scapegoat secures my eternal future, but the present is a day by day work in progress. I have sucesses and failures daily. The penalty for my sins has been taken away, but the temporal implications of them are still a reality, until I die or Christ comes back, whichever happens first.

 

My God never changes, nor does my view of Him. My view of God is based on the bible, not religion. Religion may change, but the bible doesn't.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish

marcusfish wrote:
Musicdude wrote:

The creation implying a creator was fairly compelling evidence I thought.  

The whole chair example was a little lacking, since as your guys said, you can go to the chair factory and see the build record. But let's take Stonehenge as alternative example. There is no stonehenge factory. There are no records of who built it and when. There are no other stonehenges to compare it to. But most of humanity assumes that it was built by someone. Why? Because of organization that is far too unlikely to be coincidence.

Saying that a building has a builder is merely using deductive logic.  

Saying that the universe had a builder is also logically sound. However, where we come into the problem is the definition of this "builder".

Let me give you an example:

The tree exists therefore it must have a "builder". The builder happens to be a seed, water, and sunlite.

The universe exists therefor it must have a builder. What are the variables that make up this builder? That is something that science has put a great deal of effort into finding out. Thus far they have some pretty amazing theories based on the information that they have access too (Big Bang and Evolutionin buffs please correct me if I'm wrong).

To say that the existance of the universe proves that there must be a superwizard with a big hat and a long suple beard has no logical backing whatsoever. That is merely plugging in the word "god" where there is only "lack of information".  

By that rationale I could build an automatic machine that runs on solar power and does nothing more than turn a fan. So did the machine create the wind off of the fan, or did the guy who designed and built it?

Where did the first tree come from? A seed? Where did that come from? How did a little seed with all the information it takes to build a tree (which had never previously existed before) come into being?

 

You claim coincidence and chance are the builders of the universe. But all these little microcosms were set into motion and can do nothing more than they were designed to do. A tree cannot just decide to produce a seed for a rose. It can't decide anything.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: By that

Musicdude wrote:

By that rationale I could build an automatic machine that runs on solar power and does nothing more than turn a fan. So did the machine create the wind off of the fan, or did the guy who designed and built it?

So, who created the wind from the fan? The fan I would guess. 

Quote:
Where did the first tree come from?

Dunno.

Quote:
A seed? Where did that come from?

Another tree?

Quote:
How did a little seed with all the information it takes to build a tree (which had never previously existed before) come into being?

Couldn't say. 

Quote:
You claim coincidence and chance are the builders of the universe.

I do?

Quote:
But all these little microcosms were set into motion and can do nothing more than they were designed to do. A tree cannot just decide to produce a seed for a rose. It can't decide anything.

Ok.

So where does that leave us? Thus far we have established that there are questions we don't know the answers too. What now? 


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
JWMaher wrote: Musicdude

JWMaher wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
I don't have an answer to that. But let me ask you again. What difference does that make to you? You have heard the gospel and rejected it of your own free will. You're eternal future should be your main concern, not that of some guy with amnesia or an elder of the bura bura tribe in zimbabwe.

You see, that is my concern and the concern of a lot of people here. It's one of the conclusions at which, if given enough time to sit and think about one's faith, any logical person should arrive. If I am subscribing to a faith that not only rejects the wicked, but the naive for no good reason, and my job is to sit there and say, "Such is the will of God. He is just and fair, though he is so just and fair I just can't wrap my head around his fairness and justness if pressed hard enough." is not a position in which I want to find myself.

Totally excluding the other lines of argument this thread has gone through, you would have to conclude...

Musicdude wrote:
If I answered yes, and you said, "well that means God isn't fair."

And I'd be 100% correct. However...

Musicdude wrote:
And let's say that we have established the fact that according how we define fairness, God's condmnation of those people is not fair. Are you gonna go to Hell to make a point to God about his lack of fairness? How is your suffering for eternity gonna help the situation?

If my reason for disbelieving in God can be traced to a desire for all of mankind to be treated with equality and fairness in the eyes of an supposedly all-just creator who has slanted reality to favor an arbitrary selection of them, that's misguided? And I came to that conclusion using a pretty lax view on the power of God, actually. Given the Christian view, it wouldn't be arbitrary, God would KNOW who was screwed. So, with this knowledge, that their is no equality, fairness, or justice as defined by us, who translated the Bible into those terms, I think taking a stand based on the presumption that if such a huge flaw exists, other do, too, and I'll remain unbeliving until a more coherent argument is made. Then, changing my mind won't be too hard a step to take, you know, in the name of following a true just and fair God whose followers took the time and effort to translate ancient texts into a format that makes logical sense.

Musicdude wrote:
So this argument is invalid, and completely irrelevant. If the coach lays down the rules of the game, you must play by those rules, whether you think they are fair or not.

And if a five-year old kid wanders onto the court during a pick-up basketball game, can I trample him if his feet aren't planted? I don't want to be called for charging, after all.

 

My boss can be unfair at times. I still have to obey him if I want to keep my job. Proving that he isn't always fair doesn't relieve me of my responsibilities to him.

 

I'm not saying God isn't fair. You ask a paradoxical question, that no one has the answer to except God. I'm not convinced that people who have not heard the gospel at least one time are condemned to hell. That is a big question that even the most well-educated theologeons argue about, and can't agree upon. But that is why we send missionaries to those countries. That is why I'm talking to you now. I can't talk to the entire world and tell them about Jesus, but I can talk to the people I come into contact with. The world is not my concern. My only concern is myself, my family, and the people who I associate with. I'll let God worry about how to evangelize the lost people of Zimbabwie. Maybe I'll go there one day. I don't know.

But again, that does not relieve you of your responsibility. Pointing your finger elsewhere doesn't change anything. There may be people who haven't heard the gospel and God will deal with them fairly, because He is fair. But you have heard. What you do with that knowledge is up to you now. You either believe it or you don't. You are not responsible for the people who haven't heard. You are only responsible for you. Sapient isn't responsible for you either. You are responsible for you.

 

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish

marcusfish wrote:
Musicdude wrote:

By that rationale I could build an automatic machine that runs on solar power and does nothing more than turn a fan. So did the machine create the wind off of the fan, or did the guy who designed and built it?

So, who created the wind from the fan? The fan I would guess. 

Quote:
Where did the first tree come from?

Dunno.

Quote:
A seed? Where did that come from?

Another tree?

Quote:
How did a little seed with all the information it takes to build a tree (which had never previously existed before) come into being?

Couldn't say. 

Quote:
You claim coincidence and chance are the builders of the universe.

I do?

Quote:
But all these little microcosms were set into motion and can do nothing more than they were designed to do. A tree cannot just decide to produce a seed for a rose. It can't decide anything.

Ok.

So where does that leave us? Thus far we have established that there are questions we don't know the answers too. What now? 

I didn't know the RRS bunch claimed ignorance on these matters.

What now? Um, now, back to my original point. Creation is evidence of an extremely intelligent sentient creator.

You said this isn't evidence, it's logic. Since when did logic cease being a valid source of possible evidence?

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: I didn't

Musicdude wrote:
I didn't know the RRS bunch claimed ignorance on these matters.

I wouldn't know. I"m sure some of these clever folks have answers for all kinds of things that I don't generally concern myself with.  

Quote:
What now? Um, now, back to my original point. Creation is evidence of an extremely intelligent sentient creator.

See, we missed a step there. It's the step where we name the absense of knowledge "an extremely intelligent sentient creator". How did we decide that this must be true?  

Quote:
You said this isn't evidence, it's logic. Since when did logic cease being a valid source of possible evidence?

Uh huh. I said that the statement was logical deduction, but that it did not lead to the point you and the Ray / Kirk crew wish that it did.  


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: What now?

Musicdude wrote:

What now? Um, now, back to my original point. Creation is evidence of an extremely intelligent sentient creator.

You said this isn't evidence, it's logic. Since when did logic cease being a valid source of possible evidence?

No, this is an argument from ignorance. Because you cannot understand how all of this came to be your answer becomes 'god'. That does not make the answer correct.

I have no problem saying "I don't know" as an answer. Why is this difficult to the point that some people will make up an answer?


JWMaher
JWMaher's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: My boss

Musicdude wrote:
My boss can be unfair at times. I still have to obey him if I want to keep my job. Proving that he isn't always fair doesn't relieve me of my responsibilities to him.

 

I'm not saying God isn't fair.

Then why preface it with the example you did?

Musicdude wrote:
You ask a paradoxical question, that no one has the answer to except God.

Circular logic.  "This doesn't make any sense, so we define it by a new set of rules we don't know."  Well, how is it fair that we don't know the rules?  "I don't know."  Can I speak to your supervisor?  "He's unavailable.  Get on your knees and leave a message."


Musicdude wrote:
<snip> But again, that does not relieve you of your responsibility. Pointing your finger elsewhere doesn't change anything. There may be people who haven't heard the gospel and God will deal with them fairly, because He is fair. But you have heard. What you do with that knowledge is up to you now. You either believe it or you don't. You are not responsible for the people who haven't heard. You are only responsible for you. Sapient isn't responsible for you either. You are responsible for you.

But I've heard people from other religions try to tell me their way is good, too - people who have beliefs similar to yours with a few minor diversions, and people who have beliefs that can't be reconciled with yours.  If you press them, they'll speak similar rhetoric as to why I should listen to them.

Are they agents of the Devil, just misinformed, or do they fall into some sort of other territory?  Do they go to Hell?  Does it concern you that if they are right, you might go to their Hell?  Does it concern you that Christianity has splintered over (somtimes) minor points since its inception over varying interpretations of various concepts?  What if your view of some minor point, like the day you attend Mass, will come into play on the day of judgement?  Are you willing to just as easily go to a Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. message board and tell them they need to change the one thing the makes up the core of their belief (that makes if different from your own) and tell them to change it or else face judgement?

 

David Cross: So I was watching this one show where - there's a guy on stage and he pretends he has contact with the dead and people are watching.
Audience Member: Crossing Over.
David Cross: No, not Crossing Over. It was uh, church.


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Musicdude

BGH wrote:
Musicdude wrote:

What now? Um, now, back to my original point. Creation is evidence of an extremely intelligent sentient creator.

You said this isn't evidence, it's logic. Since when did logic cease being a valid source of possible evidence?

No, this is an argument from ignorance. Because you cannot understand how all of this came to be your answer becomes 'god'. That does not make the answer correct.

I have no problem saying "I don't know" as an answer. Why is this difficult to the point that some people will make up an answer?

 

That's what scientists do all the time. They have a certain phenomenon (in this case, the existence the universe) they wish to explain. They make a logical hypothesis. My hypothesis is that some created this vast and complex universe, because it is all far to complicated and unlikely to be attributed to chance. Now I can gather evidence for years. Then, when I get enough evidence, I can bump the status up to theory. And it can remain that way long enough that eventually people will just accept it as true, just because no one has bothered to come up with an opposing theory.

 

So what is wrong with proposing God as a hypothesis?

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
JWMaher wrote: Musicdude

JWMaher wrote:
Musicdude wrote:
My boss can be unfair at times. I still have to obey him if I want to keep my job. Proving that he isn't always fair doesn't relieve me of my responsibilities to him.

 

I'm not saying God isn't fair.

Then why preface it with the example you did?

Musicdude wrote:
You ask a paradoxical question, that no one has the answer to except God.

Circular logic.  "This doesn't make any sense, so we define it by a new set of rules we don't know."  Well, how is it fair that we don't know the rules?  "I don't know."  Can I speak to your supervisor?  "He's unavailable.  Get on your knees and leave a message."


Musicdude wrote:
<snip> But again, that does not relieve you of your responsibility. Pointing your finger elsewhere doesn't change anything. There may be people who haven't heard the gospel and God will deal with them fairly, because He is fair. But you have heard. What you do with that knowledge is up to you now. You either believe it or you don't. You are not responsible for the people who haven't heard. You are only responsible for you. Sapient isn't responsible for you either. You are responsible for you.

But I've heard people from other religions try to tell me their way is good, too - people who have beliefs similar to yours with a few minor diversions, and people who have beliefs that can't be reconciled with yours.  If you press them, they'll speak similar rhetoric as to why I should listen to them.

Are they agents of the Devil, just misinformed, or do they fall into some sort of other territory?  Do they go to Hell?  Does it concern you that if they are right, you might go to their Hell?  Does it concern you that Christianity has splintered over (somtimes) minor points since its inception over varying interpretations of various concepts?  What if your view of some minor point, like the day you attend Mass, will come into play on the day of judgement?  Are you willing to just as easily go to a Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. message board and tell them they need to change the one thing the makes up the core of their belief (that makes if different from your own) and tell them to change it or else face judgement?

 

 

Then give them all equal consideration and choose one, or choose none. It's your choice. If you want a good source of info on what I believe I can hook you up. PM me. If not, it's your choice.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote:   That's

Musicdude wrote:
 

That's what scientists do all the time. They have a certain phenomenon (in this case, the existence the universe) they wish to explain. They make a logical hypothesis. My hypothesis is that some created this vast and complex universe, because it is all far to complicated and unlikely to be attributed to chance. Now I can gather evidence for years. Then, when I get enough evidence, I can bump the status up to theory. And it can remain that way long enough that eventually people will just accept it as true, just because no one has bothered to come up with an opposing theory.

The thing is.... scientists are very ready, willing and capable of ditching or revising a hypothesis that the evidence does not support. They DO NOT make the evidence fit the hypothesis.

Faith in god cannot even remotely be compared to science. Faith is dogmatic, static and unchanging. Science is continually adjusting in light of new evidence.

Musicdude wrote:
So what is wrong with proposing God as a hypothesis?

 A hypothesis is scientific and as you have already stated, 'god' is not.

 

 


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Musicdude

BGH wrote:
Musicdude wrote:
 

That's what scientists do all the time. They have a certain phenomenon (in this case, the existence the universe) they wish to explain. They make a logical hypothesis. My hypothesis is that some created this vast and complex universe, because it is all far to complicated and unlikely to be attributed to chance. Now I can gather evidence for years. Then, when I get enough evidence, I can bump the status up to theory. And it can remain that way long enough that eventually people will just accept it as true, just because no one has bothered to come up with an opposing theory.

The thing is.... scientists are very ready, willing and capable of ditching or revising a hypothesis that the evidence does not support. They DO NOT make the evidence fit the hypothesis.

Faith in god cannot even remotely be compared to science. Faith is dogmatic, static and unchanging. Science is continually adjusting in light of new evidence.

Musicdude wrote:
So what is wrong with proposing God as a hypothesis?

 A hypothesis is scientific and as you have already stated, 'god' is not.

 

 

 

Believe something which has not been proven requires faith, whether it be a biblical doctrine or a scientific hypothesis. You put your faith in these theories and believe they will one day be proven. I put my faith in God, and believe He will one day be proven.

 

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Faith in god

BGH wrote:
Faith in god cannot even remotely be compared to science. Faith is dogmatic, static and unchanging. Science is continually adjusting in light of new evidence.

Nah, that's not true. Religion has been altered unrecognizable throughout its history. Granted, this has not happened due to new discoveries in logic or science, it is just so that they can make the maximum number of sales.

A product that doesn't change with the moods of the people won't sell. As any preacher will tell you Smiling 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
BZZZZTTT! They don't have

BZZZZTTT! They don't have "Faith" in hypothesis - they actually go out and test them.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
Believe something which has not been proven requires faith, whether it be a biblical doctrine or a scientific hypothesis. You put your faith in these theories and believe they will one day be proven. I put my faith in God, and believe He will one day be proven.

I love this one.

Believing something in the absense of knowledge is faith.

Theories are believed to the extent that they can be proven. No faith required. If there is no knowledge to back up the idea then it is just something the scientists talk about in the lunchroom. Cuz they're tight like that.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: Believe

Musicdude wrote:

Believe something which has not been proven requires faith, whether it be a biblical doctrine or a scientific hypothesis. You put your faith in these theories and believe they will one day be proven. I put my faith in God, and believe He will one day be proven.

You have a horrible, horrible concept of science and scientific theory.

To hold a scientific theory as the best probable explanation of a natural phenomena, is not faith. It is, on the other hand, taking the best understanding and best evidence we have to date to be the most likely explanation. You need to understand most reputable scientists are not dogmatic in their theories or explanation of anomolies. They will explain what the data shows but will never claim 100% truth, that is left for the doctrine of religion which does very poorly at explaining the natural world.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: Believe

Musicdude wrote:
Believe something which has not been proven requires faith, whether it be a biblical doctrine or a scientific hypothesis. You put your faith in these theories and believe they will one day be proven. I put my faith in God, and believe He will one day be proven.

 

Holy crap!  Not to sound completely rude, but did you go to school at all?  Did you ever have to do a science project?  Ever?  There is no faith is science!  Ugh!!  At least understand the definitions to the words you use.  Changing them to fit your argument is dishonest!


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: Nah,

marcusfish wrote:
Nah, that's not true. Religion has been altered unrecognizable throughout its history. Granted, this has not happened due to new discoveries in logic or science, it is just so that they can make the maximum number of sales.

A product that doesn't change with the moods of the people won't sell. As any preacher will tell you Smiling

Yeah, I should have said "Faith is dogmatic, static and unchanging, IN THE LIGHT OF NEW EVIDENCE.", but will change on a whim at the discretion of church leaders.


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Musicdude

jce wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
Believe something which has not been proven requires faith, whether it be a biblical doctrine or a scientific hypothesis. You put your faith in these theories and believe they will one day be proven. I put my faith in God, and believe He will one day be proven.

 

Holy crap!  Not to sound completely rude, but did you go to school at all?  Did you ever have to do a science project?  Ever?  There is no faith is science!  Ugh!!  At least understand the definitions to the words you use.  Changing them to fit your argument is dishonest!

 

I'm fairly certain my definition of faith is correct. It's just a word which has nothing to do with religion.

But to be safe, why don't you give me your definition.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Believing in something

Believing in something without evidence.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: I'm fairly

Musicdude wrote:
I'm fairly certain my definition of faith is correct. It's just a word which has nothing to do with religion.

But to be safe, why don't you give me your definition.

The semantic discussion begins. This is usually a good indicator that the discussion has run its course.  


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle

MattShizzle wrote:
Believing in something without evidence.

Wrong. If that were true Christianity would not require faith, because there is plenty of evidence toward that.

Faith is another word for trust. It does not imply a lack of evidence. It does imply a lack of proof. For the millionth time, evidence is not proof. Evidence can be 100% true, while the conclusions that are drawn from it are 100% false.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
I'm fairly certain my definition of faith is correct. It's just a word which has nothing to do with religion.

But to be safe, why don't you give me your definition.

Faith has nothing to do with religion?? What?

From dictionary.com {Edited for source} 

faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude

Musicdude wrote:

Wrong.

Define that!

Musicdude wrote:
Christianity

Define that!

Musicdude wrote:
trust

Define That!

Musicdude wrote:
evidence

Define that!

Musicdude wrote:
proof

Define that!

Musicdude wrote:
false

Define that! 

 

We really do not want to start the semantics game do we??


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Musicdude

BGH wrote:
Musicdude wrote:

Wrong.

Define that!

Musicdude wrote:
Christianity

Define that!

Musicdude wrote:
trust

Define That!

Musicdude wrote:
evidence

Define that!

Musicdude wrote:
proof

Define that!

Musicdude wrote:
false

Define that! 

 

We really do not want to start the semantics game do we??

 

No, I don't. You are the one who questioned my use of the word faith. Ergo, you are the one who started the semantics argument.

 

 

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote:Musicdude

jce wrote:
Musicdude wrote:
I'm fairly certain my definition of faith is correct. It's just a word which has nothing to do with religion.

But to be safe, why don't you give me your definition.

Faith has nothing to do with religion?? What?

From dictionary.com {Edited for source} 

faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.

Faith is a generic word. Your #1 definition has got diddly-squat to do with religion. Faith in a person does not equal faith in Jesus. Faith can be in many people. It can be in an object. It can be in nature, science, systems of government, and on and on and on.

Everyone expresses faith in various objects or people or ideals. I express mine in many as well.

I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. That is faith in nature.

I have faith that my dad will mow his yard Saturday morning at an insanely early hour. That is faith in people.

I have faith that my computer will not lock up. That is faith in machinery.

I have faith that my fiance is not cheating on me. That is faith in people.

I have faith that I will still work at this job 20 years from now. That is faith in systems of commerce.

I have faith that the USA will still be around at least another 50 years or so. That is faith in people/government.

And on, and on, and on, and on...........

Faith is not a word limited to theological and religious discussions. It never has been.

If you believe in the big bang, you do so by faith, because not only has it not been proven up to this point, I assert that it can never be proven. But whether it can or can't is irrelevant, because you and I don't live in the future, and it hasn't been proven yet. Same thing goes for evolution.

 

edit: I just noticed your #2 definition. lol You might want to edit or delete that one. It doesn't help your case.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Sigghhh.... There is PLENTY

Sigghhh....

There is PLENTY of evidence for evolution, the big bang and the sun will come up tomorrow. There is nothing that actually counts as evidence for a god.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude

Musicdude wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:
Believing in something without evidence.

Wrong. If that were true Christianity would not require faith, because there is plenty of evidence toward that.

Faith is another word for trust. It does not imply a lack of evidence. It does imply a lack of proof. For the millionth time, evidence is not proof. Evidence can be 100% true, while the conclusions that are drawn from it are 100% false.

 

Christianity does not require faith if faith = intelligence, but you chose to substitute the word "trust".

It is this mode of thought; "Faith = Trust" that makes christians so dangerous. "Faith = Trust" makes the christian equation "Theory = Just an Opinion" almost benign.

Rev. Paul Williams of Bellevue Baptist Church of Memphis, TN used the Faith = Trust equation to allow himself to sexually molest his son.

Rev. Dale "Dickie" Amyx raped a member of his congregation and impregnated her, then forced her to ask forgiveness in front of the congregation for being an unwed mother. In this case the Faith = Trust equation had them both brainwashed.

The more Notorious Rev. Siegfried Widera made the Faith = Trust equation his personal creed while he was shuffled from parish to parish across the united states using this hypnotically evil credo to lure in at least 33 young boys, 11 of which he was finally indicted for in Wisconsin, causing the archdiocese of Milwaukee to pay $16.65 Million to at least 10 of his victims. In 2003 police closed in on him in Mexico where they found Reverend Widera had leapt to his death.

If that’s not enough to change your mind that faith does not equal trust.

Think of every suicide cult ever.

A charismatic leader blurs the lines between faith and trust, or uses faith to gain trust, and "WHAMO!" everyone dies.

At this point I'll give you the benefit of doubt.

I’m sure you didn’t mean "Faith is another word for Trust."

I think what you meant to say was more like:

"Faith is a proponent of Trust"

And once you allow both to be fully and completely and blindly indoctrinated into your philosophy you can finally be led (or misled) to believe and do almost anything! Like strap a bomb to your chest and run into a coffee shop because 72 virgins are waiting. Or Kill doctors who perform abortions, and or the women who have them. Or something as simple as stick your hands down the pants of an 8 year old boy.

Musicdude, honestly.....what’s wrong with you?

"plenty of evidence toward that." Here’s your evidence buddy.

Here’s proof. You are a danger to society. And so is everyone else who believes what you believe. Your train of thinking is practiced purposefully by others of obvious greater intellect to inflict pain and suffering on others, but you being of a lesser capacity are far more dangerous because of your indifference and ignorance to these atrocities.

High Pope


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote:   No, I

Musicdude wrote:
 

No, I don't. You are the one who questioned my use of the word faith. Ergo, you are the one who started the semantics argument.

I did no such thing, you need re-read my previous posts. 


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude,   Your

Musicdude,

 

Your indoctrination is stupendous.

You have now officially confused the word "Faith"

with "Knowing" "Believing" "Trusting" "Understanding"?

Youve let this "Faith" excuse infiltrate everything in your world to the point of "no possible change".

Your dad might hire the neighbor boy to mow his lawn.

Muslim radicals might destroy the infrastructure of the US.

(LOL) Jesus might cause the rapture tommorrow

someone might screw your fiance' behind your back.

your definition of "Faith" is far to all-encompassing. If you have "faith" in all the things you listed you must also have equal "faith" in all the things I listed.

Heres my recomendation: change your personal definition of "Faith" into this:

"based on evidences from observations past and present I am able to reasonably deduce future outcomes of events and situations, and based on these similar evidences I indeed have a foundation to base my philosophies, and feel secure in all of my knowledge of my natural surroundings."

You can still call it "Faith" if you want to, but the rest of us lousy freethinkers will just keep calling it "Reason".

High Pope


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Faith can be in many

Quote:
Faith can be in many people. It can be in an object. It can be in nature, science, systems of government, and on and on and on.

Wrong

Musicdude wrote:
I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. That is faith in nature.

No, you have reasonable expectation based on past experience.

Musicdude wrote:
I have faith that my dad will mow his yard Saturday morning at an insanely early hour. That is faith in people.

No, you have reasonable expectation based on past experience.

Musicdude wrote:
I have faith that my computer will not lock up. That is faith in machinery.

No, you have reasonable expectation based on past experience.

Musicdude wrote:
I have faith that my fiance is not cheating on me. That is faith in people.

No, that is trust.

Musicdude wrote:
I have faith that I will still work at this job 20 years from now. That is faith in systems of commerce.

No you have a hope and a reasonable expectation based on past history.

Musicdude wrote:
I have faith that the USA will still be around at least another 50 years or so. That is faith in people/government.

No, you have a hope and reasonable expectation.

Musicdude wrote:
And on, and on, and on, and on...........

Like the efforts in this thread to have a decent discussion with you.

Musicdude wrote:
Faith is not a word limited to theological and religious discussions. It never has been.

But that is the general use.

Musicdude wrote:
If you believe in the big bang, you do so by faith, because not only has it not been proven up to this point, I assert that it can never be proven. But whether it can or can't is irrelevant, because you and I don't live in the future, and it hasn't been proven yet. Same thing goes for evolution.

.... and so it comes back to this, again showing your IGNORANCE. Both of these theories have been substantiated by a mountain of evidence (your god has not); otherwise if the data did not support the theories they would have been thrown out a long time ago.

The Big Bang - Almost every bit of cosmological data we have observed to date supports the big bang model of the universe. Because you do not understand the theory or the evidence behind it, does not make it any less valid. Ignorance does not make your world view more truthful.

Evolution - I assume you are speaking of human evolution, but let's take evolutionary theory on the whole. There have been laboratory experiments, real world observations and genetic evidences all culminating to support this theory. A quick investigation into genetic evolution alone is enough to hold up the theory, add laboratory study to it and science has a convincing model.

Quote:
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

I think this applies more to your belief system than science, you are the one lacking evidence.

Science is quick to throw out any hypothesis that is not substantiated by data or evidence. You have a skewed idea of scientists, most want to know the truth and are not interested in altering data to fit the hypothesis. Scientists I know or have read actually love being proven wrong, it means they are learning about the world. The same certainly cannot be said of those who go on 'faith', preconcieved notions reign supreme in the doctrine of a religious belief system and evidence is ignored.

Pick up a science book, you might actually learn something.

 


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
I left my last comment

I left my last comment unfinished by accident.

I meant to conclude that all musicdude was saying is that "faith" is what enables him to predict the future.

thanks BGH for finishing my thought.

(I need to figure out how to do that quote thing properly. Guess Im still a newbee.) 

 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
High Pope wrote: I left my

High Pope wrote:

I left my last comment unfinished by accident.

I meant to conclude that all musicdude was saying is that "faith" is what enables him to predict the future.

thanks BGH for finishing my thought.

(I need to figure out how to do that quote thing properly. Guess Im still a newbee.)

 

Here is a link to a quote function tutorial. 


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Quote: Faith

BGH wrote:

Quote:
Faith can be in many people. It can be in an object. It can be in nature, science, systems of government, and on and on and on.

Wrong

BGH, you're a clever fellow, I wonder if you could explain something for me. It seems that EVERY time this discussion happens it breaks down into redefining words like "faith" and "god". I can see that by broadening the definition of these terms to encompass pretty much anything makes it harder to have a discussion with the theists ... but how is that an advantage to thier course?

That's the part that I don't get.

We can make our own personal definition of any word stretch so far that it really ceases to have any definable perameters, but I don't see what is gained by doing so. To stretch 'faith' so far that it now means 'trust', 'knowledge', and 'experience' does not seem to help make a point. It just forces us to bumble down this path of semantic giberish.

So (and any of you clever folks can answer) what is gained? How is this tactic helpful?

I know I'm derailing, but this topic is floundering around like a fish on land so I figure there's no real damage done Smiling 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Quite right, marcusfish. 

Quite right, marcusfish.  To have a meaningful discussion, definitions should be provided beforehand:  Precisely what do you claim god is/isn't, what is faith, christianity, islam, etc.  Otherwise, one can simply switch course in mid-discussion, and through interminable dissembling, no progress is made.

Perhaps there should be an established protocol in order to keep things on track.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: BGH,

marcusfish wrote:
BGH, you're a clever fellow, I wonder if you could explain something for me. It seems that EVERY time this discussion happens it breaks down into redefining words like "faith" and "god". I can see that by broadening the definition of these terms to encompass pretty much anything makes it harder to have a discussion with the theists ... but how is that an advantage to thier course?

That's the part that I don't get.

We can make our own personal definition of any word stretch so far that it really ceases to have any definable perameters, but I don't see what is gained by doing so. To stretch 'faith' so far that it now means 'trust', 'knowledge', and 'experience' does not seem to help make a point. It just forces us to bumble down this path of semantic giberish.

So (and any of you clever folks can answer) what is gained? How is this tactic helpful?

I know I'm derailing, but this topic is floundering around like a fish on land so I figure there's no real damage done Smiling

Well, I cannot answer for BGH, but IMO it seems as if it is their way of claiming a "win" in the argument.  Fortunately, reality still exists so they just end up looking like jackasses.

 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: BGH,

marcusfish wrote:

BGH, you're a clever fellow, I wonder if you could explain something for me.

Thanks, I'll try.

marcusfish wrote:
It seems that EVERY time this discussion happens it breaks down into redefining words like "faith" and "god". I can see that by broadening the definition of these terms to encompass pretty much anything makes it harder to have a discussion with the theists ... but how is that an advantage to thier course?

With a very broad definition in a discussion like this, it gives the theist much wiggle room and allows them to say, "that's not what I mean when I say god/faith". This keeps them from getting pinned down on specific issues, and in their reasoning puts them on a level playing field with non-believers. The particular disussion here regarding the definition of faith is motivated by theists desire to say, 'we all take things on faith".

In my opinion though, they are doing themselves a disservice, if they truly believe in god, 'faith' should be something they are proud to have and not something they try to attribute to everyone. It would seem a true believer would wear their faith as a badge of honor and dilluting the definition would be offensive to them. Instead they try to rationalize the reasons they hold on to faith without evidence as a, "everybody's doing it" argument. 

If I were a theist I would be embarrassed if I had to explain my beliefs this way, "it's okay because everyone does it".

Pretty weird. 



marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Thanks guys, well said on

Thanks guys, well said on all fronts.

 I agree about the idea of having a protocal for discussions. It would save an aweful lot of jibber-jabber if we had the asserting party define some of the basic terms before we began. Talk about wishful thinking.


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote:marcusfish

BGH wrote:
marcusfish wrote:

BGH, you're a clever fellow, I wonder if you could explain something for me.

Thanks, I'll try.

marcusfish wrote:
It seems that EVERY time this discussion happens it breaks down into redefining words like "faith" and "god". I can see that by broadening the definition of these terms to encompass pretty much anything makes it harder to have a discussion with the theists ... but how is that an advantage to thier course?

With a very broad definition in a discussion like this, it gives the theist much wiggle room and allows them to say, "that's not what I mean when I say god/faith". This keeps them from getting pinned down on specific issues, and in their reasoning puts them on a level playing field with non-believers. The particular disussion here regarding the definition of faith is motivated by theists desire to say, 'we all take things on faith".

In my opinion though, they are doing themselves a disservice, if they truly believe in god, 'faith' should be something they are proud to have and not something they try to attribute to everyone. It would seem a true believer would wear their faith as a badge of honor and dilluting the definition would be offensive to them. Instead they try to rationalize the reasons they hold on to faith without evidence as a, "everybody's doing it" argument. 

If I were a theist I would be embarrassed if I had to explain my beliefs this way, "it's okay because everyone does it".

Pretty weird. 


Please allow me to plead my case one more time, as you have (whether you realize it or not) missed my point.

I'm not making an "everyone's doing it" argument.

Nor am I claiming that faith in Christ is nothing greater than faith in man. It is greater to me. But the only reason it is greater is because of the object of the faith, not the faith itself.

If only Christians were able to have faith, then no one could ever become a Christian, because to do so requires faith.

The point I was making is this. The Atheist battle-cry (or at least the one I hear most often) is the fact that "God cannot be proven." And this is undeniably true. But it implies that Atheism (and the theories they ascribe to) can be proven, which is not true.

You're major claim against Theism is the fact that it is based on faith as opposed to facts. And I am pointing out that it is based on faith and facts, as is Atheism. So in other words, I am refuting your argument that because a system is based in part on faith means that it can't be a valid system. I am taking the finger you are pointing at theism and pointing it right back at atheism, because the same rules apply in this case.

Faith is nothing. Faith in God is nothing. God is everything. You aren't saved by faith. You are saved by the grace and power of God. Faith is merely the means of acceptance of that gift. It is your signature on the dotted line, if you will.

 But anyone can have faith in anything. That is why salvation is equally attainable for anyone, because anyone can have faith.

I have not changed my argument because of any definition of words. I didn't not start the argument about the meaning of faith. I merely made a point about faith, and someone else questioned my use of that word. Therefore I had to defend my use of that word. Christians don't have a patent on the word faith, or it's meaning as I have already pointed out, and www.dictionary.com has backed me up.

 It listed religion in one of it's definitions because it can be used that way. But that isn't the only way it can be used, hence the many definitions of which scientific method was #2, above religion.

This is going no where fast. But I just wanted to clarify that point. I was not redefining any words as I saw fit. I was using the words as I understand them, and as the dictionary defines them.

As far as the definition of God goes. I believe in a specific triune God, but for the purposes of this discussion that didn't matter, because I am not defending that belief. I know theism cannot be proven, so I don't try to prove it. If someone is interested, I'll show them what the bible says, and I'll explain it the best I can if they have questions. But I know it takes faith, so I don't try to confuse the issue by trying to scientifically prove God to the person, because it is impossible and a waste of time. But my argument wasn't to prove God exists. It was to defend His character. That is what the cancer lady was doing. She wasn't saying God wasn't real. She was saying He isn't fair. That is a dumb argument for someone who doesn't believe in God. Like proving He isn't fair somehow proves He isn't real. Kirk and Ray weren't defending the God of Israel, they were defending the concept of a generic God as a creator. That could be any God anyone wants to believe in. The Greek pantheon had many Gods who weren't fair in their dealings with mankind. And many other Gods are the same way. They cause droughts and such just because they are in a bad mood. Again, just because the God if Israel is supposed to be perfectly fair according to the bible, and you somehow manage to prove that the actual real God isn't fair, only disproves the God of Israel, or at least the bible, but it doesn't disprove the existence of any other God/creator. So it is a complete waste of time for an atheist to argue that point. But they always seem to do that.

I do think atheism is a highly arrogant belief, and it's followers exemplify that, for the most part. I have met a few open-minded polite atheists, but very few. But I try to give each and every person the benefit of a doubt, until they prove to me they don't deserve it. Hence, I have not insulted anyone in this forum, nor do I intend to, though I have recieved a few insults.

 To say there is not God, as a dogmatic fact is arrogant. It assumes that human beings are not only capable of knowing such things, but have learned everything there is to know about the universe to the point that they can determine where it came from, when in reality they don't even know where they came from.

When I say I know how we got here, I am not taking credit for being so smart. I am telling you what I have learned from a book which I believe to be inspired by God (the one who created said universe, and the only one with first-hand knowledge of how it came into being.) Whether I'm right or wrong, at least I'm humble.

And if the earth and universe is as old as scientists claim it to be (which I don't believe it is) then that makes it even more arrogant to assume that we've figured it all out in our measley little supposed 20,000 or so year existence. We aren't that smart, and science has not come that far. These theories are assumptions made from assumptions made from assumptions. The core supposition of the elaborate theory is nothing more than a logical guess, and therefore all the details of said theory are imaginative extensions of that guess. You say well it must be proven fact because our scientists can come up with no better explanation for said evidence. So just because they can't come up with a better explanation must mean that their explanation has to be true? Are they omniscient? Do they know everything? Were they there when the earth was formed? If not, then they don't know for certain. And science has not been able to prove these theories, no matter how long and hard they have tried. Why? Has the possibility ever even occured to them that maybe, just maybe that isn't how it happened? Even if God isn't real, evolution and the big bang can still be wrong.

God can't be proven or disproven. But evolution and the big bang can easily be disproven by logical deduction.

Transitional species are the quickest way to disprove them. I've never heard a respectable answer for that question. Another way to disprove them is the concept of infinite matter. I've never heard a respectable answer for that question either. I can debunk both of those theories with those two concepts, and they are nothing more than rational, logical deduction and reasoning. Both of those arguments are avoided by atheists, because they don't have an answer. And they fact that they don't have an answer doesn't prove them wrong, but if they can honestly face those issues it makes both theories highly questionable.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
You're major claim against Theism is the fact that it is based on faith as opposed to facts. And I am pointing out that it is based on faith and facts, as is Atheism. So in other words, I am refuting your argument that because a system is based in part on faith means that it can't be a valid system. I am taking the finger you are pointing at theism and pointing it right back at atheism, because the same rules apply in this case.

Atheism is based on facts and faith? Atheism, which is the absense of belief in Gods or Godesses, is based on facts and faith?

I'm not sure I understand the assertion. It doesn't take any faith to be an Atheist. I'm not sure there are any requirements beyond the lack of belief in God.

Did I miss a meeting or something? You crafty atheists came up with some facts and faith that I have to agree with to not believe in God? Disrespectful fuckers. That's it, I quit, I believe in God now.


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish

marcusfish wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
You're major claim against Theism is the fact that it is based on faith as opposed to facts. And I am pointing out that it is based on faith and facts, as is Atheism. So in other words, I am refuting your argument that because a system is based in part on faith means that it can't be a valid system. I am taking the finger you are pointing at theism and pointing it right back at atheism, because the same rules apply in this case.

Atheism is based on facts and faith? Atheism, which is the absense of belief in Gods or Godesses, is based on facts and faith?

I'm not sure I understand the assertion. It doesn't take any faith to be an Atheist. I'm not sure there are any requirements beyond the lack of belief in God.

Did I miss a meeting or something? You crafty atheists came up with some facts and faith that I have to agree with to not believe in God? Disrespectful fuckers. That's it, I quit, I believe in God now.

Atheism is not the lack of belief. Agnostics believe nothing. Atheists have a strong belief that there is no God. They arrogantly think they can prove that there is no God. They think that science can prove it.

To believe nothing would be to say "I don't know" when someone asks you if there is a God. But you don't say "I don't know," you say "no, there is no God." That is an unproven idea that you firmly believe on faith, because you don't really know. No one does.

I have a lot more respect of Agnostics than Atheists. They don't believe in God, but at least they are humble enough to admit that it isn't impossible that He might exist.

 

To say you believe nothing, is nothing more than a copout, and it's not true.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
No Marcusfish, you didn't

No Marcusfish, you didn't miss a meeting.  I would have let you know.  What would a meeting be without my favorite fish?  Musicdude is having some trouble defining words.  Like "atheist" and "faith".  This is a tough one because he has created a no-win argument and like most people he has trouble saying "I was wrong". 

This whole thread has moved way off topic as usually happens when the original point has been resolved but they just can't let go.

Musicdude:  PLEASE research atheism.  There are no fact; there is no faith.  Cripes, we barely agree that we don't believe in any god.  I have not read the rest of your post but will do so tonight. 


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote:No Marcusfish,

jce wrote:

No Marcusfish, you didn't miss a meeting.  I would have let you know.  What would a meeting be without my favorite fish?  Musicdude is having some trouble defining words.  Like "atheist" and "faith".  This is a tough one because he has created a no-win argument and like most people he has trouble saying "I was wrong". 

This whole thread has moved way off topic as usually happens when the original point has been resolved but they just can't let go.

Musicdude:  PLEASE research atheism.  There are no fact; there is no faith.  Cripes, we barely agree that we don't believe in any god.  I have not read the rest of your post but will do so tonight. 

It requires faith for you to say "there is no God" because you can't prove it. If you can prove it, I'd love to hear how. More generically, forget the specific manefestation that is God. Let's just say, try and prove that the world doesn't have a creator. Good luck with that. Theories cannot be proof. Only established proven facts can be proof. You can't use a theory to prove another theory.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Oh Musicdude....  I really

Oh Musicdude....  I really think you are me from younger days!  I remember having the same type of faith you have.  As long as you keep your head in the sand of Jesus, you will have a happy joyful life of Jesusness. (I really do believe ignorance IS bliss)  You have your head in the sand and you are arguing with people standing next to you telling you how beautiful and elegent reality really is.

I'm not trying to shove any belief down your throat, I'm just sharing my testamony with you!

But I do have a soft spot for you, I remember when I used to go in to atheist forums and use the EXACT same 'original' arguements with people.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: Atheism

Musicdude wrote:

Atheism is not the lack of belief.

I am sorry, but atheism is the exact opposite of this.  It IS the lack of belief.  That is all it is.  I can post the definition for you but is it really necessary?

Saying there is no god is to deny the existence of a god.  This is not the same as saying 'I can prove there is no god'.  I actually do not know of many (or any) atheists that are willing to say they can prove there is no god because that would be a foolish statement. 

Haven't we covered this already?  Why are you having trouble with this?