[quote]pookie wrote:
Well, in 2Cr 8:17, Paul clearly states “For indeed he accepted the exhortation; but being more forward, of his own Accord he went unto you.”
So I expect Jesus, bum or not, to show up in a Honda.
[/quote]
Then again, Jehovah drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden in a Fury. Better gas mileage with the Honda though, it’s a long drive.
[quote]forlife wrote:
What I find funny is that people are 100% willing to accept as valid prayers and “answers” to said prayers, with no evidence other than a warm fuzzy feeling when they pray, or some subsequent event which could easily be explained by an alternate cause.
Yet when someone else makes the same claim, they often get ridiculed by these very same people. Especially when their claim contradicts with their own belief system in some way.[/quote]
Why would you expect evidence in matters of faith anyhow? Faith is by definition a lack of evidence. Otherwise it would just be knowledge.
[quote]debraD wrote:
Why would you expect evidence in matters of faith anyhow? Faith is by definition a lack of evidence. Otherwise it would just be knowledge.[/quote]
If people were honest about faith being nothing more than wishful thinking, that would be completely fine.
Unfortunately, far more often they pretend that their faith actually says something about objective reality. Worse, they feel justified in legislating their faith on others.
again, I say, debraD is sooo hot. Good day!
[quote]forlife wrote:
debraD wrote:
Why would you expect evidence in matters of faith anyhow? Faith is by definition a lack of evidence. Otherwise it would just be knowledge.
If people were honest about faith being nothing more than wishful thinking, that would be completely fine.
Unfortunately, far more often they pretend that their faith actually says something about objective reality. Worse, they feel justified in legislating their faith on others.[/quote]
That maybe true but a debate from an evidence point of view is futile because it will become clear that we all take faith in matters frequently and instead of making the point that they don’t have evidence, the point can easily be made that neither do you!
It’s much more productive to start from a reference point that in matters of faith there is no evidence and there doesn’t need to be. Otherwise there would be no meaning to the faith, as it would just be a hard fact.
[quote]debraD wrote:
That maybe true but a debate from an evidence point of view is futile because it will become clear that we all take faith in matters frequently and instead of making the point that they don’t have evidence, the point can easily be made that neither do you!
It’s much more productive to start from a reference point that in matters of faith there is no evidence and there doesn’t need to be. Otherwise there would be no meaning to the faith, as it would just be a hard fact.
[/quote]
If you have zero evidence that something is true, why would you choose to believe it anyway? Believing something to be true just because you want it to be true is childish. Isn’t it more honest to withhold judgment instead, pending any actual evidence that may come down the road?
[quote]forlife wrote:
debraD wrote:
That maybe true but a debate from an evidence point of view is futile because it will become clear that we all take faith in matters frequently and instead of making the point that they don’t have evidence, the point can easily be made that neither do you!
It’s much more productive to start from a reference point that in matters of faith there is no evidence and there doesn’t need to be. Otherwise there would be no meaning to the faith, as it would just be a hard fact.
If you have zero evidence that something is true, why would you choose to believe it anyway? Believing something to be true just because you want it to be true is childish. Isn’t it more honest to withhold judgment instead, pending any actual evidence that may come down the road?[/quote]
it’s called faith for a reason, oh omnipotent one.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If you have zero evidence that something is true, why would you choose to believe it anyway? Believing something to be true just because you want it to be true is childish. Isn’t it more honest to withhold judgment instead, pending any actual evidence that may come down the road?[/quote]
Anti-religion is just as much a religion as religion-religion.
As such, preachy agnostics/atheists (and environmentalists) are proselytizing anti-faith is just as annoying as someone trying to convert me to their religion.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
it’s called faith for a reason, oh omnipotent one.[/quote]
Did you mean omniscient? 
I’m neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and the same is true for believers. The difference between me and them is that I’m honest enough to admit what I don’t know, rather than pretending something is true just because I want it to be true.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Anti-religion is just as much a religion as religion-religion.
As such, preachy agnostics/atheists (and environmentalists) are proselytizing anti-faith is just as annoying as someone trying to convert me to their religion.
[/quote]
How is it a religion to choose not to believe in something until you have objective evidence to support that belief? Sounds like common sense to me.
[quote]forlife wrote:
debraD wrote:
That maybe true but a debate from an evidence point of view is futile because it will become clear that we all take faith in matters frequently and instead of making the point that they don’t have evidence, the point can easily be made that neither do you!
It’s much more productive to start from a reference point that in matters of faith there is no evidence and there doesn’t need to be. Otherwise there would be no meaning to the faith, as it would just be a hard fact.
If you have zero evidence that something is true, why would you choose to believe it anyway? Believing something to be true just because you want it to be true is childish. Isn’t it more honest to withhold judgment instead, pending any actual evidence that may come down the road?[/quote]
Don’t ask me, I’m an atheist. lol.
But I bet a believer wouldn’t say they believe because they want it to be true but because they KNOW it is true and some would even say that knowledge or feeling of knowing with a lack of evidence IS evidence. Explain the unexplainable! But my point is it has nothing to do with evidence or reason or logic and so why try apply those principles when it will never fit.
If you had evidence, then there would be no faith and if there is no faith then there is no heaven. On that premise, I think atheists and theists could get along a lot better. (but I admit there would be nothing to argue about…)
Two words: Pascal’s Wager.
And forlife, I meant to say impotent. Lol jk, I just wanted to use a big word to deride you. But I secretly admire you. Why do they even have these damn forums on this site. Bah!
Similar to Pascal’s wager, I see 2 possibilities resulting from prayer.
Now, from an atheist point of view of being guided only by ones own self reflection and reasoning. If most people just do what naturally feels right, they should pray. Why the heck not? I think that even from the perspective of their being no god, faith and prayer are good things.
Things like confession, even if between you and an imaginary friend can be a healthy recourse.
I had the same kind of discussion in the t-cell about placebos.
I mean if it makes you feel better and it doesn’t hurt anyone, why would an objective science minded person discourage it?
“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God” [or one god].
Atheists/agnostics like to throw up that Jefferson quote while attacking Christianity. What you have to realize is that quote defends Christianity (or any other spiritual belief) as much as atheism.
Forelife, prayer doesn’t hurt you, why must you constantly try to attack it?
But Pascal’s wager makes no sense. If there really is a God that is omniscient he knows that you only claimed to believe without truly believing and were therefore dishonest. Off to hell you go.
I prefer the reverse Pascal’s wager. If there is an omniscient God they know that I am honest in the fact that I don’t believe in God due to a lack of any evidence. They also know that for the most part I have the best intentions in what I do, I am compasionate and I treat others as I would expect to be treated. Any rationale God would be happy with that. Any irational God is to capricious for me to waste my time trying to please on the off chance therefore I might as well act as if there is no God.
[quote]debraD wrote:
forlife wrote:
debraD wrote:
That maybe true but a debate from an evidence point of view is futile because it will become clear that we all take faith in matters frequently and instead of making the point that they don’t have evidence, the point can easily be made that neither do you!
It’s much more productive to start from a reference point that in matters of faith there is no evidence and there doesn’t need to be. Otherwise there would be no meaning to the faith, as it would just be a hard fact.
If you have zero evidence that something is true, why would you choose to believe it anyway? Believing something to be true just because you want it to be true is childish. Isn’t it more honest to withhold judgment instead, pending any actual evidence that may come down the road?
Don’t ask me, I’m an atheist. lol.
But I bet a believer wouldn’t say they believe because they want it to be true but because they KNOW it is true and some would even say that knowledge or feeling of knowing with a lack of evidence IS evidence. Explain the unexplainable! But my point is it has nothing to do with evidence or reason or logic and so why try apply those principles when it will never fit.
If you had evidence, then there would be no faith and if there is no faith then there is no heaven. On that premise, I think atheists and theists could get along a lot better. (but I admit there would be nothing to argue about…)
[/quote]
The epistemic street cred of “faith” is surely bunk. That is, those who say “I just know that’s true, because I have faith” even though they have no reason beyond their own faith are just saying something silly. Knowledge, if the term is to be differentiate from belief, requires justification, and on no credible account of justification does blind faith get to count as justification, and hence endow one with knowledge. At best, faith can allow you to say something like “I believe that’s true, because I have faith”.
Nevertheless the matter isn’t so simple, since we have to figure out exactly what we mean by ‘faith’. The way that the world ‘faith’ is being used here–as a sort of weird religious man’s epistemic justification–isn’t really the standard usage of the word faith. Normally, faith refers to the state of having faith in something. For example, people say “I have faith in her to do the right thing”, or “I have faith in the church to provide the support it needs”, or maybe even “I have faith in God”. This sort of faith is quite different then the above sort, since it seems to say something substantial. What you mean when you say “I have faith in her to do the right thing” is that you have reason to believe she will do the right thing–you trust her. The key is though that this sort of faith isn’t just a “blind leap”, but a small reasoned leap. What you’re really saying in this example is that although you don’t have good reason to believe she will do the right thing this time, because in the past she has done the right thing you believe that in the end she will in fact do it again.
Now, if I was a religious person I would mean the latter when I talked about faith. When I said “I know by faith that God answers my prayers”, for example, what I would really mean is that “I have faith in God to answer my prayers”, and I would say that because from past experiences I would have evidence and reason that if nothing else, there did exist a God who listened to my prayers and wanted to answer them. Hence since I have evidence that there existed a God who wanted to answer my prayers, I would make the small leap of faith that despite the fact that I had no direct evidence that God answered my prayers.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
According to the writings in the Bible, it became apparent (to those who witnessed Him) that He was who He claimed to be through his teachings and His deeds. If one of those bums is Jesus, then in time it should become apparent. No?[/quote]
So apparent he was charged with heresy and executed.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
forlife wrote:
If you have zero evidence that something is true, why would you choose to believe it anyway? Believing something to be true just because you want it to be true is childish. Isn’t it more honest to withhold judgment instead, pending any actual evidence that may come down the road?
Anti-religion is just as much a religion as religion-religion.
As such, preachy agnostics/atheists (and environmentalists) are proselytizing anti-faith is just as annoying as someone trying to convert me to their religion.
[/quote]
Feel free to practice your religion if you can avoid meddling in my life. Unfortunately, that won’t happen, it’s the nature of organized religion.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
Two words: Pascal’s Wager.[/quote]
Because if there is a creator like you retards claim, he’s just as retarded as you and won’t see through belief for fear of hellfire as opposed to just being a good person.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Feel free to practice your religion if you can avoid meddling in my life. Unfortunately, that won’t happen, it’s the nature of organized religion.[/quote]
I think your bong is calling.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Feel free to practice your religion if you can avoid meddling in my life. Unfortunately, that won’t happen, it’s the nature of organized religion.
I think your bong is calling.[/quote]
Push, is that you?