Universal Question of Faith

Wow, no need to call someone a retard buddy. Have some e-decorum! That’s why we shouldn’t talk about religion or politics on the internet. You aren’t gonna change my mind, and I’m not gonna change yours.

[quote]Therizza wrote:
Wow, no need to call someone a retard buddy. Have some e-decorum! That’s why we shouldn’t talk about religion or politics on the internet. You aren’t gonna change my mind, and I’m not gonna change yours. [/quote]

Bringing up Pascals wager is an extremely flawed method of arguing.

Oh I’m just playing it safe, not being good because I actually want to be.

Here’s a question: If you knew 100% that there was no God, would you steal, rape and murder?

Nope, I wouldn’t steal, rape and murder.

A question for you: If you weren’t from NZ, would I still like the All Blacks?

[quote]Therizza wrote:
Nope, I wouldn’t steal, rape and murder.

A question for you: If you weren’t from NZ, would I still like the All Blacks?[/quote]

Probably not, I’m the reason for their success via my awesomeness aura being cast over all of NZ.

So where would the imperative to not steal, rape or murder come from?

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Ct. Rockula wrote:
To Clarify, I am not bashing, just looking to get a better understanding of how our nation identifies with faith.

I’ve had this question on my mind for a good while. It concerns how our country deals with God’s possible prophets and those who feel they are warriors of God.

example

a man,sees the sky opening and hears God’s voice tell him to destroy another person for blasphemy or something. The man carries out the order and then is imprisoned. Why is this? We all know its God’s thing to only show himself to one person at a time and make them do something out of the ordinary. It is also common knowledge that he uses extreme ways to communicate (burning bush etc). So in a country that is 83 percent Christian according to ABCNews, shouldnt there be a different view on those that are ordered by God?

Prophets are to be thoroughly tested before belief in their prophetic word to be true. After Jesus died and rose again from the Tomb on the third day, kind of unnecessary for that stuff, but I can not judge if it is actually true.

second example

Homeless guys who say they are Jesus

How do we know they arent? Has anyone seen Jesus? Wasnt Jesus a bum, by standards? Again, 83 percent of the country says Christianity is their faith, yet they see their possible king and tell him to gget a job.

Read revelations and you will understand. Unless you consider a Rabbi a bum, I doubt Jesus would look like a bum. And you do not see many homeless people with a horse, eyes of fire, and legions of angels.

Why do we look down on, medicate, or imprison those who might actually be God’s servants? Yet, on Sunday drive to a church where a preacher, who is supposed to live a modest and faithful life has a Hummer and a mistress in the congregation?

No one said a preacher is supposed to be modest, it’s a suggestion so they will not fall in to a trap of sinful ways. A mistress is not necessarily bad unless it is breaking vows and is deceitful in nature. The reason, because society has moved away from the truth. If they are really God’s servants, then it is sad they are in that position, but for some reason they are.
Ok, let’s say you killed me, right? At your trial you say God made you do it. Do you think

A. You’ll be taken for psych batteries
B. You will be tested to determine your one on one relationship with God[/quote]

Well, I am not exactly a prophet so I wouldn’t try to plead that I was God’s servant. I already stated that since Jesus died, and such that there is not really room for that, but if it does happen I cannot judge it. However, I am talking about prophets that tell the future. This kind of belief in someone’s word is only to be accepted as truth as long as it’s proven to be truth, and continues to be the truth.

Well, I would have to say that I am not around many homeless people, and if I do see one on the court steps I give them whatever change I have in my pockets. I wouldn’t believe him that he was Jesus.

Well they are supposed to keep there vows, but when a man goes out side of the marriage that does not mean he breaks his vows unless his wife is not knowledgeable. You’re not wrong, but read a book called Divine Sex to understand a little more on what the Bible says about sex.

Yes, he huddled masses of poverty, how does that have any affect on his Character. He partied with prostitutes and tax collectors, pretty wealthy people. I do not think Jesus was a bum, and Rabbi’s were not poor back then either.

Why do you have to be poor to be faithful, who told you this?

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Therizza wrote:
Nope, I wouldn’t steal, rape and murder.

A question for you: If you weren’t from NZ, would I still like the All Blacks?

Probably not, I’m the reason for their success via my awesomeness aura being cast over all of NZ.

So where would the imperative to not steal, rape or murder come from?[/quote]

Well since people know that God exists 100 over a 100, I would say that is a question we can not answer. However, I would have to answer I would say civilised morals.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Probably not, I’m the reason for their success via my awesomeness aura being cast over all of NZ.

So where would the imperative to not steal, rape or murder come from?[/quote]

My own sense of morality along with societal norms and a legal system, the latter two of which are based in the West on (GASP!) Judeo-Christian morality/ethics. Sad but true. Well sad for some, not so much for others. I don’t care what you practice, be it atheism, deism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and so on, just don’t tell ME what to believe, what is right/wrong, and I’ll reciprocate the favor. We can all coexist together, a big happy family pursuing muscle intelligently and relentlessly.

[quote]Therizza wrote:
the latter two of which are based in the West on (GASP!) Judeo-Christian morality/ethics.[/quote]

When was the last time you stoned someone to death for idol worship?

[quote]Therizza wrote:
just don’t tell ME what to believe, what is right/wrong, and I’ll reciprocate the favor.[/quote]

If that actually could work, then deal. But it won’t. It seems to be the imperative of religion to dictate how everyone else lives.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Well since people know that God exists 100 over a 100[/quote]

Either stupidity or arrogance here.

I don’t know 100% that God doesn’t exist. I find it highly improbable that God exists in the sense that Abrahamic and a lot of other religions claim He/She exists.

[quote]debraD wrote:
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.[/quote]

Exactly, believers can’t have it both ways. Either:

  1. They have reliable evidence confirming their belief (in which case it is knowledge, not faith) or

  2. They have no evidence confirming their belief

In the first case, we have to define “reliable evidence”. Millions of people interpret warm, fuzzy feelings, or incidental “miracles” with alternate explanations, as “reliable evidence”. However, logically it is impossible for all of them to be right about this “reliable evidence”, because the beliefs that are “confirmed” through this evidence directly contradict. For example, if someone sees the Virgin Mary in a vision, how reliable is that evidence? A Catholic will say it is reliable, but other Christians who don’t believe the Virgin Mary appears to people in visions would say it is a fantasy. William James talks extensively about this in the classic “Varieties of Religious Experience”.

In the second case, by definition it is nothing more than wishful thinking and is no different than my children believing in Santa Claus.

[quote]debraD wrote:
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.[/quote]

Exactly, believers can’t have it both ways. Either:

  1. They have reliable evidence confirming their belief (in which case it is knowledge, not faith) or

  2. They have no evidence confirming their belief

In the first case, we have to define “reliable evidence”. Millions of people interpret warm, fuzzy feelings, or incidental “miracles” with alternate explanations, as “reliable evidence”. However, logically it is impossible for all of them to be right about this “reliable evidence”, because the beliefs that are “confirmed” through this evidence directly contradict. For example, if someone sees the Virgin Mary in a vision, how reliable is that evidence? A Catholic will say it is reliable, but other Christians who don’t believe the Virgin Mary appears to people in visions would say it is a fantasy. William James talks extensively about this in the classic “Varieties of Religious Experience”.

In the second case, by definition it is nothing more than wishful thinking and is no different than my children believing in Santa Claus.

[quote]Therizza wrote:
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![/quote]

Lol, that’s cool. On Pascal’s Wager, it is a fallacy because it only considers two possibilities. The reality is that there are literally thousands of belief systems. If you really want to go with Pascal’s Wager, you should choose the belief system that has the most severe punishments possible for the slightest offense, in order to minimize your potential risk. You could even create a belief system of your own along these lines, and argue that everyone should follow it because of the enormous potential downside of they don’t.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Well since people know that God exists 100 over a 100

Either stupidity or arrogance here.

I don’t know 100% that God doesn’t exist. I find it highly improbable that God exists in the sense that Abrahamic and a lot of other religions claim He/She exists.[/quote]

Okay, either God exists or he doesn’t. There is right and wrong, you cannot have a half God, just like you cannot have a half man. Either he is or is not a man.

Forlife,

I’m trying to be nice, and you just come off as a preachy atheist douche-bag. You can’t explain to me why I’m wrong, and I can’t do likewise for you because ‘de gustibus non est disputandem’ baby.

[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]

Right. Unfortunately, that’s the catch.

[quote]FightinIrish26 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.

Right. Unfortunately, that’s the catch.[/quote]

Well, golly, what do we have here. Two dicks in a bag, the OP addressed the question towards people of faith and the anti-Christians run in to start slinging shit instead of for what the OP asked for. I am not knocking at your front door dragging you to church, if you have so much trouble with stating what I believe get off.

[quote]forlife wrote:
debraD wrote:
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.

Exactly, believers can’t have it both ways. Either:

  1. They have reliable evidence confirming their belief (in which case it is knowledge, not faith) or

  2. They have no evidence confirming their belief

In the first case, we have to define “reliable evidence”. Millions of people interpret warm, fuzzy feelings, or incidental “miracles” with alternate explanations, as “reliable evidence”. However, logically it is impossible for all of them to be right about this “reliable evidence”, because the beliefs that are “confirmed” through this evidence directly contradict. For example, if someone sees the Virgin Mary in a vision, how reliable is that evidence? A Catholic will say it is reliable, but other Christians who don’t believe the Virgin Mary appears to people in visions would say it is a fantasy. William James talks extensively about this in the classic “Varieties of Religious Experience”.

In the second case, by definition it is nothing more than wishful thinking and is no different than my children believing in Santa Claus.[/quote]

There is hard evidence, douche bag. So what if people call it faith, it’s called faith just like you say you have faith in your partner. You do not have any hard evidence that he will do what is in your best interest for the rest of your life, but you have faith he will. Get it, now get off and get back on your gay ‘civil rights’ post.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Therizza wrote:
the latter two of which are based in the West on (GASP!) Judeo-Christian morality/ethics.

When was the last time you stoned someone to death for idol worship?[/quote]

Do you include American Idol in this?

[quote]forlife wrote:

Exactly, believers can’t have it both ways. Either:

  1. They have reliable evidence confirming their belief (in which case it is knowledge, not faith) or

  2. They have no evidence confirming their belief.[/quote]

Nou surprisingly, you pose a false choice. Belief is not and has never been predicated on Proof. “Reliable evidence”, as you phrase it, does not have be born of deduction.

And, further, this isn’t limnited to religious belief. I doubt you could prove a fraction of your “beliefs” that you press around here, and yet you believe in them anyway - and none of them have anything to do with the existence of a deity. Beliefs are not categorically the creatures of proof - and were you to take a break from your zealotry, you’d realize it with respect to your own set of secular beliefs.