23 Apr 2011, 3:31 pm
23 Apr 2011, 3:32 pm
23 Apr 2011, 3:32 pm
ryan93 wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
@ Fnord
It quite honestly takes just as much faith to not believe in God as it does to believe in God.
It quite honestly takes just as much faith to not believe in God as it does to believe in God.
Actually it takes less faith and more reliance on facts.
One does not believe a fact. One beholds a fact.
ruveyn
Present me with facts disproving the idea that there is a God. Not "lack of data", facts.
Agnostics are the only people who can claim their faith is logical - lack of data should logically lead to withholding judgment, not a solid conclusion that the question is closed.
I do not pretend that my faith is "proved", or "logical" - but it is what I believe, for reasons I cannot prove to anyone else's satisfaction. However, I do take exception to being referred to as "superstitious", placing religious faith on the same level as fear of the number 13, or another fan favorite, a "deluded fool". I don't tell solid atheists they're being "foolish" or "deluded" when they insist their conclusions are "logical" or "supported by evidence" - all I ask is a similar level of courtesy in return, which is apparently too much to ask.
Atheism is a misnomer; Atheists are those who don't believe in God, as opposed to those who disbelieve in God, who assert 100% certainty there is no God. There is a burden of proof on the Latter, but not of the former. In a sense, most Atheists are agnostic to some degree.
Agnostic of Apatheistic... Personally I don't feel proving or disproving God is relevant to my life in any way. I am more concerned with harmful beliefs and practices. If people want to believe that God is a giant octopus living deep in the atmosphere of Neptune I could care less so long as they aren't trying to kill me for not caring
23 Apr 2011, 3:36 pm
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
23 Apr 2011, 3:41 pm
23 Apr 2011, 3:52 pm
leejosepho wrote:
Fnord wrote:
God's Chosen People were fairly brutal, and turned to their god for justification.
Do you have any actual evidence of that?
Since the only evidence I could offer is from the Bible, the answer is 'No'. However, for those "People of the Book" who believe that such evidence is valid, may I direct their attention to the Book of Joshua?
leejosepho wrote:
As I understand things, they were simply doing as told.
Ja wol, mein Fuhrer! Ve vere chust doing vhat ve vere told...
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
23 Apr 2011, 4:08 pm
Fnord wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
Fnord wrote:
God's Chosen People were fairly brutal, and turned to their god for justification.
Do you have any actual evidence of that?
Since the only evidence I could offer is from the Bible, the answer is 'No'. However, for those "People of the Book" who believe that such evidence is valid, may I direct their attention to the Book of Joshua?
leejosepho wrote:
As I understand things, they were simply doing as told.
Ja wol, mein Fuhrer! Ve vere chust doing vhat ve vere told...
It might be possible that one or more of "the chosen" had at some time in the past done something brutal all on their own and then later tried to justify it in some way, but my point is simply that it is not accurate to say/imply those people were inherently brutal and then "turned to their god for justification". It bothers me a bit that Elijah slew all the "prophets of Ba'al" after he had "trolled" or "baited" them into something (as it might appear), but I do not bother with second-guessing anyone there. Sooner, later or whenever, almost everyone on earth wants all evil ended ...
... and now we just have to try to figure out what really is or is not evil!
23 Apr 2011, 5:00 pm
23 Apr 2011, 5:12 pm
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
23 Apr 2011, 5:14 pm
23 Apr 2011, 5:24 pm
DW_a_mom wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I make no claims that my reasons can work for anyone but but me, but I can persuade you that if you had my experiences you would have faith, too or, if not that, at least leave you comfortable my faith comes from logic.
That is kind of the best you do with faith, isn't it?
That is kind of the best you do with faith, isn't it?
I don't think you could; I would need an extraordinary amount of "subjective experience" to believe in God. Having dinner with him would be roughly in the right ballpark, uncovering a book that describes the entirety of Math, from its foundations up, proving (or disproving) every conjecture would certainly have me asking questions. Serendipitous events probably wouldn't do it, and unexplained events would almost never would.
You are saying that you have a logical reason for believing in God, so it's more belief than faith (faith requires zero evidence). But yes, it is virtually impossible for one person to prove something to another based on ones own experiences.
I don't want to debate.
I want people to understand and admit that certain terminology is hurtful and unnecessary and, as a result, to make an effort to stop using it.
Enough generally positive members of this community have come on this thread and said that it hurts them that others need to listen.
It's the only reason I'm posting.
I agree, the artful vagueness of language can stimulate both positive and negative memories which then gives an emotional response. Anyway do you think its a good idea if ryan93 takes God out for a meal? Who would pay the bill?
23 Apr 2011, 5:26 pm
cdfox7 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I make no claims that my reasons can work for anyone but but me, but I can persuade you that if you had my experiences you would have faith, too or, if not that, at least leave you comfortable my faith comes from logic.
That is kind of the best you do with faith, isn't it?
That is kind of the best you do with faith, isn't it?
I don't think you could; I would need an extraordinary amount of "subjective experience" to believe in God. Having dinner with him would be roughly in the right ballpark, uncovering a book that describes the entirety of Math, from its foundations up, proving (or disproving) every conjecture would certainly have me asking questions. Serendipitous events probably wouldn't do it, and unexplained events would almost never would.
You are saying that you have a logical reason for believing in God, so it's more belief than faith (faith requires zero evidence). But yes, it is virtually impossible for one person to prove something to another based on ones own experiences.
I don't want to debate.
I want people to understand and admit that certain terminology is hurtful and unnecessary and, as a result, to make an effort to stop using it.
Enough generally positive members of this community have come on this thread and said that it hurts them that others need to listen.
It's the only reason I'm posting.
I agree, the artful vagueness of language can stimulate both positive and negative memories which then gives an emotional response. Anyway do you think its a good idea if ryan93 takes God out for a meal? Who would pay the bill?
Maybe he already has and didn't realize it
23 Apr 2011, 5:27 pm
23 Apr 2011, 5:39 pm
23 Apr 2011, 5:45 pm
23 Apr 2011, 5:56 pm
