Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Never really answered the question. I guess you are in “idk land”. Basically what you’re saying is humans will be humans regardless of faith - therefore afterlife isn’t important but instead building your legacy on earth is. Then you hope one day science will be able to answer the question definitively.I think it's an archaic design of our biology to allow social behavior to manifest with explosive resolve. As a species we should be focusing on thinking about the consequences of our actions and about what led us here. Then, once we have a humble but unanimous agreement, if only for one truth shared by all, we can positively move forward.
In response to the poll...
My personal beliefs are not unique and yet combine several opinions from various sources because eloquence is... Important.
I think that ultimately people will be people and no amount of hope or charity will ever make everyone peaceful of heart and sound of mind and body. Those who do have a path towards those goals have hope. So they don't need it. Those who do not, either risk for the reward or reject the notion and move on to wherever fate takes them. But it does go somewhere. Always will! So just get there already.
I mean should we call Elon a messiah? Gonna bring a...
NewWWW.alwaysoninyourHEAD.hahaha
...to the world? Sure ok.... It's irrelevant to me honestly. If you must believe in a savior and you can think of no one else but yourself then you've not even seen desperation.
And who do most people pray to when it does happen? What are the words people say when something happens...
Oh
God.
So I guess no matter where you are you're gonna be ingrained to make an ovation to the overseer. I think at this point those who find time to sit alone and curse whatever maker may be can be counted the same as the most pious.
Once you die its fairly irrelevant to you that just died but your legacy may or may not be. So most people use that combined with faith or hope to live. It's whatever really... Once you're done and decomposing that's when the real show begins. One day I certainly pray we get to see that journey through the lense of science.
A, humans experience the universe in a mostly limited fashion except when scientists observe.Never really answered the question. I guess you are in “idk land”. Basically what you’re saying is humans will be humans regardless of faith - therefore afterlife isn’t important but instead building your legacy on earth is. Then you hope one day science will be able to answer the question definitively.
A. Humans are differnt. But our imperfections is accounted for an explained in religion, mine at least.
B. Afterlife is important because there’s a chance it may be right, and you might spend entenrity in some type of hades. Rotting away forevermore.
C. Science will never be able to answer that question because religion is outside science. Science is study of natural world. How will science go beyond the natural universe in extra terrestrial plains? So it will never answer.
They were accounted for. Maybe re-read the post.Whia that is a very basic level cognitive analysis on religion and non religion. I am tempted to go on a ruthless recount of the ills of “non religion” history.
I was gonna say you ought to try being less overwhelmingly arrogant and presumptuous, but as the remainder of your post illustrates, that has no chance of happening.Just know, you ought to expand your understanding on this issue
I guarantee you don't.And I have much subject amo against “non religion” to make that a reality here, too.
I mean...the only thing I can think to say in response to this is "lol".And you should be careful of who you offend.
Alright dude, agree to dissagree. I don’t feel it’s the time to ruthlessly rip into an adversary belief like I have done on political discussions. Agree to dissagree.Oh man.
They were accounted for. Maybe re-read the post.
I was gonna say you ought to try being less overwhelmingly arrogant and presumptuous, but as the remainder of your post illustrates, that has no chance of happening.
I guarantee you don't.
I mean...the only thing I can think to say in response to this is "lol".
You can edit the OP to have more firm direction in terms of structure and I'd actually remove the poll but thats up to you.Starting to regret making this thread. Blood is starting to slowly boil looking at these comments.
Let's start over.Sucumbio
A. What does that have to do with humans being fundamentally differnt and that “humans will be humans” - basically the imperfections of man is not something contrary to at least my religion. Science observed and tries to explain the creation of God. Good.
B. Might not be very enticing, but it’s still true. Now it holds no weight for me because I know to basic extent how this world works and what lies in the hereafter... but it’s still true.
C. It’s not about being more “complex”. Science cannot and will never transcend into extra terrestrial realms on human intelligence. So it’s an pointless endeavor to hope scientist figure out the answer of “afterlife” and heaven and hell... and God.
I am actually not an advocate for religions, only my own. And science l, Worldly men of science that is, seem to always be behind my religion.
lol why would it have to be ruthlessly? Can't you, with your unassailable wisdom, caps-locked FACTS and loads of ammo, gently rip into adversarial beliefs?Alright dude, agree to dissagree. I don’t feel it’s the time to ruthlessly rip into an adversary belief like I have done on political discussions. Agree to dissagree.
Probablem is, how do observe things outside your reality? It's immposible.You can edit the OP to have more firm direction in terms of structure and I'd actually remove the poll but thats up to you.
Let's start over.
Science is not a good or bad thing. It's just a way of observing the universe. Through the scientific method we learn more about how everything works. This same method can and is used by religions to explore miracles and understand the teachings of prophets. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that one day these same religious and scientific scholars end up converging knowledge wise until there are no true mysteries to explore. It could be eons obviously. Or it may never happen because we die out before that discovery. But I personally do not think that's an excuse to just not bother trying.
How matter, energy and time and our universe exist and coalesce and interact is humanity's greatest exploration and with it will come answers to questions like what happens when we die or are born....what a soul is or isn't, or karma for example. There's much mystery left to observe and catalog and explain but it's all in asking the right questions that'll bring the answer.
Question 1: How do you distinguish between something "outside your reality" and something that just simply doesn't exist? How can you become convinced of such a thing or hope to convince anyone else of it when by your own admission it can't be observed?Probablem is, how do observe things outside your reality? It's immposible.
Whia Patience young Whia. If you seek my wisdom and understadning. Ask question, and hopefully they will be answered.
Let's clarify what you mean... You're saying that religion, at least your own belief system, requires you to believe in the existence of someone or something that by definition can never be proved or disproved by proper observation.Probablem is, how do observe things outside your reality? It's immposible.
A lot of things...hm. Faith, seeing miracles of God (though this I believe dosen't happen anymore nor won't till "IT" takes place) or some type of sorcery/magic/witch craft etc. You're an atheist right? shouldn't you be familiar with the dark arts? atheist and those of demoic spell casting, pearls - voodo dolls, witches and all that sort of stuff of stantism...they tend to overlap.Question 1: How do you distinguish between something "outside your reality" and something that just simply doesn't exist? How can you become convinced of such a thing or hope to convince anyone else of it when by your own admission it can't be observed?
So why have faith in things that can’t be observed or empirically verified? How can you determine if the object of your faith is legitimate?A lot of things...hm. Faith,
Uh, no. Atheism doesn’t necessarily entail any of that.or some type of sorcery/magic/witch craft etc. You're an atheist right? shouldn't you be familiar with the dark arts? atheist and those of demoic spell casting, pearls - voodo dolls, witches
You should take a second to think about this. Why would an atheist, who doesn’t believe in god, believe in satan, whose existence is predicated on god?and all that sort of stuff of stantism...they tend to overlap.
How can you verify god is the source of your faith? You have to demonstrate your god exists first - which you already admitted can’t be done, hence why you invoked faith in the first place.Because Christianity does not work through the power of man, but the work of God. It takes faith for one to believe, and God gives us this faith.
Great point! Science indeed changes with knowledge (a sin if you're traditional, I'm technically baptized but I think of blessings as literal transferances of.... (science word)..A lot of things...hm. Faith, seeing miracles of God (though this I believe dosen't happen anymore nor won't till "IT" takes place) or some type of sorcery/magic/witch craft etc. You're an atheist right? shouldn't you be familiar with the dark arts? atheist and those of demoic spell casting, pearls - voodo dolls, witches and all that sort of stuff of stantism...they tend to overlap.
Because Christianity does not work through the power of man, but the work of God. It takes faith for one to believe, and God gives us this faith. By our own frution, none would see the Light of Christ. So you're right - something one cannot observe - why believe it? because God is above the short sightedness of man, and can give us faith to believe in things not see. It's what the Bible says. Only way you are saved is THROUGH...what's the word? faith. And the Bibles describes faith as beleiving in things not seen.
Sucumbio
Yes... kinda. It basically says you can only be saved through faith that God rose Jesus from the dead and that He is the Messiah.
The only time "science" will see anything is when the "rapture" happens. Then you'll see some super natrual stuff. But before that until now, science will never be able to answer the question of the afterlife. We can't even see what is our "soul" is. Hence why many don't believe it is even a thing.
Religons may back track because it's inhabitated by fallen creatures (also...science back tracks too you know?), the Bible never back tracks on anything. It's God Word. It has no error and will not pass away.
I don't understand, on other threads I've seen you say how faith was monumental in turning your life around for the better. I assume that faith was Christian, so why do you now give God the cold shoulder of doubt?Great point! Science indeed changes with knowledge (a sin if you're traditional, I'm technically baptized but I think of blessings as literal transferances of.... (science word)..
And I won't accept Christ as my savior because it doesn't matter?
Or does it. Mm.
.... See when death is 3 doors down that's all you think about if you can still think. Unless you're at peace. I think it's quite possible that our fear of dying is something that's natural but because we are sentient and conscious many dwell on it.
All faiths of the world root themselves in historical events that took on deeper meaning. From early shamen to Pope holy people, truly blessed, seem to simply be connected to the world in a way others are not. What those people choose to do or allow actions thereof in their namesake must indeed be scrutinized, lest entire swaths of humans be erased. I need not illustrate the death toll of Christ. It's insane, really. Have I done those things? Am I of sound mind and body and live with respect? I won't ever say Christ was wrong because his few words that have managed to survive speak only of love. Who gets to say grace at our table? The Simpsons.
Moving to your first bit...
Will you really be able to notice when Elon Musks global satellite technology leads to a new evolution of human, the wet wired? Unless you REALLY believe 199k or whatever humans are gonna vanish into thin air and blah blah God the Rapture is so hectic!
I like the 7th sign good movie.
Neway enough bedtime stories! Arguing the Fidiest is a sure downfall.
Indeed it wouldn't; it would be independently verifiable, empirical evidence - which is superior to faith if you want to show you actually know what you're talking about. Which you, evidently, can't do.Whia if you could empiracly verify it through our eyes or observe it....it wouldn't be faith - now would it?
There's no point in unpacking this - the people a religion produces are irrelevant to the veracity of its claims.How you find "legitmacy" (aka enocuragement that what I believe is true) for yourself that it is real is a personal question for the Believer. I'll just say look at how Christanity has spread, look at the people it produces - societies it makes.
This is both a logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) and self-defeating. If Christianity's claim to legitimacy are its high number of followers, then Islam- the truth of which is mutually exclusive with Christianity - must therefore be legitimate as well. This is really basic stuff.The amount of followers it has. Just like many other religons, Christianity is an legitmate faith system to be recongized.
This is circular reasoning. If you want to use scripture to buttress god claims, you have to verify the validity of scripture first - which of course you can't do which is why you invoked faith in the first place.Verify God is the source of your faith? It's simple, read scripture and do some deductive reason based on it.
This is totally incomprehensible.If man is blemished before God, and on our own - never end able to see His Glory. How could it be that without God's mercy - we can come to know Him? Okay, so if only come to know Him by His grace - who would be the one Empowering our Faith? our Will? - we just estbalished how by our Will we cannot know God...so if we can't know God through our Will...our Will won't maintain our relationship with God. So obvious conclusion is that God empowers our faith. Aka...is the source of what drives our Faith.
Ah of course, the classic "You wouldn't accept evidence anyways!!!" canard. Is this the wisdom you said you would bestow on me?Even if you saw the devine glory and work of God....doesen't not mean you'll be saved. In the Bible it talks of the parabale Lazaurs. A rich dude didn't share food with poor lazaurs, then they both died. Lazerus was saved, rich man was not. Rich man asked God if he could come as a ghost and warn His brothers of what lies ahead. And the Bible said "EVEN IF you warned them - they still would not believe since they have rejected the [Bible]". The point is, seeing devine things being done - does not mean you will even surrender your life to Christ. And a lot of you atheist know that....so stop asking as if seeing "miracles" will convice you otherwise.
And faith in Christ is superior to a lack of belief in Him.Indeed it wouldn't; it would be independently verifiable, empirical evidence - which is superior to faith if you want to show you actually know what you're talking about. Which you, evidently, can't do.
There's no point in unpacking this - the people a religion produces are irrelevant to the veracity of its claims.
However, that said, religiosity, at least in the United States, positively correlates with the least educated in the country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_religiosity#Results / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_educational_attainment). And of course the deep south leads the nation in biblically motivated science-denialism and the consequent indoctrination of children therein (http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ed_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html).
So there's that.
This is both a logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) and self-defeating. If Christianity's claim to legitimacy are its high number of followers, then Islam- the truth of which is mutually exclusive with Christianity - must therefore be legitimate as well. This is really basic stuff.
This is circular reasoning. If you want to use scripture to buttress god claims, you have to verify the validity of scripture first - which of course you can't do which is why you invoked faith in the first place.
This is totally incomprehensible.
Ah of course, the classic "You wouldn't accept evidence anyways!!!" canard. Is this the wisdom you said you would bestow on me?
A claim which itself is based on that very faith, which still requires substantiation, which you've already admitted you can't provide.And faith in Christ is superior to a lack of belief in Him.
No it can't, and you've already admitted this.It actually can be independently verifiable.
This is a claim which also requires substantiation.God is perfect and has no contradictions.
Remember like 3 sentences ago when you said this:So in the goodness of His work and with the purity of our eyes - May you find Him. But humans are tainted by sin. Our eyes aren’t pure. So our “indepdent research” (our own will) - we cant find Him. The fact science can’t find God only proves the Bible to be true because the Bible says no one can reach the Father except through Me - Jesus. Anymore “bright” ideas, kid?
So first it was "observing things outside reality is impossible" then it became "actually it's independently verifiable" and now it's back to "science can't prove god". Are you even reading your own posts?It actually can be independently verifiable.
Then why did you bring it up in the first place? Why are you using arguments you admit you know are fallacious?Okay. That also applies to atheism/agnosticism as well. Dosent matter how many followers a belief system has - but wether that belief is CORRECT. I agree with this line of thinking.
So, in other words, you have literally zero self-awareness.Lol - the elitism of online atheist is so amusing. Love how you are looking down on people and equating that with religious belief.
Go for it. It's still irrelevant to the veracity of your religion's claims. And just LOL @ "please let this die here" you're the one who brought it up. Again, are you even reading your own posts?And I really could go down that road of “beleif superiority” and compare Christians to atheist and how they affected the world. I really could... but it would just lead to extreme bitterness on both sides (very more so on yours though). Please, let this diversion of “which people who believe ‘this’ are superior?” Die, here.
Is this some kind of joke? Your religion says Islam isn't legitimate. All monotheistic religions say other religions are not legitimate. That's sort of the whole point of monotheism.Who said Islam was not an legitimate religion?
No no no, I did not ask a "biblical" question; I asked an epistemological question about the bible. One to which I've, unsurprisingly, not received an adequate answer.Well you asked a Biblical question so I gave you an Biblical answer.
You're bringing this on yourself. It's not my problem if you can't give a reasonable or even coherent account of how you've come to accept the conclusions you do.If you meant it in a scientific bend of how to prove God empowers people faith. Lol, it’s about absurd as asking men of science to prove, and locate heaven.
Yeah this is what people who can't demonstrate their claims tend to say. If a claim can't be demonstrated, that doesn't necessarily falsify it, but it does mean there's no rational way to justify its acceptance.Science can’t answer spiritual things. For spiritual things are not of this world ( world - this demension - the universe). If you believe that if science can’t answer it - that means it’s not there or worth looking at, you are dangerously deluded.
I’m stilling trying to understand what other religions means and their purpose and what their effect is on my own religion - according to my religion. LolJ.I.L You keep on referring to Christianity and Christian beliefs, but I’d like to know what you think of other religions.
I was just curious as the title of this thread is "Discussion About Religion" not "Discussion About Christianity".I’m stilling trying to understand what other religions means and their purpose and what their effect is on my own religion - according to my religion. Lol
[...]
My beleif of other religions depend on the religion.but do you have one in mind?
this is where I say homophobia's badI wish us Christians could exert some type of rule like that in this country. For example, getting rid of any marriage that is contrary to it being between man and woman.
I Don’t fear gays mate. Nor would I banish homosexual behavior like behead them, assault rifle them or throw them off the roof like other countries do. I simply wouldn’t recognize them as a married couple. Under my regime at least. I used say let them be a “civil union” but that was just me being weak. They’ll be recognized as squat.I was just curious as the title of this thread is "Discussion About Religion" not "Discussion About Christianity".
this is where I say homophobia's bad
Marriage is a church doctrine and therefore has no place in government per separation of church and state.I Don’t fear gays mate. Nor would I banish homosexual behavior like behead them, assault rifle them or throw them off the roof like other countries do. I simply wouldn’t recognize them as a married couple. Under my regime at least. I used say let them be a “civil union” but that was just me being weak. They’ll be recognized as squat.
And this wouldn’t even be an state issue. It would a unitlateral executive descsion that every agency In the country must follow. Marriage only between the sex birth of a man and woman.
Okay, then the government should not reconizge the existence of marriage...if it is a church issue. So spare me your nonsense. Marriage is reconizge as btween man and woman. That is final.Marriage is a church doctrine and therefore has no place in government per separation of church and state.
But because the IRS requires marital status anyone wishing to work has to be defined by said doctrine.
This is categorically hypocritical.
Therefore naturally people (remember what I said) will be people and people... Humans mate for life. Not all!
Just like not all people born with one genitalia or the other or both or neither or somewhere in between grow up in the right skin suit! Hormones and genetics define us. Science. All God's creatures whom he loves more than a human can.
And you, will boast that they won't be recognized under your regime? Nah no need to exaggerate in this discussion. We know true doctrine because we're well read.
The difficulty is that politicians have used every boiling point to win and this is a big one. If a Christian is misled and believes their faith orders them to treat others as beneath them, then they've not only missed the point of Christ's sacrifice, but are living in sin and don't know it because they're blinded by pride.
I haven't turned my back on God, J.I.L. I have made a personal decision to account for my own thoughts and subsequent actions and to do no harm. To live a life that's both rewarding to me and my family and that will leave the planet better for our being here. Do I pray? In the most desperate of situations we all pray. You just can't come to expect an answer. It's a mechanism. Your brains settles down a notch clearing the build up of neurotoxins as a result of system overload from adrenaline etc. Belief has nothing to do with this. I KNOW there's more to reality than we've glimpsed. We've felt it, benefited from it, been harmed by it... And one day we'll see it.
Correct.Okay, then the government should not reconizge the existence of marriage...if it is a church issue.
What was the purpose of this sentence?So spare me your nonsense. Marriage is reconizge as btween man and woman. That is final.
Reread my post. And understand the language. People have been born more effeminate males or butchier females since we existed and it's because sex gender and attraction are all sliding scales from cis dominant male hetero blah blah to the other end. Turning a blind eye to entire swaths of people is the mark of a fascist and they're the worst kind of scum. So always choose your words carefully and make sure you know what you're saying before you say it. Someone (you know who) is always listening.There's only two sexes. Even men of science see that. No "inbtween" or 1000002929203 genders. Only 2 sexes.
Then what were you on about?I don't see anyone "beneath" me. All human life has equal worth.
Oh? You should ask your pastor / holy man. They'll hopefully remind you that works and faith are both important. Just because my faith has been placed in a way that you don't understand does not mean I don't have it. I wouldn't be posting in this thread otherwise.You're being mislead. Faith is more important then your deeds on earth.
Atheism is a beleif system, kid.Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s a rejection of religious fantasies and irrational thoughts and superstitions in favor of critical thinking and evidence based conclusions to life’s questions, not faith based ones.
No it isn't. Atheism is the rejection of one and only one claim and in itself has nothing to say on a single other matter. You literally said atheism and satanism overlap and that atheists are involved in the "dark arts". Don't pretend to understand atheism.Atheism is a beleif system, kid.
I'm a prophet, clearly.I was gonna say you ought to try being less overwhelmingly arrogant and presumptuous, but as the remainder of your post illustrates, that has no chance of happening.
What's not to like? Religions aren't JUST belief systems.Atheism is a beleif system, kid.
Sucumbio Would you stop liking these atheist supporting post[.
So you believe that economic benefits for marriage should not exist? The concept of "marriage" itself should not be reconoigzed at all by the state and it should be soley a cermonial event with nothing more to it? That's backwards.
feminate men, tom boyish women. Who cares? Marriage btween man and woman, only.
What are you on about? I never implied anyone is literally "beneath" me.
Faith and works are important, but faith is your only saving grace. Not works and faith. Your faith has been placed in faulty teachings my friend. It's not something I don't understand, it's something that sounds off. You're looking like a heretic.....if even that.
First off, I’m older than you are, by a lot. So if anyone is the “kid” here, it’s you, and your attitude is certainly showing that. If this is the attitude you’re gonna be having here “kid” I suggest you don’t post on this board till you mature a little bit.Atheism is a beleif system, kid.
Sucumbio Would you stop liking these atheist supporting post.
So you believe that economic benefits for marriage should not exist? The concept of "marriage" itself should not be reconoigzed at all by the state and it should be soley a cermonial event with nothing more to it? That's backwards.
feminate men, tom boyish women. Who cares? Marriage btween man and woman, only.
What are you on about? I never implied anyone is literally "beneath" me.
Faith and works are important, but faith is your only saving grace. Not works and faith. Your faith has been placed in faulty teachings my friend. It's not something I don't understand, it's something that sounds off. You're looking like a heretic.....if even that.
Coolboy seems to be all over these forums liking every comment against me.First off, I’m older than you are, by a lot. So if anyone is the “kid” here, it’s you, and your attitude is certainly showing that. If this is the attitude you’re gonna be having here “kid” I suggest you don’t post on this board till you mature a little bit.
Second, no, it’s not a “belief system” because it’s not blindly accepting things as “fact” that can not be proven, tested, nor replicated in any sort of scientific or rational setting. Atheism asks for actual evidence to support claims such as some all powerful deity. Religion can not provide any actual evidence and instead tries to use fallacies such as circular reasoning (ie, the Bible is true cuz the Bible says it’s true.) as “evidence”, and rejects anything criticizing that reasoning.
So I'll just reiterate the same follow-up question I asked a month ago and still haven't gotten a coherent answer to: Why have faith in things that can’t be observed or empirically verified?Whia But I’ll answer the last question which is how to distinguish extra terrestrial plains from imaginary planes since neither really are not of this dimension. Good question. And the answer is.... FAITH.
Historical documents/artifacts/etc are a form of evidence. If you have evidence then you don't need faith, but you invoked faith specifically because you don't have evidence. So which is it?And also common logic and historical studies too
See above. If, by your own admission, your claims can't be empirically verified, then what even is there to research? How could an honest and reasonable person come to the same conclusion you have if there's nothing empirical or demonstrable guiding them towards it?If you are a fellow interested in religion but don’t know which one is correct - I’d advise you research.
This is wrong. Again. There is no worldview attached to atheism beyond the rejection of god claims. Atheism has no intrinsic relationship with science or empiricism either.Anyway, ‘sir’, look at the definition of an beleif system. It does not have to be religious base. Those who are atheist tend to Usually have a similar beleif system in that everything must explained and confirmed through scientific lenses. And anything outside of that purview is rejected and “not real”. It’s an beleif system.
Why have faith in such things? because you trust them. if your family told you something, which you could not see or "empirically" (lol) verify - would you not listen to them or trust them? what you seem to be asking is why trust things in which you can't see ("see" being symbolic for anything you believe and do that has aligned with the information you have). And that's a question you have to answer yourself. You don't seem to trust anything. And not trusting anything because you don't immediatly understand or compute the meaning of it is an unwise way to live (though not always).So I'll just reiterate the same follow-up question I asked a month ago and still haven't gotten a coherent answer to: Why have faith in things that can’t be observed or empirically verified?
Historical documents/artifacts/etc are a form of evidence. If you have evidence then you don't need faith, but you invoked faith specifically because you don't have evidence. So which is it?
See above. If, by your own admission, your claims can't be empirically verified, then what even is there to research? How could an honest and reasonable person come to the same conclusion you have if there's nothing empirical or demonstrable guiding them towards it?
Why trust something that can't be empirically verified?Why have faith in such things? because you trust them.
Depends on the nature of the claim. If a family member tells me they got Taco Bell yesterday, then that's an easy claim to accept on its face. If that same person then tells me they have a colony of fairies living in their closet, I'd find that significantly more dubious.if your family told you something, which you could not see or "empirically" (lol) verify - would you not listen to them or trust them?
Yeah this is a game a lot of apologists like to play. Just because your position is indefensible and borderline incoherent, that doesn't mean I have an unreasonable standard of evidence. I'll "trust" anything if it can be demonstrated; you not being able to demonstrate anything is your problem, not mine.what you seem to be asking is why trust things in which you can't see ("see" being symbolic for anything you believe and do that has aligned with the information you have). And that's a question you have to answer yourself. You don't seem to trust anything. And not trusting anything because you don't immediatly understand or compute the meaning of it is an unwise way to live (though not always).
This is funny for multiple reasons.the defintion of faith is a complete trust or confidence in something or someone. That's all faith is.
So the reason you have faith in things is because you trust them, but you just defined faith as synonymous with trust, so literally what you just wrote here was "I trust things because I trust them."Why have faith in such things? because you trust them.
In the words of Tim Minchin:And even with the "evidence" you have..you have to trust and hope it's good evidence that'll lead you to the right conclusion.
Well, no. The scientific method doesn't endeavour to discover the truth, it endeavours to create models that best reflect observable reality while acknowledging that objective, capital-T Truth™ may not ever be accessible. Science is about what's evident, not necessarily "True".What's the point of evidence? so it can lead you to what's the TRUTH. Even if you verify it 10000000000000000000000000000X times...you have to have hope that your verifcation methods are accurate and correct.
And you overstate it, because you don't understand the scientific method and, like a lot of other apologists, equivocate on the definition of faith.You seem to downplay how much faith and grace play in all of our lives.
Ahem:But faith is the belief in things not seen.
Are you even trying?the defintion of faith is a complete trust or confidence in something or someone. That's all faith is.
Good thing that's not what I'm doing then.Depends on the claims, whia. For example, you cant empiriclly verify where God is or who He is based on "science" or where heaven is or who demons or angels are. Now in your mind, "exactly...so it should be dismissed as imaginary". lol. Idk if that's the smartest thing to do.
Yes they are. If you have evidence, you don't need faith. If you had anything of substance, you'd produce it. If your position was rational, you wouldn't be constantly flip-flopping on your terms.But you can examine the histroical claims of the Bible. Both aren't mutally exclusive.
How do you propose the bible be discussed without simultaneously discussing atheism and theism? Unless you want all the posters in this thread to grant the bible is true at the outset of the discussion, you should maybe adjust your expectations.I'm not here to argue theism vs atheism. That's a waist of time. I'm here t discuss the Bible with whatever the heck you believe.
Uh, no I'm not, because those are all completely different things.Okay...that's fair. You're basically putting atheism the same as diesm, theism and agnsotism.
Sure, but that's essentially incidental, and so the claim that atheism is a belief system is still false.I mean, most atheist have cultivated a simliar philsophical world view of life. Hence what I orignally said which led to say atheism is a beleif system.
Pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about is not playing semantics.But whatever. Just playing sematics to devoid yourself of an anything simliar with religon. lol. Cute.
Thank goodness you’re not the top boss admin here or even a mod. Your post reeks of "I really would like to censor you you little snot."You know JIL, ever since you’ve started posting here, one thing has been consistent; you have a very condescending attitude towards anyone that doesn’t share your narrow worldview. You belittle people, attempt subtle ad hominem attacks, and overall give the impression that you don’t really want to have any serious discussions with anyone that disagrees with you. You just want to have those who do agree with your views to come in and like your posts and just reinforce your points with their agreement. But when someone comes in and points out the fallacies in your arguments and rips them to pieces your responses fall along the lines of “ lol ok.” “Cute” and other pointless dribble of condescending nonsense like a kid who can’t make a solid counterpoint.
Imo Your attitude shows you really don’t have the mental maturity to be posting here, rather than have a serious discussion or debate, you want people to just accept your posts as all factual and not accept any criticism. Handling criticism with petty attacks, sarcasm and a lousy attitude aren’t signs of a person that should be posting on the serious discussion board.
However it’s not in my power to decide who should and shouldn’t post on this board, as that falls within the power of a mod/admin. What IS in my power to control however is to decide on whether or not i want to bother continuing to listen to you spout off condescending crap and nonsense to anyone who disagrees with you. the ignore button exists, and in this situation it’s very clear it should be used.
And while I know that someone like yourself will try to view this as “winning” the debate/argument, one look at how many people have pointed out the flaws in your arguments, as well as your attitude both here and in other topics, even the ones who might share your views on certain subjects, all point to you not “winning” anything.