| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/20/2007 09:21:53 PM · #501 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Ah, so it's strictly a matter of age (independent of education, reason, and common sense), and when you consider them old enough they'll be able to understand those TRUE feelings. I wonder why Sunday School doesn't wait until kids are older if they can't understand faith anyway.
|
So the parents can relax in their own Sunday school class while knowing that someone is instilling the same morals they learn at home? To get a solid foundation to build on? Because it's better than a meth lab?
Pick one.
Originally posted by scalvert:
I may be wrong but considering the fact that I wouldn't hand a 4 year old a razor or a loaded gun I somehow believe that I'm on the right track.
The U.S. is trying very hard to keep nuclear arms out of the hands of Muslim fundamentalists. By your logic, maybe we should just wait until they're more mature? |
Because Muslim fundamentalists, who have killed people all over the world, say they do it in the name of God they are comparable to:
A. A 4 year old kid who has faith in Santa.
B. All believers and religions in the world.
Maybe that makes sense to you but it hardly does to me. And frankly, that's usually where these conversations wind up. The old "religion has done more harm to the world than anything" argument. The problem with that is that if these nutjobs didn't do it in the name of God they would find something else to take responsibility. Maybe a giant turtle?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Alrighty then... how did you determine which parts do not apply? |
I didn't determine. As I said earlier, that's something you cannot understand. Sorry that I can't explain more but you're just gonna have to have faith. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 09:22:38 PM · #502 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Love is simply biology overruling reason. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Got news for ya, Spaz.....if you REALLY believe that, you have never really been in love 'cause it has nothing to do with biology. |
Is that your belief, or a proven fact? Humans might not be the only creatures capable of love, which could very well implicate biology. |
Yaa, sorta true. I heard about them, they are called .. umm something like .. dil .. dildo.
ps: enough of jokes, back to thread topic. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 09:22:38 PM · #503 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Unwavering belief in something for which there is NO physical evidence is reasonable? I suppose anything is reasonable if you believe it is. :-/ |
So you're saying that there's nothing in your life that you believe that you don't have the incontrovertible proof for on hand? |
No belief that I wouldn't drop in an instant if proven untrue, hence the key word, "unwavering." |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 09:39:27 PM · #504 |
Originally posted by Phil:
To get a solid foundation to build on? |
I pick that one with the cute smile and wagging tail. I shall name him Indoctrination.
Originally posted by Phil:
...if these nutjobs didn't do it in the name of God they would find something else to take responsibility. |
So if "nutjobs" hadn't been taught all their lives to hate a specific enemy, and that martyrdom was the express lane to Heaven, they would find some other reason to justify hating that enemy and committing suicide/murder? I see no logic here. Those same "nutjobs" are considered the most faithful and devoted by their peer group.
Originally posted by Phil:
My faith has nothing to do with man or the words of man. It goes much deeper and more powerful than that. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Belief in God rests entirely on the Bible. Without those words of man, you would have no frame of reference to distinguish your faith from Allah, Zeus or Odin. |
Originally posted by Phil:
Sure, it rests entirely on the Bible but it doesn't rest on the entire Bible. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
So it DOES rest on the words of man, but only some of them. How did you determine which parts to ignore? |
Originally posted by Phil:
I wouldn't consider it ignoring. I would think of it more as not giving as much attention to the parts that do not apply. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Alrighty then... how did you determine which parts do not apply? |
Originally posted by Phil:
I didn't determine. As I said earlier, that's something you cannot understand. Sorry that I can't explain more but you're just gonna have to have faith. |
So your faith had nothing to do with the words of man, but are based on only part of a book written by man. You didn't ignore the other parts, but merely give them less attention because they don't apply for reasons you can't explain. You're right... I cannot understand. :-/ |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 09:41:14 PM · #505 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Unwavering belief in something for which there is NO physical evidence is reasonable? I suppose anything is reasonable if you believe it is. :-/ |
So you're saying that there's nothing in your life that you believe that you don't have the incontrovertible proof for on hand? |
No belief that I wouldn't drop in an instant if proven untrue, hence the key word, "unwavering." |
The day you prove there is no God, I will definitely stop believing in Him.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 09:47:23 PM · #506 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
My faith in God has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Bible, or any of the inane doctrination and brain-washing that I was exposed to in the first 50 years of my life. |
If the Bible had never existed, how would you have known that God exists? In all of history, there hasn't been a single example of a culture that independently developed belief in a Christian God outside of its biblical origins. Most weren't even monotheistic until fairly recently.
Message edited by author 2007-11-20 23:41:38. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 09:51:00 PM · #507 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Unwavering belief in something for which there is NO physical evidence is reasonable? I suppose anything is reasonable if you believe it is. :-/ |
So you're saying that there's nothing in your life that you believe that you don't have the incontrovertible proof for on hand? |
No belief that I wouldn't drop in an instant if proven untrue, hence the key word, "unwavering." |
The day you prove there is no God, I will definitely stop believing in Him.
R. |
Note the original post above. If scientific evidence suggests that my belief is false (vs. zero proof that it's true), then I will no longer believe it to be true, even without absolute proof. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 10:10:23 PM · #508 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Where do you get the idea that you can't have faith and reason at the same time? |
Right here big guy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
faith exists on a plane where reason does not operate. |
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 10:20:05 PM · #509 |
All great scientists have made a leap of faith. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Hawking all made a leap of faith.
Heck, look at Andrew Wiles. He made a leap of faith to prove Fermat's last theorem and it took 7 years. God is going to take a little while longer but the gap narrows.
:-D
Message edited by author 2007-11-21 01:06:58. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 11:41:12 PM · #510 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
All great scientists have made a leap of faith. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Hawking all made a leap of faith.
Heck, look at Andrew Wiles. He mde a leap of faith to prove Fermat's last theorem and it took 7 years. God is going to take a little while longer but the gap narrows.
:-D |
Might take an infinite number of posts in this thread to do it though. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 02:11:27 AM · #511 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Note the original post above. If scientific evidence suggests that my belief is false (vs. zero proof that it's true), then I will no longer believe it to be true, even without absolute proof. |
There is nothing in "scientific evidence" that even suggests there is no God, IMO. At best, the evidence debunks certain "myths" associated with certain "religions". The concept of Faith that I am discussing here is more absolute than that; it's not about whether or not there was a Noah and a flood, a snake in a garden, a burning bush, and all that.
For the sake of argument I'm absolutely willing to grant that all this stuff never *really* happened, that it is all "metaphorical" rather than "anecdotal" in nature. It doesn't effect my faith one bit if you are able to prove to me that Lot's wife could not possibly have turned into a pillar of salt. Aesop's Fables, in a more secular vein, are just that: "fabulous" ΓΆ€” but this doesn't affect one bit the validity of the morals they express so eloquently.
But the core issue, the existence/non-existence of the Supreme Being, you can't show any evidence that He does not exist except the lack of tangible evidence that He does ΓΆ€” and this is where faith comes in.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 08:57:46 AM · #512 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I pick that one with the cute smile and wagging tail. I shall name him Indoctrination. |
Aren't you using the word "indoctrination" in the place of "brainwashing"? Sorry if I assume wrong but if you are simply using it by definition which means to teach, then I guess you're right. Teaching, yes. Brainwashing, no.
Originally posted by scalvert:
So if "nutjobs" hadn't been taught all their lives to hate a specific enemy, and that martyrdom was the express lane to Heaven, they would find some other reason to justify hating that enemy and committing suicide/murder? I see no logic here. Those same "nutjobs" are considered the most faithful and devoted by their peer group. |
Why do I have to answer for these people? I obviously don't share the same beliefs or faith as they do. I don't fly planes into buildings or cut the heads off innocent people but because they have faith in something I am automatically comparable? Isn't that like me putting you into the same category as a scientist who happens to be a serial killer?
Originally posted by scalvert:
So your faith had nothing to do with the words of man, but are based on only part of a book written by man. You didn't ignore the other parts, but merely give them less attention because they don't apply for reasons you can't explain. You're right... I cannot understand. :-/ |
I don't have to explain. It's not that I am hiding from anything. It's a touchy subject among believers that I would rather not discuss. Your questions and intentions here are hardly to learn but more to debate. If I felt like it would do some good I would certainly discuss it with you; however, there is no evidence in the countless number of threads on this topic that this would happen so I choose not to. Of course you might follow with the usual, "Come up with proof and give me something to learn" argument but that is what makes this a fun time for you. You know that the only thing I have is faith and that I cannot prove anything to you. The funny thing is that you haven't offered up a single bit of proof of how life began - only theories. I don't question those. If I don't believe in it I have better things to do than to drill you on it for 500+ posts. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 09:17:16 AM · #513 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But the core issue, the existence/non-existence of the Supreme Being, you can't show any evidence that He does not exist except the lack of tangible evidence that He does ΓΆ€” and this is where faith comes in.
R. |
Bear_Music,
Please remember that even in the pressence of Christ's miracles, there were those who refused to believe. Plus, even among those that were his chosen, they had individual failures to remain within the flock.
If this is the case with those who physically walked with Christ, then it does place into context (at least for me) the challenge facing those who choose to address the non-believer. I am relieved of the responsibility to "convert" anyone by the charge to "stomp the dust off my sandals" as I leave that town. My responsibility (and that of all believers IMO) is to share the message. That has been done here. The doors have been knocked on, the message delivered. Some choose to close the door. That is the free will choice that God allows them. I sense that this may have application to the verse "wide is the path and narrow the gate". Many will be informed, few will choose the path. Much like the scattered seed along the path. Some will be scattered in the wind, some will grow amongst throns and thistles, and some will be tended, watered, and grow into fine crops, living in fertile soil.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 09:33:30 AM · #514 |
Fossil found
The article above presents the finding of this latest fossil as indicative of the evolution of these insects. My read of it leaves me with the impression that these evolved larger as a means of survival. If this is true, then why did they de-evolve into the sizes we see today. Logic and reason indicate that if survival was the causation of evolutionary change, then a larger insect today could be feasting on all kinds of dinner menu items, including man. One might argue that food availibility mandated the de-evolution in size, thus insuring survival, but I would then counter with why haven't all species done that. Why don't we have mini T Rex's as pets or Mastadons as beasts of burden or, or, or? If evolution is provable as a means of explaining how man came from fish, or large craetures came from small, shouldn't it also be able to explain the events that didn't happen - and why.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 09:53:34 AM · #515 |
There are a couple of problems with your statement.
First, these large creatures probably did not devolve. Instead, they probably represtent an evolutionary dead-end. Whatever survival advantage they had by being large at some point stopped being an advantage and they went extinct, while their smaller cousins continued to survive.
Second, arthropods breed a lot faster and with more offspring than reptiles and mammals, so they can go through many more generations in a given period of time. This presents more opportunity for mutatation and evolution. That may be why we see so many more variations of insects than we do mammals.
Finally, there is no one recipe for survival. Animals adapt and eventually evolve to fit specific niches in their environments. But the environment changes on both a micro- and macro-level. So adaptations that were once an advantage may become burdens at a later time.
Originally posted by Flash:
Fossil found
The article above presents the finding of this latest fossil as indicative of the evolution of these insects. My read of it leaves me with the impression that these evolved larger as a means of survival. If this is true, then why did they de-evolve into the sizes we see today. Logic and reason indicate that if survival was the causation of evolutionary change, then a larger insect today could be feasting on all kinds of dinner menu items, including man. One might argue that food availibility mandated the de-evolution in size, thus insuring survival, but I would then counter with why haven't all species done that. Why don't we have mini T Rex's as pets or Mastadons as beasts of burden or, or, or? If evolution is provable as a means of explaining how man came from fish, or large craetures came from small, shouldn't it also be able to explain the events that didn't happen - and why. |
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 10:27:26 AM · #516 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Please remember that even in the pressence of Christ's miracles, there were those who refused to believe. Plus, even among those that were his chosen, they had individual failures to remain within the flock. |
For the purposes of this thread, I have explicitly chosen not to defend Christianity per se, and instead concentrate on explaining how Theism (ANY belief in a Supreme being) is not inconsistent with rational thinking and the acceptance of modern scientific thought.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 11:26:56 AM · #517 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For the purposes of this thread, I have explicitly chosen not to defend Christianity per se, and instead concentrate on explaining how Theism (ANY belief in a Supreme being) is not inconsistent with rational thinking and the acceptance of modern scientific thought.
R. |
And a strong effort it has been. I concur that throughout the ages, learned men of reasoned minds have concluded in a personal belief in an "Almighty". I am reminded of Historical persons like Nostradamous who wrote many prophecies. Or the 3 girls of Fatima who devoted their entire lives to service of the Church. Or the numerous other scholars around the world whose dedicated research consumes them in their quest to serve. Or the archeologists who pursue digs in the Holy Land and the decipherment of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are all learned peoples who have concluded after much study and contemplation, that the wonders of heaven(s)/earth are indeed the product of an "Almighty". Proving event after historical/Biblical event, took place and finding evidence proving the place/time as recorded in scripture. Sometimes the evidence shows a clarification of meanings, placing a smaller literal event in time as reference to a larger metaphorical/figurative event as recorded. Regardless, learned men, certainly have been found amongst the "believers".
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 11:38:22 AM · #518 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Please remember that even in the pressence of Christ's miracles, there were those who refused to believe. Plus, even among those that were his chosen, they had individual failures to remain within the flock. |
For the purposes of this thread, I have explicitly chosen not to defend Christianity per se, and instead concentrate on explaining how Theism (ANY belief in a Supreme being) is not inconsistent with rational thinking and the acceptance of modern scientific thought. |
On the other hand, his post illustrates one particular point quite well. In a way, he commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. Although he understands that he may be addressing atheists, he couches his position in language that leaves no room for doubt that he holds the supreme world view. "The doors have been knocked on, the message delivered. Some choose to close the door." In my view, this is an irrational statement to make in the context of a debate like this. His faith precludes the possibility of reasoning; I cannot counter with, "My position is that there is no god in the first place, so your message is irrelevant," because his position is kind of the argument that ends all arguments. You can't counter a position that holds the conclusion in the argument itself. In my opinion this is the essential problem when attempting to mix faith with reason.
I know that his post is less a participation in this discourse, and more of a comisseration with someone of like values. I just wanted to point out that I think it's relevant to discuss this kind of statement, because of its inherent irrationality in the context of arguing about belief and reason. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 11:46:20 AM · #519 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Am I the only one who finds this breath of fresh air, intelligence, and reason from someone with the username  EducatedSavage ironic???? LOL!!! |
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
I hope this comment means you find both my comments and my name charming - and not quite in the same way one would find a professional fool charming. ;) |
Precisely where I was coming from, dear lady!....8>)
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 11:50:40 AM · #520 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Please remember that even in the pressence of Christ's miracles, there were those who refused to believe. Plus, even among those that were his chosen, they had individual failures to remain within the flock. |
For the purposes of this thread, I have explicitly chosen not to defend Christianity per se, and instead concentrate on explaining how Theism (ANY belief in a Supreme being) is not inconsistent with rational thinking and the acceptance of modern scientific thought. |
On the other hand, his post illustrates one particular point quite well. In a way, he commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. Although he understands that he may be addressing atheists, he couches his position in language that leaves no room for doubt that he holds the supreme world view. "The doors have been knocked on, the message delivered. Some choose to close the door." In my view, this is an irrational statement to make in the context of a debate like this. His faith precludes the possibility of reasoning; I cannot counter with, "My position is that there is no god in the first place, so your message is irrelevant," because his position is kind of the argument that ends all arguments. You can't counter a position that holds the conclusion in the argument itself. In my opinion this is the essential problem when attempting to mix faith with reason.
I know that his post is less a participation in this discourse, and more of a comisseration with someone of like values. I just wanted to point out that I think it's relevant to discuss this kind of statement, because of its inherent irrationality in the context of arguing about belief and reason. |
Ummm, Louis. The entire gist of our beliefs rest on the fact that we do believe we have the CORRECT (supreme is a bit dramatic but nevertheless...) world view. Sorry but there cannot be any other way. If it weren't then we wouldn't have the faith that we've been discussing. The easiest thing for you to do would be to stop your efforts in finite reasoning vs faith. It is impossible and frankly our nuts aren't getting any less sore. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 11:51:22 AM · #521 |
Biblical Archeology Review
The above magazine was (in my view) a sound source for scientific data addressing many of my concerns. To me it added credence to many of the passages I read and studied. If the Bible is a lie, as is purported (at least by inference/inuendo), then why has so much of it been literally proven? Why have multitudes consumed their lives work in serving this lie? Why have reasoned men, learned men, wise men, pursued the service of this lie? How has it endured the centuries with very little modification? Why does new findings in acient texts confirm centuries of belief?
I propose that the reason is that a grain of truth must be present.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 11:54:22 AM · #522 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Love is simply biology overruling reason. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Got news for ya, Spaz.....if you REALLY believe that, you have never really been in love 'cause it has nothing to do with biology. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Is that your belief, or a proven fact? Humans might not be the only creatures capable of love, which could very well implicate biology. |
Why?
It could just be that love is more places than the arrogance of man would have us believe.
Here is another typical subject where some feel that they have to have an explanation and others just accept it as being what it is.
Can't it just be its own thing without being FROM something?
I was adopted at five months, and I really loved my mother......to levels that donm't make any sense form a genetic standpoint.
Yet the intensity I felt when I held my daughter in my arms, for the first 45 minutes of her life, was so off the charts I am at a complete loss to even begin to explain.
Biology? Bah!
Caveat: I'm not stating unequivocally that it can't be so, but you better have some *serious* proof to change up that set of feelings and beliefs!!!!! LOL!!!
And then I still may say the heck with you and believe in Love in the ethereal sense that defies explanation!.....8>)
ETA: As I understand it, there are many members of the animal kingdom who mate for life, and actually lose their will to live and die after their mate passes.
Looking at the divorce rates in this world, I'd say some animals are a lot better at love than us humans!
Message edited by author 2007-11-21 11:57:07.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 12:02:28 PM · #523 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Ummm, Louis. [etc] |
It was discussed at one point that faith exists without reason, then suggested that reason and faith can be complementary. I was illustrating what in my view were obvious problems of reasoning when it comes to faith to support an earlier position I held. Your post deftly outlined this in my opinion, as do your efforts in promoting your beliefs. So can you please stop talking about your testicles? |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 12:10:41 PM · #524 |
Let me add to this: just because faith is beyond reason does not mean that a faithful man is incapable of reason. If he *were*, then it would be sensible to say that any man who suffers from a phobia or is superstitious is incapable of reason. We pretty much ALL have some areas of our lives where we are extremely rational, and some areas that are ruled by less rational responses.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 12:12:33 PM · #525 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If the Bible is a lie, as is purported (at least by inference/inuendo), then why has so much of it been literally proven? |
From an archaeological perspective, who claimed the bible "was a lie"? I don't think anyone is dismissing the existence of Jerusalem, Jericho, Bethlehem, etc., as fabrications. The "lie" is not in the placement of the events of the bible in a historical context within a historically identifiable culture, it is in the events themselves (although one might more properly refer to the events not as lies, but as allegories with obvious inherent discrepancies). |
|
