Posted:
#501
*miseraly fail at...
0
First installment of Crazy Christians for 2013
Posted:
#502
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
Dirt, what does objective and subjective have to do in regards to faith? 
Dirt....I will ask a question, and I just want an answer...yes or no...Nothing else. Can you do that for me?
When you hop a plane next time, do you have proof or evidence that the plane will not crash and therefore kill you?
Yes or No.....?
Just yes or no...
sure, because that's an easy question.
of course i have proof. that's your yes or no but it's such an obvious question that i have to come with something stronger than a simple yes.
it's the same proof both me and kk have mentioned multiple times. now, that proof and evidence doesn't tell me with 100% certainty what will happen (such proof does not exist), but it is sufficient for me to be comfortable that the plane will not crash and as a result, i choose to fly on it.
0
Posted:
#503
Very good point. Faith is supposed to something special that you have in your god. If "faith" can be applied to my decision to get on the bus and go to school today, then faith in god becomes meaningless. The entire purpose of faith as we define it is to acknowledge that there is no proof, but you still trust and have faith in your god. If I can trust and have faith in a bus driver the same way you trust and have faith in your god, what does that make your god?
0
Posted:
#504
A person who believes that God exist has faith in this belief even though proof or evidence is not needed.
A person who believes that God does not exist has faith in this belief even though proof or evidence is not needed.
Definition of faith as defined in the New World Dictionary Of The American Language Second College Edition:
1. Unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence. 2. Unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets, etc. 3. A religion or a system of religious beliefs. 4. Anything believed. 5. Complete trust, confidence, or reliance. 6. Allegiance to some person or thing; loyalty.
I' d say after looking at those definitions every single one of us regardless who we are have faith in something.
For the believers in the existence of God, they have faith that He exist.
For the non-believers in the existence of God, they have faith that He doesn't exist.
Have I left anything out?
kittykat do those definitions agree with your own personal definition of "faith"?
0
Posted:
#505
I don't see how I can have faith that god does not exist.
1. My belief that god does not exist does is not unquestioned and does require proof or evidence.
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. This is way too general and makes the word meaningless with reference to religion and god.
5. This is referring to a more colloquial definition. Like if a friend says to you "take this road instead...have faith in me, i know where we are." That is, by definition, "faith," but it is certainly not on the same level as faith in a supreme being.
6. This definition does not apply to us. It refers more to faith in a cause, an ideal, like a political revolution; something like that.
0
Posted:
#506
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:
A person who believes that God exist has faith in this belief even though proof or evidence is not needed.
A person who believes that God does not exist has faith in this belief even though proof or evidence is not needed.
Definition of faith as defined in the New World Dictionary Of The American Language Second College Edition:
1. Unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence. 2. Unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets, etc. 3. A religion or a system of religious beliefs. 4. Anything believed. 5. Complete trust, confidence, or reliance. 6. Allegiance to some person or thing; loyalty.
I' d say after looking at those definitions every single one of us regardless who we are have faith in something.
For the believers in the existence of God, they have faith that He exist.
For the non-believers in the existence of God, they have faith that He doesn't exist.
Have I left anything out?
kittykat do those definitions agree with your own personal definition of "faith"?
maybe this will help you and rostos understand why not believing is not based on faith...
https://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/faith.htm
read and learn...
you probably won't though, because education is bad to religious people....
0
Posted:
#508
Dirt, you don't have proof. That is a plain lie.
You make choices based on inductive reasoning, that is not proof.
The runners in the Boston marathon thought that it would be like every other marathon in Boston on this Patriots days.
If they had evidence or proof that a bomb would go off, would they have ran the marathon? Of course not. They used there evidences around them, ie, has anything ever happened on this day? Will there be police around? etc etc..
Well, guess what...
Using evidences around you to make inductive choices is NOT proof whether something will happen or not. You do not know. Instead you put faith into it.
That's reality
0
Posted:
#509
"One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.
Obviously disproving a god requires an adequate description of what it is and what characteristics it has in order to determine either if there is a logical contradiction or if any testable implications hold true. Without a substantive explanation of just what this god is, how can there be a substantive claim that this god is? In order to reasonably claim that this god matters, the believer must have substantive information regarding its nature and characteristics; otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to care.
Claiming that atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim "God does not exist" and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim "God exists" and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it - or even care much about the claim in the first place."
0
Posted:
#510
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
Ktrain....The analogy of the print factory was given to give picture of the most unlikely odds that life could form by random chance....That's how absurd the odds are.
Faith is the belief in things unseen. we all exercise it everyday
Your definition of faith is extremely diluted then and has no significant meaning at that point.
I think if anything it reinforces the idea that everything is random and nothing is planned i.e. life, living day to day, crossing the street etc.
I don't know Rostos, your print factory analogy and life forming by random chance is pretty bad imo. The odds of winning the Powerball lottery are absurd too but that seems to happen every few months.
0
Posted:
#511
Rostos, we really do take it easy on you. I can go ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON about examples of why there is absolutely a 0% chance your god with the characteristics you assign to him can possibly exist. But I don't. Yet you keep presenting fallacious arguments and ignoring definitions of words and facts and logic. Why even bother?
Oh and the odds of life developing on a planet is an asymptote. It is as close to 100% as you can possibly get without being 100%. Nice try with the print factor. Keep misapplying the facts.
0
Posted:
#512
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
Your definition of faith is extremely diluted then and has no significant meaning at that point.
I think if anything it reinforces the idea that everything is random and nothing is planned i.e. life, living day to day, crossing the street etc.
I don't know Rostos, your print factory analogy and life forming by random chance is pretty bad imo. The odds of winning the Powerball lottery are absurd too but that seems to happen every few months.
Of course it's terrible. If you buy ONE powerball ticket, your odds of winning are astronomically low. But, what if you bought 100 trillion powerball tickets. I'd say you have about a 100% chance of winning. Wouldn't you agree?
0
Posted:
#513
Agree with post #511 and #512.
The funny part is that I would absolutely love to believe in an afterlife and a Heaven with a perfect God attached to it. I really wish I could. I would love to choose that over just going essentially going to sleep forever.
I just have that problem of independent thought and questioning the reliability of something as contradictory as religion and the notion of a/any God. Questioning the reliability of a book written thousands of years ago that makes claims that science is able to refute over and over. A book that has been translating numerous times with different interpretations. I just require some sort of proof for me to start to believe in it. However, I have not had any presented to me at this point in my life and I have made efforts to look.
It's just not there.
0
Posted:
#514
Ktrain. The problem of evil has been beaten to death over the centuries
Firstly, evil occurs in the world due to free will. That is our greatest gift given by God. We are given free will so that we can come to God freely.
Unfortunately, A side consequence of free will is evil acts performed by man.
In terms of the burden of proof, this is now a matter of semantics.
If I come out with , God does exist, then the burden is on me. But if I ask the question, what caused the universe, or what caused life or why is there something rather than nothing, then whatever answer the Atheist gives, they have the burden. Whatever answer the Theist gives, the burden rests with them. The only person who doesn't have the burden are Agnostics, who simply say, I don't know.
I have only been debating Atheists for a short time, but it is very easy to see how they continually switch between Atheism and Agnosticism.
0
Posted:
#516
LOL, take it easy with me? LOL
No evidence of God?
So I suppose you have debunked Christianity, Jesus never existed, never was crucified, never rose, never performed miracles.
KK, the evidence is screaming at you in the face, if you put your head in the sand and close your eyes, it doesn't mean it does not exist.
I have put argument after argument, you , neither of you have debunked any argument, NOTHING.
The only thing I get is, "I don't know"
None of you have challenged my argument regarding the origins of the universe, fine tuning of the universe, the only answer I get is, the multiverse? How ironic, you say I don't have evidence, yet you quote the multiverse SMH
Again, Origins of the universe, fine tuning, Historicity of Christ....And all I get from you is multiverse, and I don't know.
Seriously, and I though Atheists are supposed to be the voice of reason...smh
0
Posted:
#517
Ktrain....
You say you would love to believe in the afterlife...Then what is stopping you? What is it exactly that stops you from believing?
What is contradictory of God? Specifically, what is it?
What is it about the bible that science refutes? Did they refute Jesus and what he did? As soon as I picked up the bible, I realised it wasn't a science text book, was never meant to be a science, was never intended to be a science book. The Bible is a collection of books, poems, legal and history. Not a science book.
Tell me, if I went to the local library and ripped a chapter from a book from the poetry section and then ripped a chapter fro the legal section, then a chapter from autobiography section, and I got all those chapters and put it together and I called it "Rostos' Book"...Would you read all the chapters all in the same way?
That's how it is meant to be read.
From my experience, people don't want to accept the bible simply because they don't want to be told what is right or wrong, they want to be there own God.
0
Posted:
#519
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
Dirt, you don't have proof. That is a plain lie.
You make choices based on inductive reasoning, that is not proof.
The runners in the Boston marathon thought that it would be like every other marathon in Boston on this Patriots days.
If they had evidence or proof that a bomb would go off, would they have ran the marathon? Of course not. They used there evidences around them, ie, has anything ever happened on this day? Will there be police around? etc etc..
Well, guess what...
Using evidences around you to make inductive choices is NOT proof whether something will happen or not. You do not know. Instead you put faith into it.
That's reality
rostos, inductive reasoning is drawing general conclusions from specific observations. specific observations = proof.
0
Posted:
#520
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
Ktrain. The problem of evil has been beaten to death over the centuries
Firstly, evil occurs in the world due to free will. That is our greatest gift given by God. We are given free will so that we can come to God freely.
Unfortunately, A side consequence of free will is evil acts performed by man.
In terms of the burden of proof, this is now a matter of semantics.
If I come out with , God does exist, then the burden is on me. But if I ask the question, what caused the universe, or what caused life or why is there something rather than nothing, then whatever answer the Atheist gives, they have the burden. Whatever answer the Theist gives, the burden rests with them. The only person who doesn't have the burden are Agnostics, who simply say, I don't know.
I have only been debating Atheists for a short time, but it is very easy to see how they continually switch between Atheism and Agnosticism.
Do you read what other people post on here? I think this post is the epitome of the title of this thread.
Rostos, Athiest freely admit that there is no sufficient proof of any manner in which the world/universe/galaxy began. I have yet to see anyone on here say "XYZ is why/how the world came to be" except the thiest side. Just because you ask the question, doesn't switch the burden of proof. It's the person/side making the claim, which in this case is the theist side.
Quite honestly your side of the story can't even be agreed upon by the people making the claim on your side as well. Example: the world was created in seven days.....well they might not have been seven-24 hour days....it may have been a little longer. God said let there be light and there was light.....then a few days later he created the stars and moon etc. Yet the sun is a start correct?
My issue with this philosophy is that the theist side makes claims that they say are absolute. The athiest/scientific side is saying that nothing is ever absolute and should be continuously tested and seek to have those results improved upon. The theist side says the earth is about 6,000 years old or so. The atheist/scientific side has reliable math and scientific methods to reliably suggest that life existed long before that.
You haven't proved anything or switched the burden of proof. Your side is the one making the claims, not the atheist side.
0
Posted:
#522
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
LOL, take it easy with me? LOL
No evidence of God?
So I suppose you have debunked Christianity, Jesus never existed, never was crucified, never rose, never performed miracles.
KK, the evidence is screaming at you in the face, if you put your head in the sand and close your eyes, it doesn't mean it does not exist.
I have put argument after argument, you , neither of you have debunked any argument, NOTHING.
The only thing I get is, "I don't know"
None of you have challenged my argument regarding the origins of the universe, fine tuning of the universe, the only answer I get is, the multiverse? How ironic, you say I don't have evidence, yet you quote the multiverse SMH
Again, Origins of the universe, fine tuning, Historicity of Christ....And all I get from you is multiverse, and I don't know.
Seriously, and I though Atheists are supposed to be the voice of reason...smh
You have presented no evidence what so ever of anything regarding how the world began, Christ being of a virgin birth and being resurrected. You're only evidence is a book that also says that humans can live in whale's stomachs and a man built an ark that housed every animal on the planet, even natural predators and animals that live in completely different climates, living in complete peace.
Do you see why people might just not believe the bible? Do you understand why people might question the validity of a doctrine that says you should live your life by this word?
What is wrong with saying "I don't know" about something WHEN NO ONE HAS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ANY CLAIM, MADE TOWARDS THAT CLAIM!!!!!!!!
Rostos, what's the 857th decimal point in the number pie? What's that, you don't know? Well your first few numbers of 3.14 must be completely false then. My answer of the flying spaghetti monster must be true because he created everything.
You have presented nothing that proves your side, only your opinion. Science has given much more credible evidence to the workings of the planet(not how it was created but the workings of the planet) than religion has ever tried to answer. Yet atheist are the ones with their heads in the sand?
Atheist: How did the world begin?
Theist: Well some entity that has no empirical evidence whatsoever, created it.
Atheist: How do you know this?
Theist: Just trust me, oh and can you donate $1000 to my organization that supports him? He created everything but for some reason he can't seem to make anymore money. Weird.
Rostos, the only place you have given sufficient evidence is in your own mind.
0
Posted:
#523
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
Ktrain....
You say you would love to believe in the afterlife...Then what is stopping you? What is it exactly that stops you from believing?
What is contradictory of God? Specifically, what is it?
What is it about the bible that science refutes? Did they refute Jesus and what he did? As soon as I picked up the bible, I realised it wasn't a science text book, was never meant to be a science, was never intended to be a science book. The Bible is a collection of books, poems, legal and history. Not a science book.
Tell me, if I went to the local library and ripped a chapter from a book from the poetry section and then ripped a chapter fro the legal section, then a chapter from autobiography section, and I got all those chapters and put it together and I called it "Rostos' Book"...Would you read all the chapters all in the same way?
That's how it is meant to be read.
From my experience, people don't want to accept the bible simply because they don't want to be told what is right or wrong, they want to be there own God.
That God is an all knowing, all loving, all whatever kind word you want to say, entity yet allows human suffering. You say it's because he allows man to have free will and make his own choice to come to him. I say why even give man free choice at that point? Why not just ensure his happiness and free man from suffering?
Why wouldn't God just make it extremely clear about what religion to follow? Why? Why? Why?
If he is all knowing and all loving he wouldn't allow human suffering. That's not all knowing and all loving, not even close.
Science refutes quite a bit of the bible. Um Noah's Ark and Jonah in the belly of a whale just to begin with. I won't get into the virgin birth because I don't want to start making DNA/paternity comments that might offend quite a bit of people in here. Let's just say that penguins weren't meant to survive in the middle east and I'm dying to know how kangaroos came about if they weren't on the ark? Was that evolution?
If you created a book as you mentioned above, you are correct I would definitely read it differently. I would read it with the mindset that it is purely fiction and nothing more. I watched The Hunger Games movie the other night as well(don't waste your time, it wasn't good) I wouldn't watch that movie with any other notion that it was purely fiction. That movie was about society. Are you saying that I should view that as non fiction? Because it has all of the characteristics of the bible that you just mentioned above.
People don't accept the bible because it's extremely far fetched and unrealistic. Not because they don't like being told what's right and wrong. We're told what's right and wrong on a daily basis, it's called the law.
0
Posted:
#524
Let's assume, based on Rostos' fallacy of black and white thinking, that something supernatural created the universe. There was something transcending reality that caused the big bang. Ok. Now what Rostos?
We know NOTHING about this character. Absolutely nothing. Does this character intervene in every day life? Has he created other big bangs before? Is he a selfish, conceited, arrogant prick that created the universe just so people could worship him? Why did he only give intelligent life to humans? Why did he allow humans to conjure up hundreds of thousands of different gods? Maybe all those gods actually existed? Did he put life on other planets? Intelligent life? If he is a supreme being why create the universe in the method he did? Why not just poof everything into place?
I can go on and on. The point, Rostos, is that even if we were to accept that something supernatural created the universe, it helps your argument ZERO. So this "something vs nothing" argument you always like to fall back on, which obviously is fundamentally flawed, even if acknowledged and accepted, establishes nothing. We still have absolutely no reason to do anything associated with belief in a god.
0
Hot Forum Topics
