User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 12:58:09 PM EDT
[#1]
I get page 10
God images aren't loading.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:08:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, people who believe are not rational? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's one way of looking at it all. The other way is to believe that God is Sovereign and controls all things. Maybe He didn't want non-Biblical writings about Jesus to cloud the Perfect Gospel which He had commissioned. I'll go with that one. Believe as you please.  So there's a story about a flood that covered Mt. Everest and killed almost everyone. But the Chinese, who were keeping meticulous records at the time, didn't notice it. The Egyptians, also meticulous record keepers, didn't notice it, either. No civilization on Earth seems to have noticed it. Can you understand why it's difficult for rational people to accept such stories without any corroboration? So, people who believe are not rational? Right out of the dictionary: "faith: to accept (something) as true without evidence that it is true." That is the opposite of logic. Not trying to insult you, it just is what it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:10:46 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That class sounds more interesting then the sermon. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One of the biggest hangups for non-believers is that there is exactly zero evidence for any of the supernatural claims made by any religion ever. That is pretty much what it boils down to. We are at the pinnacle of discovery right now, and will continue to be as long as technology keeps advancing. We've learned more about the universe in the last 50-100 years than we have since man has been around. Constantly testing and proving new theories. The things claimed by religion can not be tested, or proven, and to lots of people that isn't acceptable. Myself included. I understand why people take comfort in faith, but I can't understand why they are not questioning the things they are told, and looking for answers. It is the nature of our species to discover and learn. And you make a common error. You assume that Christians have not "question(ed) the things they are told, and look(ed) for answers". We have. And we are satisfied in the answers we find in the Bible. I always am amazed at how non-believers say that Christians need to "not be closed minded and open your minds", as if we have never done that. I teach a Sunday School class of mature men (45-70 years old) every Sunday. We ask hundreds of questions, and search the Scriptures for the answers. And in all honesty, some of the questions are not fully answered. Yet. But as the Bible says, unless the Holy Spirit opens up the Bible for us, it will be impossible to understand. But as we study, we find His Word is revealed to us. There is a LOT more to Church than a sermon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:11:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right out of the dictionary: "faith: to accept (something) as true without evidence that it is true." That is the opposite of logic. Not trying to insult you, it just is what it is. Logic is for physics and science. Things that go beyond physics and science require faith and personal knowledge. Having faith is not the same as irrationality. That is something that people like you are unable to understand. Science and logic have their place. But they are not the answer to everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:12:55 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Logic is for physics and science. Things that go beyond physics and science require faith and personal knowledge. Having faith is not the same as irrationality. That is something that people like you are unable to understand. Science and logic have their place. But they are not the answer to everything. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Right out of the dictionary: "faith: to accept (something) as true without evidence that it is true." That is the opposite of logic. Not trying to insult you, it just is what it is. Logic is for physics and science. Things that go beyond physics and science require faith and personal knowledge. Having faith is not the same as irrationality. That is something that people like you are unable to understand. Science and logic have their place. But they are not the answer to everything. Don't confuse rational with rationalization. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:13:20 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Logic is for physics and science.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Right out of the dictionary: "faith: to accept (something) as true without evidence that it is true." That is the opposite of logic. Not trying to insult you, it just is what it is. Logic is for physics and science.... Bingo. You can have faith or you can have facts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:16:29 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, people who believe are not rational? It's not about being 'irrational' in an absolute across-the-board sense. People can be very well educated in some areas and still be very ignorant in others. You can be perfectly clinical in your logic in a given discipline and be far out field in another. Some of the more 'outlandish' aspects of religions seem perfectly acceptable to us because they've been held by a majority of society for a very long time. But you wold back away slowly from a man in the park if he started telling you that he sees spiritual beings around him who answer to his calls and needs and one of them died and came back to life to save the homeless. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:26:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bingo. You can have faith or you can have facts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Right out of the dictionary: "faith: to accept (something) as true without evidence that it is true." That is the opposite of logic. Not trying to insult you, it just is what it is. Logic is for physics and science.... Bingo. You can have faith or you can have facts. I don't think you're capable of understanding this simple concept. Even science is based on a lot of faith. I understand that it can be tested and reproduced, and to the best of our knowledge, the methods produce indisputable facts. But the FACT is that many ideas that were scientifically proven are later disproven all the time. So even science, which is based in logic, observation and reproduction, is not always accurate. That aside, we can get a pretty good idea of scientific truths, and mostly we can assume that they are correct. But there are things that cannot be tested, reproduced or directly observed and quantified, but they are as real as physical laws. Some people see them, others don't, some see different aspects of it or see it differently, but the underlying power that brought these things are just as real as anything else. We may observe, experience or FEEL things that, while they are not proofs like science - cannot be reproduced on demand, tested or quantified - are nonetheless powerful, and draw us into an area of FAITH. These things are not FACTS. They are deeply personal things that draw us into greater understanding about ourselves, God, and really everything in general. I get the idea that you believe that if it is not science, it is by definition false. That's an unfortunate philosophy. You can have faith AND facts - it's not one or the other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:37:02 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think you're capable of understanding this simple concept. Even science is based on a lot of faith. I understand that it can be tested and reproduced, and to the best of our knowledge, the methods produce indisputable facts. But the FACT is that many ideas that were scientifically proven are later disproven all the time. So even science, which is based in logic, observation and reproduction, is not always accurate. That aside, we can get a pretty good idea of scientific truths, and mostly we can assume that they are correct. But there are things that cannot be tested, reproduced or directly observed and quantified, but they are as real as physical laws. Some people see them, others don't, some see different aspects of it or see it differently, but the underlying power that brought these things are just as real as anything else. We may observe, experience or FEEL things that, while they are not proofs like science - cannot be reproduced on demand, tested or quantified - are nonetheless powerful, and draw us into an area of FAITH. These things are not FACTS. They are deeply personal things that draw us into greater understanding about ourselves, God, and really everything in general. I get the idea that you believe that if it is not science, it is by definition false. That's an unfortunate philosophy. You can have faith AND facts - it's not one or the other. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Right out of the dictionary: "faith: to accept (something) as true without evidence that it is true." That is the opposite of logic. Not trying to insult you, it just is what it is. Logic is for physics and science.... Bingo. You can have faith or you can have facts. I don't think you're capable of understanding this simple concept. Even science is based on a lot of faith. I understand that it can be tested and reproduced, and to the best of our knowledge, the methods produce indisputable facts. But the FACT is that many ideas that were scientifically proven are later disproven all the time. So even science, which is based in logic, observation and reproduction, is not always accurate. That aside, we can get a pretty good idea of scientific truths, and mostly we can assume that they are correct. But there are things that cannot be tested, reproduced or directly observed and quantified, but they are as real as physical laws. Some people see them, others don't, some see different aspects of it or see it differently, but the underlying power that brought these things are just as real as anything else. We may observe, experience or FEEL things that, while they are not proofs like science - cannot be reproduced on demand, tested or quantified - are nonetheless powerful, and draw us into an area of FAITH. These things are not FACTS. They are deeply personal things that draw us into greater understanding about ourselves, God, and really everything in general. I get the idea that you believe that if it is not science, it is by definition false. That's an unfortunate philosophy. You can have faith AND facts - it's not one or the other. Be thankful that you have faith. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:42:31 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Be thankful that you have faith. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Right out of the dictionary: "faith: to accept (something) as true without evidence that it is true." That is the opposite of logic. Not trying to insult you, it just is what it is. Logic is for physics and science.... Bingo. You can have faith or you can have facts. I don't think you're capable of understanding this simple concept. Even science is based on a lot of faith. I understand that it can be tested and reproduced, and to the best of our knowledge, the methods produce indisputable facts. But the FACT is that many ideas that were scientifically proven are later disproven all the time. So even science, which is based in logic, observation and reproduction, is not always accurate. That aside, we can get a pretty good idea of scientific truths, and mostly we can assume that they are correct. But there are things that cannot be tested, reproduced or directly observed and quantified, but they are as real as physical laws. Some people see them, others don't, some see different aspects of it or see it differently, but the underlying power that brought these things are just as real as anything else. We may observe, experience or FEEL things that, while they are not proofs like science - cannot be reproduced on demand, tested or quantified - are nonetheless powerful, and draw us into an area of FAITH. These things are not FACTS. They are deeply personal things that draw us into greater understanding about ourselves, God, and really everything in general. I get the idea that you believe that if it is not science, it is by definition false. That's an unfortunate philosophy. You can have faith AND facts - it's not one or the other. Be thankful that you have faith. Maybe God just doesn't want some people in heaven. That must be why he doesn't give everyone faith. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:45:54 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think you're capable of understanding this simple concept. Even science is based on a lot of faith. I understand that it can be tested and reproduced, and to the best of our knowledge, the methods produce indisputable facts. But the FACT is that many ideas that were scientifically proven are later disproven all the time. So even science, which is based in logic, observation and reproduction, is not always accurate. That aside, we can get a pretty good idea of scientific truths, and mostly we can assume that they are correct. But there are things that cannot be tested, reproduced or directly observed and quantified, but they are as real as physical laws. Some people see them, others don't, some see different aspects of it or see it differently, but the underlying power that brought these things are just as real as anything else. We may observe, experience or FEEL things that, while they are not proofs like science - cannot be reproduced on demand, tested or quantified - are nonetheless powerful, and draw us into an area of FAITH. These things are not FACTS. They are deeply personal things that draw us into greater understanding about ourselves, God, and really everything in general. I get the idea that you believe that if it is not science, it is by definition false. That's an unfortunate philosophy. You can have faith AND facts - it's not one or the other. Scientific "proof" is a misunderstood concept. Science never proves anything. Proofs are for mathematics. Science simply accumulates more and more evidence and creates more and more reliable and comprehensive theories. "Theories" are another misunderstood concept. In the scientific sense, theories are testable ideas that are always potentially refutable by evidence. The best theories, such as that of evolution, have withstood more than a century of challenges. Nevertheless, they always remain malleable. In short, science follows evidence wherever it leads. Faith does the opposite: it begins with beliefs and disregards evidence that does not fit those beliefs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:48:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe God just doesn't want some people in heaven. That must be why he doesn't give everyone faith. But he'll still love us while he's torturing us for eternity in hell, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:02:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe God just doesn't want some people in heaven. That must be why he doesn't give everyone faith. That doesn't make any sense. Having faith is a personal thing, not something that people need to go to heaven or something that God gives some and not others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:06:46 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But he'll still love us while he's torturing us for eternity in hell, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Maybe God just doesn't want some people in heaven. That must be why he doesn't give everyone faith. But he'll still love us while he's torturing us for eternity in hell, right? I think the Bible is misinterpreted a lot, and I do NOT believe that non-believers go to hell. I cannot see a loving God doing that - though many "believers" say that God sending you to hell proves his love.  I think that idea is totally wrong, and it also turns a lot of people away from Christianity.
Quoted:
In short, science follows evidence wherever it leads. Faith does the opposite: it begins with beliefs and disregards evidence that does not fit those beliefs. That's not what faith is. Faith does not, by definition, defy the evidence we see. It simply explains things in a personal way that we can't define or understand. I see it as our spirits trying to communicate with our brains, even though both operate in a differente dimension. Faith is a very personal thing, and if you don't have it it is impossible to describe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:15:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the Bible is misinterpreted a lot, and I do NOT believe that non-believers go to hell. I cannot see a loving God doing that - though many "believers" say that God sending you to hell proves his love. I think that idea is totally wrong, and it also turns a lot of people away from Christianity.
That's not what faith is. Faith does not, by definition, defy the evidence we see. It simply explains things in a personal way that we can't define or understand. I see it as our spirits trying to communicate with our brains, even though both operate in a differente dimension. Faith is a very personal thing, and if you don't have it it is impossible to describe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Maybe God just doesn't want some people in heaven. That must be why he doesn't give everyone faith. But he'll still love us while he's torturing us for eternity in hell, right? I think the Bible is misinterpreted a lot, and I do NOT believe that non-believers go to hell. I cannot see a loving God doing that - though many "believers" say that God sending you to hell proves his love. I think that idea is totally wrong, and it also turns a lot of people away from Christianity.
Quoted:
In short, science follows evidence wherever it leads. Faith does the opposite: it begins with beliefs and disregards evidence that does not fit those beliefs. That's not what faith is. Faith does not, by definition, defy the evidence we see. It simply explains things in a personal way that we can't define or understand. I see it as our spirits trying to communicate with our brains, even though both operate in a differente dimension. Faith is a very personal thing, and if you don't have it it is impossible to describe. What you describe sounds very much like my own experience. Faith is not something you can decide to have - it is offered, you must accept it, and it is freely given. It does not conflict with rationality in the least. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:17:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Scientific "proof" is a misunderstood concept. Science never proves anything. Proofs are for mathematics. Science simply accumulates more and more evidence and creates more and more reliable and comprehensive theories. "Theories" are another misunderstood concept. In the scientific sense, theories are testable ideas that are always potentially refutable by evidence. The best theories, such as that of evolution, have withstood more than a century of challenges. Nevertheless, they always remain malleable. In short, science follows evidence wherever it leads. Faith does the opposite: it begins with beliefs and disregards evidence that does not fit those beliefs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you're capable of understanding this simple concept. Even science is based on a lot of faith. I understand that it can be tested and reproduced, and to the best of our knowledge, the methods produce indisputable facts. But the FACT is that many ideas that were scientifically proven are later disproven all the time. So even science, which is based in logic, observation and reproduction, is not always accurate. That aside, we can get a pretty good idea of scientific truths, and mostly we can assume that they are correct. But there are things that cannot be tested, reproduced or directly observed and quantified, but they are as real as physical laws. Some people see them, others don't, some see different aspects of it or see it differently, but the underlying power that brought these things are just as real as anything else. We may observe, experience or FEEL things that, while they are not proofs like science - cannot be reproduced on demand, tested or quantified - are nonetheless powerful, and draw us into an area of FAITH. These things are not FACTS. They are deeply personal things that draw us into greater understanding about ourselves, God, and really everything in general. I get the idea that you believe that if it is not science, it is by definition false. That's an unfortunate philosophy. You can have faith AND facts - it's not one or the other. Scientific "proof" is a misunderstood concept. Science never proves anything. Proofs are for mathematics. Science simply accumulates more and more evidence and creates more and more reliable and comprehensive theories. "Theories" are another misunderstood concept. In the scientific sense, theories are testable ideas that are always potentially refutable by evidence. The best theories, such as that of evolution, have withstood more than a century of challenges. Nevertheless, they always remain malleable. In short, science follows evidence wherever it leads. Faith does the opposite: it begins with beliefs and disregards evidence that does not fit those beliefs. lol...you keep using words that you do not understand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:24:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Faith is not something you can decide to have - it is offered, you must accept it, and it is freely given. It does not conflict with rationality in the least. Faith is, by definition, irrational. It requires that you forgo evidence to hold it and that you disavow evidence that your assertions are unprovable. The words that people would be using to describe it, if it wasn't so popular, would be delusion and hallucination. The terms are a textbook fit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:26:15 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What you describe sounds very much like my own experience. Faith is not something you can decide to have - it is offered, you must accept it, and it is freely given. It does not conflict with rationality in the least. The religious experience can be induced. Faith in God is almost never the issue in these discussions though, y'all are going to be talking right past each other unless you make the distinction. Religion is about faith in claims made about God, by men. Rational assessment of those claims is essential and dogma prevents it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:35:07 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Faith is, by definition, irrational. It requires that you forgo evidence to hold it and that you disavow evidence that your assertions are unprovable. The words that people would be using to describe it, if it wasn't so popular, would be delusion and hallucination. The terms are a textbook fit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Faith is not something you can decide to have - it is offered, you must accept it, and it is freely given. It does not conflict with rationality in the least. Faith is, by definition, irrational. It requires that you forgo evidence to hold it and that you disavow evidence that your assertions are unprovable. The words that people would be using to describe it, if it wasn't so popular, would be delusion and hallucination. The terms are a textbook fit. You have no idea what true faith is. You are completely ignorant on the subject, and you are going to end up embarrassing yourself. I'd just leave if I were you. Faith is very simple. It is our personal way of understanding things that are not quantifiable or testable, but are observable or can be felt. It is not irrational to feel and see things that are unexplainable and develop strong personal beliefs based on those things. In fact, if you can't do that you don't have much humanity. All humans do this. And I do not understand why you and Rodent seem to think that the definition of faith is to believe something that your senses tell you is a lie. That is NOT the definition. Faith is believing in something that your physical senses can't sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:38:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have no idea what true faith is. You are completely ignorant on the subject, and you are going to end up embarrassing yourself. I'd just leave if I were you. Faith is very simple. It is our personal way of understanding things that are not quantifiable or testable, but are observable or can be felt. It is not irrational to feel and see things that are unexplainable and develop strong personal beliefs based on those things. In fact, if you can't do that you don't have much humanity. All humans do this. And I do not understand why you and Rodent seem to think that the definition of faith is to believe something that your senses tell you is a lie. That is NOT the definition. Faith is believing in something that your physical senses can't sense. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Faith is not something you can decide to have - it is offered, you must accept it, and it is freely given. It does not conflict with rationality in the least. Faith is, by definition, irrational. It requires that you forgo evidence to hold it and that you disavow evidence that your assertions are unprovable. The words that people would be using to describe it, if it wasn't so popular, would be delusion and hallucination. The terms are a textbook fit. You have no idea what true faith is. You are completely ignorant on the subject, and you are going to end up embarrassing yourself. I'd just leave if I were you. Faith is very simple. It is our personal way of understanding things that are not quantifiable or testable, but are observable or can be felt. It is not irrational to feel and see things that are unexplainable and develop strong personal beliefs based on those things. In fact, if you can't do that you don't have much humanity. All humans do this. And I do not understand why you and Rodent seem to think that the definition of faith is to believe something that your senses tell you is a lie. That is NOT the definition. Faith is believing in something that your physical senses can't sense. As you say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:41:59 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As you say. I'm guessing that's supposed to mean something, but I have no idea what. It is very peculiar that those who don't understand faith or do not believe in God don't just admit they don't understand it, they are openly hostile about the idea. For example, several posters here calling those who have faith "irrational, delusional, hallucinating, etc." What are they so afraid of? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:51:55 PM EDT
[#22]
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:53:02 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not irrational to feel and see things that are unexplainable and develop strong personal beliefs based on those things... When those feelings and visions lead to beliefs that are contrary to reason and experience, that's exactly what it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:56:46 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When those feelings and visions lead to beliefs that are contrary to reason and experience, that's exactly what it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is not irrational to feel and see things that are unexplainable and develop strong personal beliefs based on those things... When those feelings and visions lead to beliefs that are contrary to reason and experience, that's exactly what it is. If you can't grasp this simple, very human concept and are even hostile towards it, why don't you just stay away from these threads? It would be a favor to all of us. How many times do I need to explain: The definition of faith is NOT to believe in things that are contrary to reality, reason and experience. This is very simple, Rodent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:57:18 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That can be said for many atheists and anti-theists as well. It's interesting when they say this, many still hold the logical possibly of alien life in the universe, but are they all made of meat? I think we are the functional equivalent of ants looking up at the sky, trying to sense a larger world we have no capability of sensing. As far as our advances in science, for all we know God is like a parent who is standing by waiting for his child to discover for himself what He already told him. Food for thought: one possibility would support both the big bang and 6 day creation: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science/what-universe-real-physics-has-some-mind-bending-answers-180952699/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One of the biggest hangups for non-believers is that there is exactly zero evidence for any of the supernatural claims made by any religion ever. That is pretty much what it boils down to. We are at the pinnacle of discovery right now, and will continue to be as long as technology keeps advancing. We've learned more about the universe in the last 50-100 years than we have since man has been around. Constantly testing and proving new theories. The things claimed by religion can not be tested, or proven, and to lots of people that isn't acceptable. Myself included. I understand why people take comfort in faith, but I can't understand why they are not questioning the things they are told, and looking for answers. It is the nature of our species to discover and learn. I think we are the functional equivalent of ants looking up at the sky, trying to sense a larger world we have no capability of sensing. As far as our advances in science, for all we know God is like a parent who is standing by waiting for his child to discover for himself what He already told him. Food for thought: one possibility would support both the big bang and 6 day creation: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science/what-universe-real-physics-has-some-mind-bending-answers-180952699/ The word you ignored in the previous post was "supernatural." There is no scientific evidence of the supernatural. Also, even if we entertain your digital physics theory, the bible still claims that birds and whales were created before land animals, when science clearly tells us that these animals both evolved from land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:58:30 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have no idea what true faith is. You are completely ignorant on the subject, and you are going to end up embarrassing yourself. I'd just leave if I were you. Faith is very simple. It is our personal way of understanding things that are not quantifiable or testable, but are observable or can be felt. It is not irrational to feel and see things that are unexplainable and develop strong personal beliefs based on those things. In fact, if you can't do that you don't have much humanity. All humans do this. And I do not understand why you and Rodent seem to think that the definition of faith is to believe something that your senses tell you is a lie. That is NOT the definition. Faith is believing in something that your physical senses can't sense. Whatever the case may be, faith is not an infallible barometer for 'truth'. Christians believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Muslims believe in muhammads words as delivered to him by the archangel. Buddhists have faith that following in the footsteps of the Buddha will lead them to Nirvana. Scientologists believe there must be alien space faring civilizations. Each of them is convinced that his worldview is fundamentally correct and validated only through the nebulous concept of faith and subjective personal experience that no other sense or instrument can confirm. Each is convinced of the un-unshakable truth of his faith while utterly skeptical of the claims of the others. No one seems to be open to the possibility that their experience of faith is the wrong one. Whatever it is that one believes, no matter how the belief acquired, ends up feeling as the truth through personal faith. Faith, while unarguably subjectively true for the individual, doesn't seem to be any reliable measure of objective reality or truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:59:07 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
And I do not understand why you and Rodent seem to think that the definition of faith is to believe something that your senses tell you is a lie. That is NOT the definition. Faith is believing in something that your physical senses can't sense. What dictionary are you using? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:59:45 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The word you ignored in the previous post was "supernatural." There is no scientific evidence of the supernatural. Also, even if we entertain your digital physics theory, the bible still claims that birds and whales were created before land animals, when science clearly tells us that these animals both evolved from land. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One of the biggest hangups for non-believers is that there is exactly zero evidence for any of the supernatural claims made by any religion ever. That is pretty much what it boils down to. We are at the pinnacle of discovery right now, and will continue to be as long as technology keeps advancing. We've learned more about the universe in the last 50-100 years than we have since man has been around. Constantly testing and proving new theories. The things claimed by religion can not be tested, or proven, and to lots of people that isn't acceptable. Myself included. I understand why people take comfort in faith, but I can't understand why they are not questioning the things they are told, and looking for answers. It is the nature of our species to discover and learn. I think we are the functional equivalent of ants looking up at the sky, trying to sense a larger world we have no capability of sensing. As far as our advances in science, for all we know God is like a parent who is standing by waiting for his child to discover for himself what He already told him. Food for thought: one possibility would support both the big bang and 6 day creation: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science/what-universe-real-physics-has-some-mind-bending-answers-180952699/ The word you ignored in the previous post was "supernatural." There is no scientific evidence of the supernatural. Also, even if we entertain your digital physics theory, the bible still claims that birds and whales were created before land animals, when science clearly tells us that these animals both evolved from land. "Science tells us." Science tells us nothing. It's simply a method of interpretation, and it can be, and is all the time, misinterpreted. I don't think we should swerve this thread into one on evolution, but how, exactly, does science point towards land animals becoming sea creatures? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:02:09 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What dictionary are you using? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And I do not understand why you and Rodent seem to think that the definition of faith is to believe something that your senses tell you is a lie. That is NOT the definition. Faith is believing in something that your physical senses can't sense. What dictionary are you using? Here's one definiton of Faith according to Merriam-Webster: "Firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Note that it does NOT say: "Firm believe in something that goes against experience and reason." Is there nothing you believe in that you cannot prove? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:05:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whatever the case may be, faith is not an infallible barometer for 'truth'. Christians believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Muslims believe in muhammads words as delivered to him by the archangel. Buddhists have faith that following in the footsteps of the Buddha will lead them to Nirvana. Scientologists believe there must be alien space faring civilizations. Each of them is convinced that his worldview is fundamentally correct and validated only through the nebulous concept of faith and subjective personal experience that no other sense or instrument can confirm. Each is convinced of the un-unshakable truth of his faith while utterly skeptical of the claims of the others. No one seems to be open to the possibility that their experience of faith is the wrong one. Faith, while unarguably subjectively true for the individual, doesn't seem to be any reliable measure of objective reality or truth. Well, of course. Faith does not mean fact or truth. It is a personal "truth." It may be true, it may not be, it may be incomplete, it may be misinterpreted, it may be any number of things. But if you are unable to have personal deep feelings about things that you can't explain, and beliefs that you cannot prove - well, I don't believe that a human exists who doesn't have those things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:10:24 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, of course. Faith does not mean fact or truth. It is a personal "truth." It may be true, it may not be, it may be incomplete, it may be misinterpreted, it may be any number of things. But if you are unable to have personal deep feelings about things that you can't explain, and beliefs that you cannot prove - well, I don't believe that a human exists who doesn't have those things. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Whatever the case may be, faith is not an infallible barometer for 'truth'. Christians believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Muslims believe in muhammads words as delivered to him by the archangel. Buddhists have faith that following in the footsteps of the Buddha will lead them to Nirvana. Scientologists believe there must be alien space faring civilizations. Each of them is convinced that his worldview is fundamentally correct and validated only through the nebulous concept of faith and subjective personal experience that no other sense or instrument can confirm. Each is convinced of the un-unshakable truth of his faith while utterly skeptical of the claims of the others. No one seems to be open to the possibility that their experience of faith is the wrong one. Faith, while unarguably subjectively true for the individual, doesn't seem to be any reliable measure of objective reality or truth. Well, of course. Faith does not mean fact or truth. It is a personal "truth." It may be true, it may not be, it may be incomplete, it may be misinterpreted, it may be any number of things. But if you are unable to have personal deep feelings about things that you can't explain, and beliefs that you cannot prove - well, I don't believe that a human exists who doesn't have those things. So this is all about feelings then. Makes sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:12:01 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Science tells us." Science tells us nothing. It's simply a method of interpretation, and it can be, and is all the time, misinterpreted. I don't think we should swerve this thread into one on evolution, but how, exactly, does science point towards land animals becoming sea creatures? Archeological and genetic evidence along with the concepts and scientific theories of evolutionary biology. Sea mammals evolved from land mammals. Birds evolved from reptiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:12:21 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So this is all about feelings then. Makes sense. Not exactly. In fact, not really at all. Perhaps on some level it's about "feelings," but it's far deeper than that, and in a different field. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:14:32 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Archeological and genetic evidence along with the concepts and scientific theories of evolutionary biology. Sea mammals evolved from land mammals. Birds evolved from reptiles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"Science tells us." Science tells us nothing. It's simply a method of interpretation, and it can be, and is all the time, misinterpreted. I don't think we should swerve this thread into one on evolution, but how, exactly, does science point towards land animals becoming sea creatures? Archeological and genetic evidence along with the concepts and scientific theories of evolutionary biology. Sea mammals evolved from land mammals. Birds evolved from reptiles. This is another faith. There is no proof of this, but there is evidence. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Whether or not you believe the creation story is direct history or a metaphor (I'm somewhat mixed on that), to use evidence to prove that the Bible is incorrect is a fallacy. Evidence cannot prove something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:16:31 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not exactly. In fact, not really at all. Perhaps on some level it's about "feelings," but it's far deeper than that, and in a different field. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So this is all about feelings then. Makes sense. Not exactly. In fact, not really at all. Perhaps on some level it's about "feelings," but it's far deeper than that, and in a different field. Cite? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:17:24 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is another faith. There is no proof of this, but there is evidence. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Whether or not you believe the creation story is direct history or a metaphor (I'm somewhat mixed on that), to use evidence to prove that the Bible is incorrect is a fallacy. Evidence cannot prove something. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: "Science tells us." Science tells us nothing. It's simply a method of interpretation, and it can be, and is all the time, misinterpreted. I don't think we should swerve this thread into one on evolution, but how, exactly, does science point towards land animals becoming sea creatures? Archeological and genetic evidence along with the concepts and scientific theories of evolutionary biology. Sea mammals evolved from land mammals. Birds evolved from reptiles. This is another faith. There is no proof of this, but there is evidence. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Whether or not you believe the creation story is direct history or a metaphor (I'm somewhat mixed on that), to use evidence to prove that the Bible is incorrect is a fallacy. Evidence cannot prove something. Wait... What? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:21:52 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cite? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So this is all about feelings then. Makes sense. Not exactly. In fact, not really at all. Perhaps on some level it's about "feelings," but it's far deeper than that, and in a different field. Cite? Faith is a personal thing. I can't really explain how it feels to someone who doesn't understand it. But it's different than just having a feeling. And of course sometimes you can have faith in the wrong thing. But I think that true faith has a different feel than false faith, and it's theoretically possible to tell the difference. Basically, I think that faith (true faith, not false faith) is our spirit communicating with our physical mind certain truths that are beyond the physical. On the spiritual level it is probably just as observable and quantifiable as physical laws that we see are. But our bodies are physical, and the truth is spiritual, so by the time it gets to our brain it is "faith." But it's still just as true as anything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:25:00 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Science tells us nothing. It's simply a method of interpretation, and it can be, and is all the time, misinterpreted.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Science tells us nothing. It's simply a method of interpretation, and it can be, and is all the time, misinterpreted.... Planes fly. Computers compute. Doctors heal. Science works. And when a theory is demonstrated to be wrong, that is embraced as an advance, not seen as a failure. Quoted: ... I don't think we should swerve this thread into one on evolution, but how, exactly, does science point towards land animals becoming sea creatures? Short answer: DNA and the fossil record. Long answer: sign up for a community college course or read a book. Quoted: Is there nothing you believe in that you cannot prove? Of course. But I am willing to modify my beliefs if evidence comes to light that is contrary to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:25:38 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait... What? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Science tells us." Science tells us nothing. It's simply a method of interpretation, and it can be, and is all the time, misinterpreted. I don't think we should swerve this thread into one on evolution, but how, exactly, does science point towards land animals becoming sea creatures? Archeological and genetic evidence along with the concepts and scientific theories of evolutionary biology. Sea mammals evolved from land mammals. Birds evolved from reptiles. This is another faith. There is no proof of this, but there is evidence. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Whether or not you believe the creation story is direct history or a metaphor (I'm somewhat mixed on that), to use evidence to prove that the Bible is incorrect is a fallacy. Evidence cannot prove something. Wait... What? What? Maybe I worded it wrong, but evidence doesn't prove something. It merely points towards the likelihood that something is a fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:26:41 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What dictionary are you using? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And I do not understand why you and Rodent seem to think that the definition of faith is to believe something that your senses tell you is a lie. That is NOT the definition. Faith is believing in something that your physical senses can't sense. What dictionary are you using? No shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:31:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bingo. You can have faith or you can have facts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Right out of the dictionary: "faith: to accept (something) as true without evidence that it is true." That is the opposite of logic. Not trying to insult you, it just is what it is. Logic is for physics and science.... Bingo. You can have faith or you can have facts. Well, these guys would disagree with you, but I bet your scientific achievements far out pace theirs, no? Albert Einstein (1879-1955)Arthur Compton (1892 – 1962)Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)Ernst Haeckel (1834 –1919)Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961)Francis Bacon (1561-1627)Francis Collins (Born 1950)Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)Gottfried Leibniz (1646 –1716)Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)Guglielmo Marconi (1874 –1937)Isaac Newton (1642-1727)James Clerk Maxwell (1831 –1879)Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)John Eccles (1903 – 1997)Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)Max Planck (1858-1947)Michael Faraday (1791-1867)Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)Rene Descartes (1596-1650)Robert Boyle (1791-1867)Robert A. Millikan (1868 – 1953)Werner Heisenberg (1901 – 1976)William Harvey (1578 –1657)William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:33:44 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And you make a common error. You assume that Christians have not "question(ed) the things they are told, and look(ed) for answers". We have. And we are satisfied in the answers we find in the Bible. I always am amazed at how non-believers say that Christians need to "not be closed minded and open your minds", as if we have never done that. I teach a Sunday School class of mature men (45-70 years old) every Sunday. We ask hundreds of questions, and search the Scriptures for the answers. And in all honesty, some of the questions are not fully answered. Yet. But as the Bible says, unless the Holy Spirit opens up the Bible for us, it will be impossible to understand. But as we study, we find His Word is revealed to us. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: One of the biggest hangups for non-believers is that there is exactly zero evidence for any of the supernatural claims made by any religion ever. That is pretty much what it boils down to. We are at the pinnacle of discovery right now, and will continue to be as long as technology keeps advancing. We've learned more about the universe in the last 50-100 years than we have since man has been around. Constantly testing and proving new theories. The things claimed by religion can not be tested, or proven, and to lots of people that isn't acceptable. Myself included. I understand why people take comfort in faith, but I can't understand why they are not questioning the things they are told, and looking for answers. It is the nature of our species to discover and learn. And you make a common error. You assume that Christians have not "question(ed) the things they are told, and look(ed) for answers". We have. And we are satisfied in the answers we find in the Bible. I always am amazed at how non-believers say that Christians need to "not be closed minded and open your minds", as if we have never done that. I teach a Sunday School class of mature men (45-70 years old) every Sunday. We ask hundreds of questions, and search the Scriptures for the answers. And in all honesty, some of the questions are not fully answered. Yet. But as the Bible says, unless the Holy Spirit opens up the Bible for us, it will be impossible to understand. But as we study, we find His Word is revealed to us. Based on your reply, I'm not sure those you quoted above made any error, as your reply validates this as well. To some, it seems incredibly limiting, perhaps even close minded, when asking questions about some of the most complex issues known to mankind, to defer to a single, ancient book, written by ancient people, to the exclusion of all other information. Particularly in light of the myriad of staggering knowledge we have come to learn since the Bible was written. Additionally, when the discussion forum you refer to is populated by only those who are already "sold" on the general Biblical premise, you're not exactly dealing with a think-tank of objectivity. By your own admission, "we are satisfied in the answers we find in the Bible" & "We ask hundreds of questions, and search the Scriptures for the answers." One source of information and a group who've already decided that all other sources, discoveries and information mankind has learned aren't worth considering.....could certainly be viewed as close minded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:35:03 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Planes fly. Computers compute. Doctors heal. Science works. And when a theory is demonstrated to be wrong, that is embraced as an advance, not seen as a failure. Quote HistoryQuoted:Planes fly. Computers compute. Doctors heal. Science works. And when a theory is demonstrated to be wrong, that is embraced as an advance, not seen as a failure. No, physics work. Science merely is the method of interpreting physics. The "scientific method." We manipulate things and observe how physical laws will interact with those actions, and make determinations about our physical world based on those observations. Science is the tool to understand physical laws. Sometimes the scientific method can give us erroneous conclusions, but physical laws are never wrong. That's about right, isn't it? Quoted:Short answer: DNA and the fossil record. Long answer: sign up for a community college course or read a book. Typical. If someone does not agree with you, we haven't read enough. I've done a lot of reading on the subject. I see no compelling evidence for evolution, and plenty against the concept. And the fossil record? Full of gaps that are unexplainable. I don't think you're stupid for believing in evolution. I can understand believing it. But I don't, and I have very solid reasons for it. For me, this is not at all a "faith" thing. But you certainly seem to demean anyone who doesn't agree with you. Quoted:Of course. But I am willing to modify my beliefs if evidence comes to light that is contrary to them. So am I. I've had faith in things that I later realized were wrong. It doesn't make faith a bad thing in any way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:35:42 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many times do I need to explain: The definition of faith is NOT to believe in things that are contrary to reality, reason and experience. This is very simple, Rodent. Simple, yes. Correct, no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:37:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Simple, yes. Correct, no. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: How many times do I need to explain: The definition of faith is NOT to believe in things that are contrary to reality, reason and experience. This is very simple, Rodent. Simple, yes. Correct, no. You asked me what dictionary I was using. I told you I was using Merriam-Webster, and gave you the definition. I am correct. You are not. Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof Nothin' about believing things that are contrary to reality, reason and experience in there. Check and mate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:41:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe God just doesn't want some people in heaven. That must be why he doesn't give everyone faith. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:44:03 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Simple, yes. Correct, no. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How many times do I need to explain: The definition of faith is NOT to believe in things that are contrary to reality, reason and experience. This is very simple, Rodent. Simple, yes. Correct, no. Simple question, do your scientific achievements out weigh these guys who disagree with you and your assessment that you can't have facts and faith? Albert Einstein (1879-1955)Arthur Compton (1892 – 1962)Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)Ernst Haeckel (1834 –1919)Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961)Francis Bacon (1561-1627)Francis Collins (Born 1950)Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)Gottfried Leibniz (1646 –1716)Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)Guglielmo Marconi (1874 –1937)Isaac Newton (1642-1727)James Clerk Maxwell (1831 –1879)Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)John Eccles (1903 – 1997)Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)Max Planck (1858-1947)Michael Faraday (1791-1867)Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)Rene Descartes (1596-1650)Robert Boyle (1791-1867)Robert A. Millikan (1868 – 1953)Werner Heisenberg (1901 – 1976)William Harvey (1578 –1657)William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:45:46 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Faith is, by definition, irrational. It requires that you forgo evidence to hold it and that you disavow evidence that your assertions are unprovable. The words that people would be using to describe it, if it wasn't so popular, would be delusion and hallucination. The terms are a textbook fit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Faith is not something you can decide to have - it is offered, you must accept it, and it is freely given. It does not conflict with rationality in the least. Faith is, by definition, irrational. It requires that you forgo evidence to hold it and that you disavow evidence that your assertions are unprovable. The words that people would be using to describe it, if it wasn't so popular, would be delusion and hallucination. The terms are a textbook fit. Does a 'lack of evidence' equal 'no evidence exists'? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:49:46 PM EDT
[#49]
I believe, based on knowledge and study, that there is no reason you can't believe in both science and creation, as an example for my following point. I understand that some see the two as incompatible. It seems you guys believe, and perhaps it is sometimes true, that some people put up a mental block between their own personal beliefs (whether they are religious or not) and what they know about physical laws, history, etc. so that they can believe in both and not have them conflict with one another. But even if that's true, how is it hurting or offending you? If we're wrong, let us be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:51:01 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, these guys would disagree with you, but I bet your scientific achievements far out pace theirs, no? Albert Einstein (1879-1955)Arthur Compton (1892 – 1962)Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)Ernst Haeckel (1834 –1919)Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961)Francis Bacon (1561-1627)Francis Collins (Born 1950)Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)Gottfried Leibniz (1646 –1716)Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)Guglielmo Marconi (1874 –1937)Isaac Newton (1642-1727)James Clerk Maxwell (1831 –1879)Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)John Eccles (1903 – 1997)Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)Max Planck (1858-1947)Michael Faraday (1791-1867)Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)Rene Descartes (1596-1650)Robert Boyle (1791-1867)Robert A. Millikan (1868 – 1953)Werner Heisenberg (1901 – 1976)William Harvey (1578 –1657)William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)The first name on your list was an atheist. "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." - Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954: Should I keep going? Don't know which website you copied those names from, but some of them predate the scientific method and even the Enlightenment. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
