The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by sycamorex Here we go again. Would you be so kind and explain why? What does this nonsense even mean? If you can't be truly happy without trying to please some imaginary friends, that is your problem, but please don't claim other people can't be happy without sucking up to god.

Aiming to please a God you reject would indeed be "sucking up." Aiming to please God your Father, on the other hand, is quite different.

Originally Posted by SigTerm You do know what "F" normally means, right?

In My Firm Opinion [You should know me better than that]

Originally Posted by reed9 I would respect you more if you just said, yup, it's faith, there's no reason and no way to reason about it, I just believe and that's that, rather than trying to make it all somehow be logical and make sense. It isn't and it doesn't and it can't.

There are a lot of things I'm uncertain about. Christ is not one of them.

Originally Posted by bluegospel There are a lot of things I'm uncertain about. Christ is not one of them.

What I really don't understand is why do you trust your holy book unconditionally. It may lead to bad conseuqences.

Scenario 1:
Let's assume there's a creator. Let's assume that it indeed passed down biblical text to humans (extremely unlikely). Now WHY do you think that in this case it automatically means "bible tell the truth"? Creator is more powerful than you and you're its toy or tool, nothing more. Creator has the power to erase entire existence on a whim and recreate it again. It has no reason to tell truth to you, so it may as well fill bible with lies and stage few miracles in order to trick you into following particular way of life, while his real plan may be sinister. Maybe it is using human race for its own amusement. Or maybe it is harvesting it.

Scenario 2:
Let's assume there is a creator, but holy book has been passed to you by another supernatural entity (who has also staged corresponding miracles), represents false faith, and has been created in order to divert your attention from real god, so you'll end up in "hell" for worshipping false gods. In other words, let's assume bible has been written by devil.

Both scenarios (assuming god exists) seem plausible since as far as I can tell world lacks any kind of supernatural "love" or "justice", plus there are contradictions in bible itself.

If you blindly trust your holy book, you will not be able to discover either scenario. You ASSUME that bible tells the truth because bible tells you so. Why? There's no reason to think this way. Even if god exists there's no reason to think that it is the one your religion describes and that your religion is right. There's no reason to think that a god will be good or won't lie to you. The only possible explanation is extreme version of confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by SigTerm What I really don't understand is why do you trust your holy book unconditionally. It may lead to bad conseuqences. Scenario 1: Let's assume there's a creator. Let's assume that it indeed passed down biblical text to humans (extremely unlikely). Now WHY do you think that in this case it automatically means "bible tell the truth"? Creator is more powerful than you and you're its toy or tool, nothing more. Creator has the power to erase entire existence on a whim and recreate it again. It has no reason to tell truth to you, so it may as well fill bible with lies and stage few miracles in order to trick you into following particular way of life, while his real plan may be sinister. Maybe it is using human race for its own amusement. Or maybe it is harvesting it. Scenario 2: Let's assume there is a creator, but holy book has been passed to you by another supernatural entity (who has also staged corresponding miracles), represents false faith, and has been created in order to divert your attention from real god, so you'll end up in "hell" for worshipping false gods. In other words, let's assume bible has been written by devil. Both scenarios (assuming god exists) seem plausible since as far as I can tell world lacks any kind of supernatural "love" or "justice", plus there are contradictions in bible itself. If you blindly trust your holy book, you will not be able to discover either scenario. You ASSUME that bible tells the truth because bible tells you so. Why? There's no reason to think this way. Even if god exists there's no reason to think that it is the one your religion describes and that your religion is right. There's no reason to think that a god will be good or won't lie to you. The only possible explanation is extreme version of confirmation bias.

Everything you say is very easy to believe when you don't know God.

Originally Posted by bluegospel There are a lot of things I'm uncertain about. Christ is not one of them.

Yes, I know. Absolute certainty in the rightness of one's own beliefs, especially through faith and not evidence, is one of the most dangerous, terrible things on the planet. It is that sort of belief that leads to inquisitions and suicide bombers. The fact that folks with that kind of certainty have access to weapons of mass destruction and are looking forward to the end of times, well, you're just about the biggest threat to the planet I can think of.

Originally Posted by reed9 Yes, I know. Absolute certainty in the rightness of one's own beliefs, especially through faith and not evidence, is one of the most dangerous, terrible things on the planet. It is that sort of belief that leads to inquisitions and suicide bombers.

Actually lust for power and blind faith, coupled with despair lead there, not certainty of faith coupled with hope.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Actually lust for power and blind faith, coupled with despair lead there, not certainty of faith coupled with hope.

I disagree that it must be lust for power. Seems to me it has often been accompanied by the belief that one was acting for the greater good. Don't get me wrong, any ideology, religious or secular, can amount to the same thing. The unwavering belief in the rightness of one's own cause is not unique to religion, but nowhere but religion is it quite so celebrated. Anytime reason and evidence is abandoned for dogma and faith, there's trouble.

Originally Posted by reed9 I disagree that it must be lust for power. Seems to me it has often been accompanied by the belief that one was acting for the greater good. Don't get me wrong, any ideology, religious or secular, can amount to the same thing. The unwavering belief in the rightness of one's own cause is not unique to religion, but nowhere but religion is it quite so celebrated. Anytime reason and evidence is abandoned for dogma and faith, there's trouble.

Abandoning evolutionary science is not the same as abandoning evidence. You're completely excluding from the evidence everything that's not visible, audible or sensed by touch. In fact, taking that initial step of faith is the first evidence anyone can ever experience of God, after which, there are windfalls of evidence that unbelievers just can't understand.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Actually lust for power and blind faith, coupled with despair lead there, not certainty of faith coupled with hope.

So where does a suicide bomber get the power after his attack? He does it for the blind faith to become a martyr and to go to paradise directly.

Abandoning evolutionary science is not the same as abandoning evidence.

Yes, it is, since there is evidence for evolution, contrary to intelligent design, which lacks the support of evidence.

But when I see this:

You're completely excluding from the evidence everything that's not visible, audible or sensed by touch. In fact, taking that initial step of faith is the first evidence anyone can ever experience of God, after which, there are windfalls of evidence that unbelievers just can't understand.

I think you should look up the meaning of the word evidence.
Something that is not visible, audible or sensed by touch can hardly be defined as evidence, excluding an logical evidence, but religion can't claim that sort of evidence.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Everything you say is very easy to believe when you don't know God.

Your argument translates as "My religion makes me special, so I'm right and you're not.", which cannot be taken seriously. Unfortunately, religion does not make people special. I asked you a simple question, and you could not answer it.

Regarding "you don' know": I haven't met god personally, and I doubt you did.
I can't "know" something I haven't encountered, especially when its definition is so shaky.

Atheists/agnostic are frequently willing to change their opinion if somebody presents evidence. They exist simply because during last 2000 years nothing happened that could be used as evidence.
It shouldn't be a problem to send down angel(to talk to people) or something, you know.

Originally Posted by bluegospel You're completely excluding from the evidence everything that's not visible, audible or sensed by touch.

Aside from limited human senses you mentioned there are magnetic fields, radio waves, radiation, light (ultra-violet/infra-red range), which are undetectable by human, but can be registred, detected, measured and converted into something human can see or hear using special tools (standard digital photo camera in cellphone can see infrared, for example). If your evidence cannot be registred in any way modern science offers, then you don't have evidence. There must be a way to detect it. ANY way. Physical phenomenons can be detected, even elusive things like neutrino. Your religion offers nothing like that. If somebody hears a god's voice in his mind (and it is not a somebody's practical joke) the most probable scenario is insanity.

Originally Posted by bluegospel What's the difference? If the whole population is subject to the same test, it's refined. In fact, this screams of the signature of God, who is willing to go to great lengths to refine the whole lot of us by means that we would expect to be expended only for the few.

It's a HUGE difference. If God subjects a small part of us to the crucible, it's a test. If he subjects the whole thing to the crucible, it's a refinement. And more importantly... if God is refining us, then none of us have to go to Hell, because at the end of this life, we're all pure. Does that sound like something your Bible agrees with?

Originally Posted by bluegospel Yet, if even the sample had a mind of its own, and resisted the process, wouldn't it be tossed, or at best be used for ignoble purposes? The point is, God's purpose prevails in us when we trust him despite suffering, as we are strengthened in character by perseverance. Cocking an attitude against God for our trials makes us an enemy to ourselves.

It is simply not possible for a piece of metal to resist the purification process. If something goes wrong, it's the fault of the person who either designed or performed the process. So once again, if we assume your logic is correct, the real enemy is God.

And as usual, what this really shows is that your logic is incorrect.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Did you do this in the public sphere (trying to live up to other Christians' expectations), or in the private (living up to God's expectations)? If you'd try the latter, without regard to the former, I'd bet you'd find that you CAN bear the burden of being a Christian.

The funny thing about this post is the assumption that it's possible to know what God's expectations are.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The only way to be truly happy and satisfied is Christ.

Oh, look, another indefensible assertion.

---------- Post added 10-10-11 at 08:47 AM ----------

Originally Posted by bluegospel The Western Education system was founded on Biblical teaching.

And another!

Originally Posted by TobiSGD So where does a suicide bomber get the power after his attack? He does it for the blind faith to become a martyr and to go to paradise directly.

Lust for power pertains to Reed's reference to inquisitions. Blind faith coupled with despair pertains to Reed's reference to suicide bombers.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD But when I see this:I think you should look up the meaning of the word evidence. Something that is not visible, audible or sensed by touch can hardly be defined as evidence, excluding an logical evidence, but religion can't claim that sort of evidence.

Before Webster and Oxford there was Scripture: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Besides Scripture, as I've stated, there are human senses besides the 5 known by science. In particular, a person with a dead spirit, not having been made alive by Christ, has exactly 5 senses. A person with faith in Christ has better evidence than these.