U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-01-2018, 04:23 AM
Status: "...We are closing in..." (set 27 days ago)
 
32,590 posts, read 7,899,170 times
Reputation: 4596

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
Isn’t that blindingly obvious? Don’t we all use our understanding of reality to make inferences?

God is commonly understood to have omni-powers, or be at least everpresent.

I haven’t seen any cows defy the laws of physics, and looking around my house, I don’t see any cows lurking about.

What is your point anyway?
Exploiting confusion. Assuming he isn't confusing sacred objects with statues of Gods, which are also sacred objects but may also be taken to be gods.

Generally, people are aware that statues are not gods, but they can stand as a visual representation of a god or can even be considered to inhabited by a god. But the god (or goddess) itself is not the statue and never was. Confusion avoided, I hope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
I use the full & complete, EXPERT provided definitions...for all words and terms.
It is those that seek to redact and excise certain definitions because they show their argument to be bogus, that is the problem.
Don't blame me...take it up with Merriam-Webster, etc.
Cobblers old son. You seem to have hooked a new victim to play with, but he'll catch on soon enough.

That you take your definitions from the "Experts" you shout as though that meant they agreed with you, while ignoring the fact that Websters gives usages as well as definitions, even if they are unsound usages, so long as they are used, doesn't mean that you can't fiddle them to suit yourself..

For example, you just pick the definition that suits you and pretend that's the only one. You gave been told this often enough, but I think we all now conclude that you just like to wind atheists up and reasoned debate is that last thing we can expect.

But I'll let Salis after the Tip -off (remarkable that there's only one other poster whose new victims I have to give a explanation of the opponent to save the pages of frustration) draw his own conclusions.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-01-2018 at 04:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-02-2018, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Florida
1,904 posts, read 387,879 times
Reputation: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
Good question.

The very definition of 'faith' is belief without evidence.

If Christians had evidence, they wouldn't have faith, which always strikes me as ironic.
You're only partly correct.

faith
[fāTH]
NOUN
complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust  belief  [more]
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

While faith can be a belief without evidence, it by no means mean that one can't have evidence to have faith.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,051 posts, read 8,253,519 times
Reputation: 5979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A View Post
You're only partly correct.

faith
[fāTH]
NOUN
complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust  belief 
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

While faith can be a belief without evidence, it by no means mean that one can't have evidence to have faith.
Religious faith is the second definition (bolded in the quote) and the one we are addressing.

When you think of it, the colloquial / non-theological definition is nearly the polar opposite of the religious one. "Complete trust" is justifiable based on consistent experience and supporting evidence. That's why in these discussion I use "trust" when I want that meaning.

If you have a "strong belief in god based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof" that has zero to do with evidence. You cannot rationalize religious faith on the basis that sometimes there is evidence for it, because its very basis considers evidence to be irrelevant. That's what a "leap of faith" is all about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 03:57 PM
 
9,917 posts, read 3,812,386 times
Reputation: 1131
yeah, deny science when it out jumps your leap of faith in deny anything and everything for my beloved self centered belief statement.

milli/fundy mentals would be funny except for the fact they are the single biggest threat to freedom and reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 04:29 PM
Status: "...We are closing in..." (set 27 days ago)
 
32,590 posts, read 7,899,170 times
Reputation: 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Religious faith is the second definition (bolded in the quote) and the one we are addressing.

When you think of it, the colloquial / non-theological definition is nearly the polar opposite of the religious one. "Complete trust" is justifiable based on consistent experience and supporting evidence. That's why in these discussion I use "trust" when I want that meaning.

If you have a "strong belief in god based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof" that has zero to do with evidence. You cannot rationalize religious faith on the basis that sometimes there is evidence for it, because its very basis considers evidence to be irrelevant. That's what a "leap of faith" is all about.
Quite correct. But of course the religious apologist will flip -flop between meaning 1 (1) and meaning 2, because they know bloody well that beleif in something without evidence or in spite of the evidence is not a good thing and not very persuasive, other than to those who already believe.

Thus they will try to mnake it look as though theor Faith is 'belief founded ion decent evidence', which it isn't as the debates here show up. THAT'S when they switch back to meaning 2, rather like like the defeated troops running back the net line of trenches (2) Faith is a fallback position. And it is a bewildering one as somehow Faith is held up as something admirable, when it fact it is appalling - to believe something without decent evidence and even in despite of the evidence. And blast their tripes, They accuse us of ignoring the evidence, Having Faith and being closed -minded. I swear, if these religious apologists sat down to invert every point and reverse all kind of human reasoning, they could not do it more consistently. It's a conditioning; it is a kid of brainwashing.

(1) something happened to restore the faith in politicians. Maybe they all topped themselves leaving apology notes. Anyway, there was some decent evidence for the restoration of the faith. Or maybe even bad evidence - Trump legislated to send all Filipina housemaids back home, or send all Polynesians Hawaiians to Tahiti and turn it into an airbase ready of Bomb Korea or will simply ignore an agreement to respect Siou land and not put a disastrous pipeline through it, and just personally Ok it, and that would restore Faith in politicians by Some people, - probably those who elected the fellow in the first place.

(2)the Great War alanogies are going to be done to death until this time nest year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Gettysburg, PA
1,477 posts, read 1,433,286 times
Reputation: 2492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries View Post
This is prompted by the umpteenth thread on this forum arguing the viability of following Christianity.

Those who challenge Christianity rightfully demand evidence, fully knowing Christians are incapable of providing sufficient evidence.

Christians jump in with their usual apologetics, fully anticipating all the counter-arguments and feel prepared to challenge them, usually to their dispair.

My question is, What's the point? Do atheists feel Christians will suddenly say, "OMG! The atheists were right all along! My total and utter faith in the LORD has been a house of cards all along! I feel like such an IDIOT!!"

And do Christians think atheists are gonna say, "I cannot believe I did not see it all along! Why, it's OBVIOUS that this glorious world that I formerly saw as a grand accident is all the work of a wonderful Grand Master of the Universe! Praise the LORD!"

What are we trying to accomplish here?
Well, you probably got an answer like this already, but here's my view on it (work keeps me busy, so can't get to these threads in a timely fashion as I'd like):

Most of the "discussion" (if you can call it that) is aimed at those somewhere along the middle of the believer/non-believer spectrum. They kind of believe or they kind of don't (over-simplified descriptions, of course).

I usually don't discuss things about my faith unless I get the impression that the person is curious in a genuine and non-derogatory way. Too many hard-core atheists with whom I'd rather not waste my time. Just as, in case that sounds harsh, atheists would probably be better off not wasting their time with me. Of course, I was at one time one of the far-end spectrum atheists (totally invented phrase there, but hopefully it makes sense). Yet it took the power of God to convert me, not some person's discussion about why I should believe in the Lord Jesus. I laughed off/scorned many a believer during such discussions before God gave me the gift of faith.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 06:56 PM
Status: "...We are closing in..." (set 27 days ago)
 
32,590 posts, read 7,899,170 times
Reputation: 4596
That's ok. In fact we are quite familiar with the mental (or some might pefer "Spiritual" conversion effect. Mystic phd will probably tell you that, while I may disagree that it is a god (let alone a particular god) that is begind it, I at least won't deny that this happens.

It really isn't part of the argument that atheists use because that is based on the evidence we know something about. The rest - we say 'Nobody knows, for sure'. The Believers say they are sure, on faith'. And maybe if it happened to me, I'd be sure, too. But I might still be wong about that
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 08:27 PM
 
6,125 posts, read 9,407,618 times
Reputation: 4538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries View Post
And do Christians think atheists are gonna say, "I cannot believe I did not see it all along! Why, it's OBVIOUS that this glorious world that I formerly saw as a grand accident is all the work of a wonderful Grand Master of the Universe! Praise the LORD!"
Actually, you've got it all wrong when it comes to many atheists. I started out as a christian in a catholic school. I loved Jesus so much that I decided to research more about him. During my research, I discovered that Jesus only existed in literature; not in history. This was a big problem for me. I tried believing in a god that was higher than Jesus, but that phase didn't last very long.

Over time, prayers became less frequent and the desire to attend church was gone. At this point, I began to ask questions about my faith that I was too afraid to ask as a Christian. For example, if god doesn't want us to lie to each other, why didn't he simply make all humans telepathic? Problem solved right?

Then came my Eye-opener that killed my Christianity. The knowledge that I (as an African American male living in the south) am only Christian because my ancestors were owned by Christian slave masters. As a matter of fact, the first slave ship to the so-called new world was named after Jesus. I cried and felt so foolish when I learned all of this (and MUCH more).

It all began to make perfect sense. I now know why there are parts of my city with $2 million church buildings surrounded by $30,000-$70,000 houses that are falling apart. And I understand now why the little old black ladies (who own those houses) are giving their prescription medication money to the pastor of that church. Yeah, I get it now. It's a dirty game, and it always has been. Sadly, my demographic has been so indoctrinated into this mess since slavery that the "mess" has become our post-slavery cultural identity. We now identify with the same moral consciousness that saw us fit to be slaves in the first place.

Today, single black women are the poorest and most unmarried demographic in America. Ironically, they are also the most Christian (especially in the south). Also here in the south, black women are often the family elders and they MAKE SURE that their kids/grandkids "love them some Jeebus" above ALL else. What about love for the teacher that's trying to help educate these kids to be productive citizens? Love for "Jeebus" ain't feeding your family. Clearly, this is an emotional topic for me so I'll just stop here....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 08:51 PM
 
Location: USA
2,347 posts, read 882,840 times
Reputation: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries View Post
This is prompted by the umpteenth thread on this forum arguing the viability of following Christianity.

Those who challenge Christianity rightfully demand evidence, fully knowing Christians are incapable of providing sufficient evidence.

Christians jump in with their usual apologetics, fully anticipating all the counter-arguments and feel prepared to challenge them, usually to their dispair.

My question is, What's the point? Do atheists feel Christians will suddenly say, "OMG! The atheists were right all along! My total and utter faith in the LORD has been a house of cards all along! I feel like such an IDIOT!!"

And do Christians think atheists are gonna say, "I cannot believe I did not see it all along! Why, it's OBVIOUS that this glorious world that I formerly saw as a grand accident is all the work of a wonderful Grand Master of the Universe! Praise the LORD!"

What are we trying to accomplish here?
I came to the conclusion that Christians claims are far too silly to be true when I was 13 years old. I suppose that some of us continue to live in the vain hope that Christians will grow up someday too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2018, 07:30 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,306 posts, read 9,302,548 times
Reputation: 2272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries View Post
My question is, What's the point? Do atheists feel Christians will suddenly say, "OMG! The atheists were right all along! My total and utter faith in the LORD has been a house of cards all along! I feel like such an IDIOT!!"
Well...it's happened to me twice on another forum...not as suddenly as 'OMG! I was wrong all along!' but certainly, two Christians were persuaded by the atheist argument and became atheist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Some people, once they have examined the historical evidence concerning Jesus and the apostles will find it valid and will come to believe the Gospel.
What 'historical evidence'? Oh wait! I remember...the Church fathers wasn't it?

Quote:
A case in point concerning an atheist who became a believer after examining the evidence is J. Warner Wallace who was a cold case homicide detective and after becoming a believer wrote a book called 'Cold-Case Christianity' in which he explains how he used his detective skills to examine the historical evidence which is presented in the Bible and found it convincing.
...and your point is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
Good question.If Christians had evidence, they wouldn't have faith, which always strikes me as ironic.
What strikes me as ironic is how, in any aspect of their everyday lives other than their god-belief, Christians wouldn't give 'faith' the time of day! When confronted by the doorstep insurance salesman telling them that the investment is the best, do they accept his word for it? No! They demand verifiable evidence that what he is saying is true. When they buy a car do they accept the word of the salesman that a Ford is the best car they will ever buy? No! They seek out verifiable evidence from a dozen sources before they buy...yet, when it comes to god-belief, all that need for verifiable evidence gets thrown out of the window and 'faith' is seen as a wonderful, glorious, praiseworthy, laudable thing to have when making important decisions on whether or not something is true. Odd isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top