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.
I understand y'alls point just fine.
You feel the need to slam religion to support your own belief position. Which makes you just like them. Which is MY point.
No, I need to slam religion because a few days ago, 2 police officers and a civilian were murdered across the border from me.
Your failure to "get it" is on you, not me.
Anything you think you "know" is based upon some level of faith...and that's just how it is. That mindset is not limited to just religious beliefs...but applies to everything.
But now I have switched up my assessment: I now have FAITH that y'all will continue to be intentionally obtuse, so to support your bash-religion belief position.
Probability and evidence STILL does not equal faith.
Why do you insist on misrepresenting?
05-31-2018, 11:05 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Your failure to "get it" is on you, not me.
Anything you think you "know" is based upon some level of faith...and that's just how it is. That mindset is not limited to just religious beliefs...but applies to everything.
But now I have switched up my assessment: I now have FAITH that y'all will continue to be intentionally obtuse, so to support your bash-religion belief position.
Please do something useful with this info like lay out these levels of faith. Tell us what types of faith there are and how they correspond to probabilities? Tell me the difference between the example I asked you about with water in a glass and belief in an all powerful immaterial being? Please tell us the difference between the two and when one should stop doubting or being skeptical or when policies should be made.
How much faith do you need before it becomes fact or knowledge or probable? Why should you call it faith and not evidence or science of something else besides faith? I could go on but you don't or can't answer you just say something that no one is arguing against. We all know that nothing is 100% absolute - you don't need to keep saying it. We already acknowledged that fact. Why can't you extract yourself from the equivocation and blanket uselessness of your posts and admit that there are things that are not and should not be classified as faith beliefs just because a little bit of uncertainty remains. You are trying to bring down all beliefs and knowledge to the level of shear wishes by not doing so.
And I think we know why - it is because you know deep down that your own religious beliefs are WEAK and you want those things that challenge those precious beliefs to be just as WEAK. You are a dishonest person in my view or seriously warped in your thinking by trying such strategies. It's precisely the reason you do this -because you don't have good arguments to justify that faith.
you believe you have a connection with other people ,but we all could be robots. beep
FAith in things like your car or a light switch or scientific discovery, all are shakable .
Faith in mankind is regularly shaken, yet we still invest in it.
Blind faith however is another thing like for instance scientific discovery and certain people have an agenda to prove ,never mind that half of the discovery is supposition.
What makes them valid and those with faith in God invalid ?
You take with blind faith a person with an agenda says,, you have no personal experience to verify except their say so .
Where as one whom has had a real encounter with God, has more than hear say .
you believe you have a connection with other people ,but we all could be robots. beep
FAith in things like your car or a light switch or scientific discovery, all are shakable .
Faith in mankind is regularly shaken, yet we still invest in it.
Blind faith however is another thing like for instance scientific discovery and certain people have an agenda to prove ,never mind that half of the discovery is supposition.
What makes them valid and those with faith in God invalid ?
You take with blind faith a person with an agenda says,, you have no personal experience to verify except their say so .
Where as one whom has had a real encounter with God, has more than hear say .
Yes, faith based on evidence versus faith your 'real' encounter (that actually proves your god can not exist) was not just a delusion.
Probability and evidence STILL does not equal faith.
Why do you insist on misrepresenting?
I am not misrepresenting...you are.
Because no evidence is 100% certain and infallible, you need to work off of "probability".
Sooooooo...you need some level of faith (in the probability of its merit) to believe anything is valid and true.
See how that works?
Please do something useful with this info like lay out these levels of faith. Tell us what types of faith there are and how they correspond to probabilities? Tell me the difference between the example I asked you about with water in a glass and belief in an all powerful immaterial being? Please tell us the difference between the two and when one should stop doubting or being skeptical or when policies should be made.
How much faith do you need before it becomes fact or knowledge or probable? Why should you call it faith and not evidence or science of something else besides faith? I could go on but you don't or can't answer you just say something that no one is arguing against. We all know that nothing is 100% absolute - you don't need to keep saying it. We already acknowledged that fact. Why can't you extract yourself from the equivocation and blanket uselessness of your posts and admit that there are things that are not and should not be classified as faith beliefs just because a little bit of uncertainty remains. You are trying to bring down all beliefs and knowledge to the level of shear wishes by not doing so.
And I think we know why - it is because you know deep down that your own religious beliefs are WEAK and you want those things that challenge those precious beliefs to be just as WEAK. You are a dishonest person in my view or seriously warped in your thinking by trying such strategies. It's precisely the reason you do this -because you don't have good arguments to justify that faith.
I am not at all Religious...never have been, and I am sure never will be.
My beliefs (Panthiest) are 100% logical and reasonable. I have full faith in them.
05-31-2018, 12:12 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I am not at all Religious...never have been, and I am sure never will be.
My beliefs (Panthiest) are 100% logical and reasonable. I have full faith in them.
Now don't contradict yourself - you mean that you have faith that it is 100% logical and reasonable since nothing, as you previously said, cannot be 100%. All is God is a weak faith - so you must mean that you are 100% all faith in this regard - no evidence just maybe pure logic. And this is your religion!
Now don't contradict yourself - you mean that you have faith that it is 100% logical and reasonable since nothing, as you previously said, cannot be 100%. All is God is a weak faith - so you must mean that you are 100% all faith in this regard - no evidence just maybe pure logic. And this is your religion!
Yes...I have full (100%) faith it is logical and reasonable. Of course, I could be wrong.
I go by the known, full & complete, expert provided, definition of "G-O-D".
"ALL" comports definitively, merits the title "GOD", and does exist.
It kinda isn't a religion...as religions typically go.
Yes...I have full (100%) faith it is logical and reasonable. Of course, I could be wrong.
I go by the known, full & complete, expert provided, definition of "G-O-D".
"ALL" comports definitively, merits the title "GOD", and does exist.
It kinda isn't a religion...as religions typically go.
lmao, they absolutely freak out over three letters. When people froth at the mouth over the three letters, for it or against it, its a tell. There is no reasonable conversation to be had about how the universe works with emotionally unstable people.
I am, and I know other atheists are, fine with the observations pointing to us being part of a larger more complex system. I don't call it god. Appealing to the "bagge of the three letters" issue means that we are actually addressing an emotionally unstable person and NOT the "how the universe works." Again, a major tell.
I wonder why they don't address the irrational people instead of changing, shunning, minimizing, and dehumanizing how the universe works?
lmao, silly me, we know the reason.
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.
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.
And this is your religion!
