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.
After you die, and then come back to life to tell us the above, then I would be open to agree with you.
What you are saying is not an evidence. Just your words. How do you know our consciousness does not continue in some form after we die?
Because our conscience is dependent upon the functioning of the brain. We can modify it, suspend it, eliminate it and make successful predictions about how it will react, using drugs and other external stimuli.
Faith is what you use when the evidence tells you what you don't want to be true.
Sounds question-begging to me. But no problem! By this definition, I'll just ask you for the evidence that god doesn't exist. Because that's the main faith these people have, and you're saying that faith is used specifically when the evidence suggests something contrary.
Quote:
Faith is the last refuge of those who have had their arguments defeated by logic and reason.
Okay now, wait. Do both of these conditions have to be met for it to be "faith", or just one? Because I've seen atheists have their arguments defeated by logic and reason too. So would you say they are having faith in the beliefs that logic and reason contradicted?
Quote:
Faith is simply the practice of ignoring the supportable in favour of a desired belief.
I suppose that answers my question. Seems that "faith" isn't a theist/atheist distinction. I can get on board with that. But if we still say "All theists have faith", then that just obligates us again to show that by believing in a god these people are ignoring the supportable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
As for 'faith', why should I define a word other people are using? I am merely pointing out how GoCardinals keeps changing definitions from religious faith to trusting a bridge will not collapse.
Ohh. Well I have heard this working definition offered by Christians, ie. "to put faith in something". Personally, I favor "belief without evidence".
Quote:
No, you only used the correct word if we are guilty of evidentialism.
A person can talk about evidentialism in your presence without it meaning you're being accused of it.
Sounds question-begging to me. But no problem! By this definition, I'll just ask you for the evidence that god doesn't exist. Because that's the main faith these people have, and you're saying that faith is used specifically when the evidence suggests something contrary.
Okay now, wait. Do both of these conditions have to be met for it to be "faith", or just one? Because I've seen atheists have their arguments defeated by logic and reason too. So would you say they are having faith in the beliefs that logic and reason contradicted?
I suppose that answers my question. Seems that "faith" isn't a theist/atheist distinction. I can get on board with that. But if we still say "All theists have faith", then that just obligates us again to show that by believing in a god these people are ignoring the supportable.
Ohh. Well I have heard this working definition offered by Christians, ie. "to put faith in something". Personally, I favor "belief without evidence".
A person can talk about evidentialism in your presence without it meaning you're being accused of it.
I'd be more than happy to concede whatever definition the anti-theist wants to give "faith". So long as they leave room to distinguish "faith" from "blind faith", chances are I'll be able to dismantle their argument/show how their complaint is invalid. Usually it boils down to an expression of evidentialism, which as I've been saying for years now is dead.
Doesn't the false and misleading saying go: "Even more blessed are you who do not see, and still believe."
Doesn't the false and misleading saying go: "Even more blessed are you who do not see, and still believe."
I don't think it says "Even more blessed...". And I interpreted that verse to just be saying "The ones who believe without having all the physical confirmations are blessed". But by "blind faith" I mean belief for no good reason at all (e.g., "I believe there's a god because that's what I was raised to believe"). Not only lacking physical evidence but all other sorts of good reason too.
I don't think it says "Even more blessed...". And I interpreted that verse to just be saying "The ones who believe without having all the physical confirmations are blessed". But by "blind faith" I mean belief for no good reason at all (e.g., "I believe there's a god because that's what I was raised to believe"). Not only lacking physical evidence but all other sorts of good reason too.
You "interpreted it away" you mean. Because clearly, plainly, and not torturously, the moral of the story is "blind faith in me, Jesus, is better than requiring evidence (let alone determinative evidence) to believe in me."
And if they are not "more blessed" for their cheap blind faith, and as such their lower to no-evidence faith is equal to higher to conclusive evidence faith, then who would the quote contrast with Thomas at all? Thomas only had SOME of the physical evidence.
For one thing, the new Jesus didn't look the same as the old Jesus otherwise one could say that being a God he healed his own wounds if he didn't have any.
For another, anyone could have put holes in their palms and their sides.
And for a third, even more likely can a lie be written to have been demonstrated, when it wasn't demonstrated at all.
The moral of the story is "blessed are you who have put your heart upon hearsay myths rather than your eyes and what is testable before you."
You "interpreted it away" you mean. Because clearly, plainly, and not torturously, the moral of the story is "blind faith in me, Jesus, is better than requiring evidence (let alone determinative evidence) to believe in me."
Let's see... Nope! I just looked it up. John 20: 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” There is no "more blessed" anywhere in the verse
Quote:
And if they are not "more blessed" for their cheap blind faith,
Again, simply reading the narrative you're trying to analyze would do wonders for you. It's talking about a man who had to see and feel Jesus physically before believing that he had risen from the dead. It is not promoting "blind faith" as in "faith without good reason", that's just an assumption on your part.
Quote:
For one thing, the new Jesus didn't look the same as the old Jesus otherwise one could say that being a God he healed his own wounds if he didn't have any.
Where are you finding that Jesus didn't look the same?
Quote:
For another, anyone could have put holes in their palms and their sides.
Right, so we can make up a twin brother for Jesus, one that was willing to stab his hands and ribs so that people would believe he was his brother resurrected...
Quote:
And for a third, even more likely can a lie be written to have been demonstrated, when it wasn't demonstrated at all.
As for that particular passage, sure it could just be a lie. I wasn't at any point trying to argue that it happened. I was just addressing your characterization of "Blessed are those who have not seen yet still believe".
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.
