|
Post by notavailable on Nov 21, 2009 14:27:41 GMT -5
Actually, he's not.
Faith is illogical. That is just true. Your f**king bible even says that.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Brent is only "wrong" because he sees no point in having faith because it is illogical. And that is only "wrong" to you, because somewhere along the road, you decided that there was some sort of point or purpose to having faith, even though it was illogical.
ATTN: CHRISTIANS: THE POINT OF YOUR FAITH IS THAT YOU BELIEVE HE EXISTS EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T LOGICALLY PROVE IT.
Without that faith, you wouldn't have religion. You would have undeniable proof, and everyone would believe the same thing you do, because there would be no argument, because there would be no doubt, and therefore there would be no freedom of choice, because everyone would know that God exists. You can't prove its true, you are only supposed to believe its true.
|
|
|
Post by feverstone on Nov 21, 2009 16:05:15 GMT -5
As a theist, and not a Christian, I believe that the idea of a god is logical. Just like an atom. You can't see, feel, touch or smell it... but that doesn't mean the concept is illogical. From a scientific standpoint, we assume it's there because a lot of data points to it. While faith doesn't exactly equal logic, that doesn't mean that faith equals absurdity.
Edit: If something is true, regardless of faith, it more or less will have evidence for being so. Otherwise we go once again into Brent's purple flying elephant scenario.
A common misconception amongst everyone (even Christians) is the idea that The Bible is speaking of BLIND faith. It isn't. That's a thought that's widely accepted by people who don't read the Bible very much.
|
|
|
Post by notavailable on Nov 21, 2009 16:21:15 GMT -5
As a theist, and not a Christian, I believe that the idea of a god is logical. Just like an atom. You can't see, feel, touch or smell it... but that doesn't mean the concept is illogical. From a scientific standpoint, we assume it's there because a lot of data points to it. While faith doesn't exactly equal logic, that doesn't mean that faith equals absurdity. That's a belief, that you have. That's not a widely accepted fact, however. The kind "faith" that you speak of that science has in things like atoms, and black holes and what not, is not really faith, but rather deduction based on factual evidence, or as you put it, "lots of data". The problem with the idea of God as most of you here would have it is that there just isn't "lots of data" to support it. And by "lots of data", I mean the kind of data that can be readily embraced by people outside of your general way of thinking, regardless of bias. That's concrete fact. You can't support an idea you came up with with evidence that only makes sense when coupled with the idea that you came up with. No one else will believe it. Also, faith doesn't equal absurdity, but it does mean sticking your neck out for something you can't be sure of. And that will get a lot of people to think of your faith as absurd. And Feverstone, in all honesty, you seem about as much of a "theist" (as opposed to a "christian") as Glenn Beck is "bi-partisan".
|
|
runny
New Member
I am cool or something.
Posts: 11
|
Post by runny on Nov 21, 2009 16:55:49 GMT -5
As a theist, and not a Christian, I believe that the idea of a god is logical. Just like an atom. You can't see, feel, touch or smell it... but that doesn't mean the concept is illogical. From a scientific standpoint, we assume it's there because a lot of data points to it. While faith doesn't exactly equal logic, that doesn't mean that faith equals absurdity. Edit: If something is true, regardless of faith, it more or less will have evidence for being so. Otherwise we go once again into Brent's purple flying elephant scenario. A common misconception amongst everyone (even Christians) is the idea that The Bible is speaking of BLIND faith. It isn't. That's a thought that's widely accepted by people who don't read the Bible very much. I believe you just call yourself a theist because its the "hip" thing to be a theist now a days or something.
|
|
|
Post by feverstone on Nov 21, 2009 17:32:21 GMT -5
(Sorry for the incoherent response. I don't have a lot of time on my hands.) That's a belief, that you have. That's not a widely accepted fact, however. The kind "faith" that you speak of that science has in things like atoms, and black holes and what not, is not really faith, but rather deduction based on factual evidence, or as you put it, "lots of data". The problem with the idea of God as most of you here would have it is that there just isn't "lots of data" to support it. There is just as much data "proving" there's a god as there is "disproving" (cliche, I know). I personally believe that the idea of a god is more logical than believing there isn't one—there are too many questions left unanswered in atheism. And if you stick to the idea that there isn't "lots of data" supporting the existence of some sort of deity, then you're pretty closed-minded. Sticking your neck out? You misunderstood me. (My bad.) I was talking from merely theist standpoint—since Christianity equals Theism, but Theism doesn't exactly equal Christianity. With Christianity one also bears the weight of explaining The Bible's God. I was talking from standpoint that "a god exists." That's all. Oh yeah, dood. It's totally hip. ...
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 21, 2009 18:04:50 GMT -5
I'd say it takes more faith to believe there is no God.
|
|
|
Post by alastairjohnjack on Nov 21, 2009 18:08:29 GMT -5
This thread is hilarious. My LOLs aren't big enough for it.
|
|
|
Post by feverstone on Nov 21, 2009 18:18:31 GMT -5
You can resize them!
To be honest, this debate won't go anywhere it hasn't been before. So until I get more time to build proper arguments, I'm going to stop.
|
|
|
Post by Zhou Tai 04 on Nov 21, 2009 21:13:59 GMT -5
n/a is absolutely correct...and this is coming from a Christian, so take that as you will.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 21, 2009 21:35:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Nov 21, 2009 23:48:43 GMT -5
Feverstone:
God cannot be scientifically proven, we cannot know what elements he is made of and all that chemistry s**t I don't even know about.
All I know is atoms have protons/electrons/neutrons etc.
|
|
runny
New Member
I am cool or something.
Posts: 11
|
Post by runny on Nov 22, 2009 0:04:52 GMT -5
Feverstone: God cannot be scientifically proven, we cannot know what elements he is made of and all that chemistry s**t I don't even know about. All I know is atoms have protons/electrons/neutrons etc. Id say He cant be scientifically proven or disproven. Science doesnt disprove God. If you guys want to object and show me something, have at it.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Nov 22, 2009 0:35:33 GMT -5
I know.
Refer to sig.
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Nov 22, 2009 1:46:22 GMT -5
Or hell, refer to the OP.Isn't that exactly what the f**king video was about?!?
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Nov 22, 2009 2:46:29 GMT -5
yes
|
|