MACS
  • MACS
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
8 years ago
Tail... we all know that neither side can 'prove' they are correct. So it's all based on faith. On purpose.

The bible says God created us, and gave us free will to choose to believe in Him or not. If we could prove His existence, the free will would be gone. If He came down and tapped Victor on the shoulder and said, "Here I am"... Victor would no longer have a choice to dismiss Him.

Faith - belief without proof. We have faith that he exists, they have faith that He does not. Both arguments are based on what we 'believe to be true with zero proof'.
View All Posts by User
DrafterX
8 years ago
Check out 'The Privileged Planet'... not really proof of anything but very interesting stuff.... mainly our location and surroundings and how we're somewhat protected in the universe.. 😟
View All Posts by User
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
8 years ago

Hehe.
It's funny when people try to prove they're really really smart by trying to prove someone else's faith has no merit.
They talk about probabilities and stats and sciency facts, all the while not knowing what the word "faith" means.

Religion is a concrete, man-made entity.
But faith and belief are not.

You may as well try to prove that eggplant is better tasting than steak.


I find it odd that atheists like to point out inconsistencies in faith as proof it's false. Yet contradictions in science are just a new vision based on the latest evidence.
It's OK for them to change their views based on new information. But it's not OK for a creationist (for example) to alter their view on how their god can coexist with scientific evidence on evolution. It's like they (the atheists) want to make the rules for what's OK to believe in.

tailgater wrote:



I have no qualms with what people of faith believe in. Because I choose to not have faith in a deity does not imply that I GAF what you believe in.

Also, as I've stated in the past, I do believe that the standard model of physics is missing things and that some of it could just be flat out wrong. Though I do have faith in the good scientists putting their heart and soul into advancing our scientific knowledge. I believe that in time our knowledge of the way the universe works will get better due to the hard work of all the dedicated scientists out there.

So to say that we have no faith is inaccurate, everyone has faith in something.

I choose to believe in the hard working people out there trying to expand our collective knowledge.
View All Posts by User
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
8 years ago
Oh, and thanks MACS for starting this thread... I got sh1t to do [ram27bat]
View All Posts by User
victor809
8 years ago

Tail... we all know that neither side can 'prove' they are correct. So it's all based on faith. On purpose.

The bible says God created us, and gave us free will to choose to believe in Him or not. If we could prove His existence, the free will would be gone. If He came down and tapped Victor on the shoulder and said, "Here I am"... Victor would no longer have a choice to dismiss Him.

Faith - belief without proof. We have faith that he exists, they have faith that He does not. Both arguments are based on what we 'believe to be true with zero proof'.

MACS wrote:



I gotta say you're missing a step here MACS.
I understand what you're trying to get at, as it's a common argument among religious people, stating that an atheist is just having "faith" that there is no god.

But you're allowing yourself more flexibility than you really deserve.

The universe is enormously complex already. And we as humans are just trying to piece it together. As we figure out more about it, and provide evidence to its workings, we document that. That is science.

Science occasionally posits ideas about how the universe started. These are based on knowledge we have about physics. They are not set in stone, no one alters their day to day activities around it. Those who care look at the ideas, say "huh, that's interesting, makes sense... " and go about our days. If it's later proven to be wrong, we say "huh... guess we need more info" nothing about our lives is in any way altered.

Religion, however tries to fill in the gaps in our understanding (they used to be larger) with some single entity (I'm using christianity because that's most of the people here) which did everything we don't understand. You then alter your life in some way (prayer, church, behavior) to fit what you believe this god wants. You have faith, and you have to have faith, because your religion demands it. But more importantly, if your religion is shown to be incorrect, that DOES change your life. that is faith. Your actions are different because of your belief.

To equate both as "faith" is a fault many religious people have because they are unable to, or unwilling to look at the world through any lens other than that of a believer.

And, I'd like to point out (sidebar) ... you're correct. If your god came down today and proved his existence to me, I would have no choice but to believe in his existence. But I would not become religious. I have no desire, nor will I ever have any desire (barring some omnipotent being changing the fundamental wiring of my brain) to follow a deity which behaved in the manner described in the bible. I would choose not to follow him
View All Posts by User
burnem2
8 years ago
Thanks for your relaying your personal beliefs and not just arguing for arguments sake, Ben. I respect your position and yeah, it kinda sucks having to repent for every time I **** up.....LOL!! I seem to do that a lot!!
View All Posts by User
dstieger
8 years ago

I wonder what everyone here would have thought if the video was of an Iman quoting the Quran? My answer is and will always be 42.

Buckwheat wrote:



This was rhetorical and probably dismissed by most who read it....but it relates to where my mind keeps going back to....

If I stood up and said that Bin Laden was right and is with his 72 virgins right now, I suspect that most believers here would have a problem accepting that statement. But, to me, it really isn't much (any?) different than saying 'live a good life and go to heaven'. If a jihadist faithfully believes that what his God expects, who are you to question his belief....or morality, even?

To expand a little on what I said above....the whole 'faith' part bothers me to a pretty great extent. I'm sure that some would argue the point, but I think that blind faith requires surrender of free will. I place a pretty high value on reason and free will, so the idea of unquestioning faith distresses me a lot. Despite MACS's protestation above, I do think that it is a symbol of weakness for many -- a cop out, even? Not for all, of course. Most who have truly contemplated why they believe what they do and have come to terms with it have exercised their free will and capacity to reason, even if I disagree with their conclusions. But, so much of religious dogma expects acceptance whether supported by reason or not...and that will always trouble me.
View All Posts by User
victor809
8 years ago
And I just want to throw out another point that always has bothered me.

Religious people always want to focus on the "beginning of the universe" as their linchpin for why science is wrong and they're right. It's irritating in its lack of logic.

Science not being able to prove without a doubt how the universe started, or what was there before the universe, is not evidence of a god. Once you've added a god to the mix, you are just as responsible for identifying what came before that god as science is for identifying what came before the big bang (or other theory). Religion of course refuses to do this, as it would imply that their deity is not eternal, but that's simply not an excuse. It weakens any religious argument, to not be willing to probe the boundaries of the deity, and indicates an unwillingness to think critically about your own faith.
View All Posts by User
Gene363
8 years ago

A vegan, a cross-fitter, and an atheist walk into the room.

I know this, because each told me so within 5 minutes.






tailgater wrote:




😂 😂 😂
The escape pod: https://cigarbid.freeforums.net 
View All Posts by User
delta1
8 years ago
Given the age of the universe, the mathematical improbabilities of random occurrences all combining to create life as we exist seem to not be as impossible as assumed. One hundred million to one odds seem pretty decent when that probability is compared to the age of the universe: 13-14 billion years. In that time span those random occurrences could've happened thousands of times.

Honestly, I don't think any of us are intelligent enough to fathom creation, or what existed before creation. Our body of knowledge and understanding is based on no more than a few thousand years of discovery. Our astrophysical body of knowledge is really in its infancy, using tools and technology developed over only a few hundred years. Our knowledge is limited to what we've observed from a minuscule and stationary peephole into the broad expanse. We don't really know all that we don't know, and it is possible that some things will remain unknowable.

We attain knowledge from all previous collective experiences of mankind, and given the short history of intelligent societies using written language, our body of knowledge is pretty small. So we must fill that void of understanding with faith. Faith requires us to believe what some other man tells us, when we all know from our own experiences that every man that ever was, is, has flaws. So I am skeptical, but will not judge nor belittle those who believe. I can't argue, when in fact I agree, when believers say there must be a higher being that can be called the Creator, a deity, a God. I accept that there must be, and also accept that I have no idea what the nature of the creator is.

Where I part company with those who believe is when they want me to believe that their set of beliefs, and their professors are the only authentic ones. If that brings them comfort, then I am happy for them. I am happy and have comfort eating bitter melon in black bean sauce with beef - most people I know hate that stuff - and I wouldn't try to change that.
View All Posts by User
Gene363
8 years ago
Who created life, if not God, man should be able to create life. To that point I offer this:


The Contest

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!" But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You must make your own dirt!"
The escape pod: https://cigarbid.freeforums.net 
View All Posts by User
cacman
8 years ago
View All Posts by User
Speyside
8 years ago
I think the mechanism is very straight forward. You either believe in God or you do not. There is no absolute proof of God's existence or God's non existence. All of the above posts are an example of that. It is what each of you think. I am good with the fact that there are an unlimited number of ideas about God. I agree with Victor that an atheist does not have faith. I think an empirical belief would be more accurate. Though I know I am reaching when I say that. If God exists there will never be a way to prove it. To me believing in God is a leap of faith. You don't need empirical evidence to prove your belief, you have faith that you are correct.
View All Posts by User
victor809
8 years ago

Who created life, if not God, man should be able to create life. To that point I offer this:


Gene363 wrote:



To claim that if we cannot replicate what we are estimating occurred over billions of years is evidence of an outside party is simply poor logic.

That's like saying if you, as a man, can't give birth, women must not exist.
View All Posts by User
jjanecka
8 years ago
Victor, everything the Church teaches hinges on creation. Not just in the beginning but throughout the entirety of history. It's not so much that creation is the linchpin but moreso the statement of what God did.
View All Posts by User
victor809
8 years ago

Victor, everything the Church teaches hinges on creation. Not just in the beginning but throughout the entirety of history. It's not so much that creation is the linchpin but moreso the statement of what God did.

jjanecka wrote:



I don't disagree at all.
But that doesn't absolve the religion of logic. If not having identified what the universe looked like prior to the "big bang" (or other initiation event) is evidence enough for the religious minded to not believe in it, then they should also be questioning similar initiation events surrounding their deity. What came before god, so to speak. How was god created. The idea of "eternal" flies in the face of simple entropy. What I'm getting at is simply that the same questions the religious minded think are "gotcha" questions surrounding science really can be applied just as well to any religious faith. They just refuse to apply them.
View All Posts by User
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
8 years ago

Victor, everything the Church teaches hinges on creation. Not just in the beginning but throughout the entirety of history. It's not so much that creation is the linchpin but moreso the statement of what God did.

jjanecka wrote:




What does the church say about who created God?

Does God just have dominion over this universe, or does he have dominion over all universes?

If just this universe, that would imply there exists more than one god, doesn't that contradict monotheism?

Define "the beginning".
View All Posts by User
BuckyB93
8 years ago
Pascal's Wager
View All Posts by User
RMAN4443
8 years ago

I don't disagree at all.
But that doesn't absolve the religion of logic. If not having identified what the universe looked like prior to the "big bang" (or other initiation event) is evidence enough for the religious minded to not believe in it, then they should also be questioning similar initiation events surrounding their deity. What came before god, so to speak. How was god created. The idea of "eternal" flies in the face of simple entropy. What I'm getting at is simply that the same questions the religious minded think are "gotcha" questions surrounding science really can be applied just as well to any religious faith. They just refuse to apply them.

victor809 wrote:


I went to Catholic School in Jr. High and elementary School........in Jr. High I had Earth Science at 9:45 and Religion class at 10:45........I spent many hours in detention and the Mother Superior's office for asking those questions......Science teacher was a lay person and answered questions with scientific answers, and Religion class was taught by a nun who answered all questions religiously........no one could ever tell me how God came to be, only that God was a Supreme being and created the world in seven days........????????
Nowadays, while I'm not overly religious, my philosophy is more of a "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I believe there is something more powerful than man in this universe, but I can't prove it........I just try to be a good person to others, charitable when I can be, and to live my life as a "good" person........not that it always works out that way, but hey, I'm human.........[-o< 😰
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com