The joy of religion - part xxxxxxxxx

[soulcougher73]

Almost. Faith is NOT scientific. You cannot prove or disprove faith. What are you measuring? Is it repeatable and verifiable? You CAN disprove an idea based in reality though (your example is just that).

Faith is not belief in something unproven. It's just the opposite. Religious faith (which is the subject) CANNOT be proven.

M

Remember when the church/people used to have faith/believe the earth was flat? DISPROVEN

 

[Moonbeam]

Religions are bridges the intentions of which are to carry one over a chasm, shortcuts designed by people of knowledge, suited for a particular time and place, that can bring about a transcendent state of knowledge. There are a million bridges and they are all more or less effective for our time and place of which there are also many since the place includes various stages of spiritual evolution present on earth today.

There are two products that are possible. One are people who cross the bridge and no longer have any need or attachment to it, and those who fall in love with the bridge and worship it. These are the people the atheists refer to as the faithful. They are actually the ones whose faith was insufficient to cross. Atheists seem to take great pride in pointing out how silly the failures look complementing themselves, for example, that they themselves don't believe in gods that don't exist. They don't know about the ones who cross and are freed because they have no experience by which to imagine such a thing. The knowledge of love is known to those who taste it.

The God that does exist is known only to those who know Him. This is a knowledge that can't be given to any who do not deserve it nor kept from any who do. Justice is perfect.

The object of faith is surrender, not arrogant certainty. It is the offloading of the burden of self, the death of ego. He who empties his cup will have it filled. He who seeks in sincerity will find. God Consciousness is the practice of the laws of the human mind. laws that aren't known to many.

 

[maluckey]

Remember when the church/people used to have faith/believe the earth was flat? DISPROVEN

Umm, no...that is a common perception of the facts based on knowledge of the time, not faith. A belief regarding a physical reality must be logically challenged when the statement can be disproven. To do otherwise is willful ignorance of the facts.

Let's say that i believe that the earth is 100 years old old. It's a belief. Modern science tells us that it's billions of years old. To refute that, you'd have to show evidence that the geological evidence is faulty. No reliable evidence to show that the earth is 100 years old, so the conclusion of the argument stands at 4.6 Billion and change.

John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt has faith in an afterlife. No modern test can be devised. Ergo to John, it is valid. He will either be right or wrong upon cessation of life.

Religions are bridges the intentions of which are to carry one over a chasm, shortcuts designed by people of knowledge, suited for a particular time and place, that can bring about a transcendent state of knowledge. There are a million bridges and they are all more or less effective for our time and place of which there are also many since the place includes various stages of spiritual evolution present on earth today.

There are two products that are possible. One are people who cross the bridge and no longer have any need or attachment to it, and those who fall in love with the bridge and worship it. These are the people the atheists refer to as the faithful. They are actually the ones whose faith was insufficient to cross. Atheists seem to take great pride in pointing out how silly the failures look complementing themselves, for example, that they themselves don't believe in gods that don't exist. They don't know about the ones who cross and are freed because they have no experience by which to imagine such a thing. The knowledge of love is known to those who taste it.

The God that does exist is known only to those who know Him. This is a knowledge that can't be given to any who do not deserve it nor kept from any who do. Justice is perfect.

The object of faith is surrender, not arrogant certainty. It is the offloading of the burden of self, the death of ego. He who empties his cup will have it filled. He who seeks in sincerity will find. God Consciousness is the practice of the laws of the human mind. laws that aren't known to many.

Nice! You sometimes amaze me in your more lucid moments. I must admit that at other times, that (to me at least), you reside in another plane

M

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Personally, I could never understand the atheists point of view. To me, it's just a faith that God does not exist. One can neither absolutely prove nor disprove the existence of God. Agnosticism seems the much more logical approach to the question of the existence of God. As for me, I believe in a "Higher Power" and have no affiliation with any organized religion.

The Wife

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Personally, I could never understand the atheists point of view. To me, it's just a faith that God does not exist.

But it isn't.

One can neither absolutely prove nor disprove the existence of God.

One need not.

Agnosticism seems the much more logical approach to the question of the existence of God.

Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of any gods. It is a position about the confidence or surety a person has about their position on the existence of gods.

As for me, I believe in a "Higher Power" and have no affiliation with any organized religion.

Well, that's just ducky.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

But it isn't.

So if not faith, what??? Proof? No proof? With neither, I have to assume some sort of faith.

It is a position about the confidence or surety a person has about their position on the existence of gods. a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Webster's dictionary definition

Well, that's just ducky.

It is, isn't it?

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Oops...

Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of any gods. It is a position about the confidence or surety a person has about their position on the existence of gods.

Websters definition: It is a position about the confidence or surety a person has about their position on the existence of gods. a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

 

[jackstar7]

So if not faith, what??? Proof? No proof? With neither, I have to assume some sort of faith.

Webster's dictionary definition


It is, isn't it?

Maybe you should define faith if that's the word tripping you up...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Religions are bridges the intentions of which are to carry one over a chasm, shortcuts designed by people of knowledge, suited for a particular time and place, that can bring about a transcendent state of knowledge. There are a million bridges and they are all more or less effective for our time and place of which there are also many since the place includes various stages of spiritual evolution present on earth today.

There are two products that are possible. One are people who cross the bridge and no longer have any need or attachment to it, and those who fall in love with the bridge and worship it. These are the people the atheists refer to as the faithful. They are actually the ones whose faith was insufficient to cross. Atheists seem to take great pride in pointing out how silly the failures look complementing themselves, for example, that they themselves don't believe in gods that don't exist. They don't know about the ones who cross and are freed because they have no experience by which to imagine such a thing. The knowledge of love is known to those who taste it.

The God that does exist is known only to those who know Him. This is a knowledge that can't be given to any who do not deserve it nor kept from any who do. Justice is perfect.

The object of faith is surrender, not arrogant certainty. It is the offloading of the burden of self, the death of ego. He who empties his cup will have it filled. He who seeks in sincerity will find. God Consciousness is the practice of the laws of the human mind. laws that aren't known to many.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Thank you...I wish I was half as articulate. People who don't understand need to read and retread your post several times...it won't enlighten them per se, but it'll give them a basic understanding that the path is one of surrender and that hole they feel inside can only be filled by their surrender to God which pursues them...which they know intuitively, but will not admit to themselves. Religions are just constructs...there are many paths for those who seek.

 

[realibrad]

I will try again:

Suppose I told you that faith is important because depending on whether you observe with faith or not will determine if you know God exists or not, that God is one thing or another depending on how you observe.

In what way are yo using observe? to follow to perceive?

 

[realibrad]

Umm, no...that is a common perception of the facts based on knowledge of the time, not faith. A belief regarding a physical reality must be logically challenged when the statement can be disproven. To do otherwise is willful ignorance of the facts.

Let's say that i believe that the earth is 100 years old old. It's a belief. Modern science tells us that it's billions of years old. To refute that, you'd have to show evidence that the geological evidence is faulty. No reliable evidence to show that the earth is 100 years old, so the conclusion of the argument stands at 4.6 Billion and change.

John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt has faith in an afterlife. No modern test can be devised. Ergo to John, it is valid. He will either be right or wrong upon cessation of life.



Nice! You sometimes amaze me in your more lucid moments. I must admit that at other times, that (to me at least), you reside in another plane

M

I get the sense you are avoiding my comments.

You have again missed what I have been saying. To make a claim you need evidence. Why do you believe there is an afterlife? Why do you believe there is a God?

You are making non falsifiable claims without evidence. Why is your claim to God any more valid then the spaghetti monster? Moonie will say its because of what you feel, and that is evidence. Why do you believe?

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Maybe you should define faith if that's the word tripping you up... jackstar7 is online now Report Post

Websters def. "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" i.e The non existence of God or gods or the existence of God or gods... No definitive proof either way; atheists just take it on faith that there is no God. I will admit "faith" may not be an exact definition, so what, you just "know"? You "imagine"? You "think"? None implies definitive proof.

 

[realibrad]

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Thank you...I wish I was half as articulate. People who don't understand need to read and retread your post several times...it won't enlighten them per se, but it'll give them a basic understanding that the path is one of surrender and that hole they feel inside can only be filled by their surrender to God which pursues them...which they know intuitively, but will not admit to themselves. Religions are just constructs...there are many paths for those who seek.

I agree religions are constructs. They are also very often mutually exclusive in their beliefs. Jews dont believe in a hell. Mormons believe you get a planet when you die. Buddhist do not believe any of that. None of the religions leave an option for anything else. If you are to say they are wrong, then how can you prove it? Well, you can't. You also can't prove your beliefs are correct.

Why do you believe there is an after life that needs a bridge? People can convince themselves of a great many things, just one of which is that you are loved when you might not be.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So if not faith, what??? Proof? No proof? With neither, I have to assume some sort of faith.

No, not that either. Wanna take a third guess?

Webster's dictionary definition

1.) Dictionaries do not define words.

2.) In what way do you think this definition conflicts with my statements or supports your own?

 

[MongGrel]

I was going to comment but it would take a book.

And hours of typing so I'll just refrain.

Deciding what is for dinner takes precedence.

 

[maluckey]

I get the sense you are avoiding my comments.

You have again missed what I have been saying. To make a claim you need evidence. Why do you believe there is an afterlife? Why do you believe there is a God?

You are making non falsifiable claims without evidence. Why is your claim to God any more valid then the spaghetti monster? Moonie will say its because of what you feel, and that is evidence. Why do you believe?

not tracking you....I make no claim to be able to prove or disprove the existence of a higher being. I can't...because it's not able to be proven using any logic, or scientific method. All logical statements are either true or false. It would be rather difficult to prove, since death would be involved and all. Since I'm writing this, it means I'm not dead, and not in possession of any proof.

M

 

[runzwithsizorz]

No, not that either. Wanna take a third guess?

Sorry, not in the guessing game or parsing of words. Bottom line: Atheists have no more proof that God doesn't exist any more than religion has proof that He does. At least agnostics leave that question open, and therefore are the most open minded thinkers, IMO.

 

[realibrad]

not tracking you....I make no claim to be able to prove or disprove the existence of a higher being. I can't...because it's not able to be proven using any logic, or scientific method. All logical statements are either true or false. It would be rather difficult to prove, since death would be involved and all. Since I'm writing this, it means I'm not dead, and not in possession of any proof.

M

Answer one of my two questions from my post.

Why do you believe there is an afterlife? Why do you believe there is a God?

 

[realibrad]

Sorry, not in the guessing game or parsing of words. Bottom line: Atheists have no more proof that God doesn't exist any more than religion has proof that He does. At least agnostics leave that question open, and therefore are the most open minded thinkers, IMO.

This seems to be the main argument I hear now.

Atheist don't "know" there is not a god.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Atheism means you do not have belief. It does not mean you know there is not.

It really is amazing that people always fall back to this.

Because there is not evidence of a God, atheists say that they lack belief until such a time when evidence is presented. Lacking belief is different then knowing there is not something.

 

[MajinCry]

This seems to be the main argument I hear now.

Atheist don't "know" there is not a god.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Atheism means you do not have belief. It does not mean you know there is not.

It really is amazing that people always fall back to this.

Because there is not evidence of a God, atheists say that they lack belief until such a time when evidence is presented. Lacking belief is different then knowing there is not something.

Have these guys never seen a Christopher Hitchens debate? It'd do away with these tired, almost dishonest, arguments that are oft put forward.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Sorry, not in the guessing game or parsing of words. Bottom line: Atheists have no more proof that God doesn't exist any more than religion has proof that He does. At least agnostics leave that question open, and therefore are the most open minded thinkers, IMO.

You simply have no idea what you're taking about. No wonder you come to such silly conclusions.

 

[MongGrel]

You simply have no idea what you're taking about. No wonder you come to such silly conclusions.

The problem with things like this is if you just outright do not believe in the concept of a god to begin with people hang tags on you.

"Your this, or that" when actually they want to be just left alone as far as religon goes, and people make up tags.

Little maps don't change the fact, it is just the others persons viewpoint.

It's a moot point, and just another reason to ignore them.

What are you when you really don't consider it a subject to begin with, over than something other people try to throw at you ?

 

[dank69]

Sorry, not in the guessing game or parsing of words. Bottom line: Atheists have no more proof that God doesn't exist any more than religion has proof that He does. At least agnostics leave that question open, and therefore are the most open minded thinkers, IMO.

The problem here seems to be that you think it is possible to prove something doesn't exist. It isn't possible to prove something does not exist. Try proving that Santa does not exist as an exercise.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

We agree!!! Agnostics believe it is not possible to know/prove the existence of God therefore cannot state with absolute certainty the existence or non existence of God. This does not mean agnostics can never become theists or atheists or anything in between. It just means they do not know and cannot prove the unknowable.

 

[realibrad]

The problem with things like this is if you just outright do not believe in the concept of a god to begin with people hang tags on you.

"Your this, or that" when actually they want to be just left alone as far as religon goes, and people make up tags.

Little maps don't change the fact, it is just the others persons viewpoint.

It's a moot point, and just another reason to ignore them.

What are you when you really don't consider it a subject to begin with, over than something other people try to throw at you ?

Labels are not good or bad. Some people like to dismiss arguments from people who they label, but that does not make labels good/bad. if you dont consider a subject then you are an atheist. An agnostic would be someone that has been told about a God, and says there is no way to know if that god is or is not real. The fact that someone might not consider the subject means they lack belief as they have not thought on it. At that point they are an atheist on that subject. They could change their mind and they would cease being an atheist.

You seem to be the same track as Neil Degrasse Tyson in that God is not worth a consideration either way. The problem with that of course is that even if you don't want to engage, you likely will be anyway. Tyson does not want to label himself an atheist because he does not want his opinions dismissed be it religious opinions or otherwise. But, people are people and just because you dont want to have your arguments dismissed does not mean they care.