It works for me!
Offline
Faith in Jesus works for me - it's exciting. I love the Bible and believe all of it - though there is mystery. There is mystery everywhere though, right? I am a incredibly happy believer in Jesus. I'm not a theologian, I just believe in Jesus.
I understand you can't make anybody believe in Jesus and the Bible, and I don't personally try to do that. But I highly recommend it from my experience with it. I can't get enough of the Bible or Jesus. I can't imagine trying to navigate through life without it at this point in my life.
I don't think Jesus or God is a thing you can prove to somebody. I heard about it a large percentage of my life and it didn't mean anything to me until a certain point - then that all changed.
So do you guys think that I'm fooling myself, not really happy, you don't believe me, or do you really think I can't be as happy or enlightened as you - are you evangelistic in that sense or what? What is the purpose of this site? Do you have something better to offer? If so, what is your gospel?
- Login to post comments
Just as there was nothing but chaos in the material void when the Spirit of God moved over it, just as there was nothing to help the Spirit of God to order it, so it is with man.
There is nothing in man to help the Spirit of God in his resurrection, nothing to welcome or prepare the way. It is all the work of God. Man's heart can promise himself help, but "the heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it?" Man's will steers his ship, but man's stubborn will won't consider submission to the Spirit's rule.
If Jesus waited until man was ready to welcome Him He would have never come and no man ever been saved. So this light shines in the darkness - and the darkness has not put it out. The gospel has the power to save, and the Spirit has the Power to give Life. The table is set, the lamp is lit - Wisdom has sent her maidens out to call in the simple, those without understanding, "come to the feast".
But there is another woman - Folly - calling too. Many think she has something for them and they rush in like stags into a snare. They fall into a deep pit. It's fast food for the simple.
But with some the tiniest seed will fall in the corrosive condition and grow. The man's heart will be cut with the foolishness of God - the gospel of Christ's atoning Death on the cross, God redeeming man satisfying His Own Justice in His Divine Love even for His enemies. The man will come to himself and go through the agony of repentance, and the seed will be watered and survive with the skill of the Great Gardener, growing stronger than the mighty oak, nurtured from above. The metamorphous happens and the caterpillar becomes a butterfly yet remembers when he was a worm.
I have experienced this. I have found the treasure. I am enjoying the life that is life indeed - which is in Christ. And I recommend it to all. It is beyond your wildest expectations. It is more than you can imagine without experiencing it yourselves. The Way to Life is hard and narrow - but eternally worth it.
So, tell us about your day, what have you done. Get some new knee pads or a new cross wall hanging?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I am pretty bad, but you didn't have to go and tell him about it ><
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
BobSpence1,
I don't doubt that you are sincere from your viewpoint. I have evidence too but not as you have characterized it - as simply "feelings", "happy", "ease". You remember Paul even greatly desired to share in Christ's sufferings - anything to bring him closer.
I have spiritual evidence for spiritual things, Bob and in honesty and integrity. And there are always new truths to be discovered in the Scriptures and their application.
The feelings you decribe could be garnered from a belief that the purple people eater loves you. In reality he is eating your brain. nom nom nom
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Fonzie,
It pains me to see you caught in this never-ending menstrual cycle of dishonesty. The christcancer has inflamed your cowardice; you lack the courage to answer simple 'a' or 'b' questions, now an infinite + 5 times.
Elvis said, "He who cannot answer 'a' or 'b' hath neither honesty nor integrity." Your moobs hang with dishonest estrogen, much like your fake saviour hung from the cross for his lies.
There are no theists on operating tables.
That is your fundamental error, your delusion, that 'spiritual' experience can verifiably be shown or known to indicate anything beyond a certain kind of internal mental function. It 'feels' real and true, but that feeling proves nothing about the actual reality of what it seems to point to. That is the essence of delusion - it is absolutely 'real' and convincing to the person experiencing it.
However without some sort of empirical correlation, there is absolutely no warrant to claim it to be more than a delusion, some sort of 'waking dream'.
I am not questioning your personal integrity in reporting this experience as justifying your belief, just your reluctance to even acknowledge the possibility that you may be deluded in this sense. I can understand why that would be extremely hard for you to admit, since you have clearly so much emotional and life investment in your world of 'faith'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
BobSpence1,
I understand what you are saying. Paul made a statement about the possibility we are deceived about the LORD and the gospel - that if we are we "are of all men most to be pitied". Whatever it is in man that enables a man to "connect" with spiritual things - there is faith involved, true. And I am aware there are false manifestations of professed spiritual things; for instance there is a question about whether "speaking in tongues" is happening today. It's never happened to me. I have read of the phenomenon happening in idol worship which would mean man is capable of false manifestations of the phenomenon. I admit I have faith and am using faith and supported by faith - and I say my faith is supported by spiritual rock.
The point I think is equally hard for you is that you use faith at every turn in your sorting things out. There is no purely objective approach Bob - you bring your spiritual nature along whether you want to or not. It's there whether you acknowledge it or not. Without your spirit you have no life and in order for you to size things up in your world and suspend judgment you use a form of faith. You resist admitting that at every turn. And what if I am right about that Bob - where does that put you in your approach?
It puts him the same place you are at, actually. You both have a limited view of reality, he just calls his science and you call your Jesus. His limited view gives us technological advances and weapons of mass destruction, while your limited view gives us Desmond Tutu and George W. Bush. I wish you both could start talking about how to promote technological advances and Desmond Tutu.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
I do not use 'faith', at least not in the blind, baseless, empty sense that it applies to the imaginary, paper-mache imitation 'rock' that is your delusionary world.
If I use the word in any meaningful sense, it is in the sense of a provisional trust in principles for which I have at least some grounds to accept as likely to be true.
I admit and embrace a true version of 'spirituality', as referring to those feelings of ultimate meanings, of wonder and awe about reality itself, minus the primitive encrustations of Gods and prophets, messiahs and imaginary realms, whether of heaven or hell. IOW, that raw aspect of our consciousness which in primitive and naive people inspires religious ideas.
I did not claim a pure objective approach, only that my approach has at least some claim to a measure of objectivity, whereas yours is pure fantasy, and wishful thinking.
We certainly do need emotional drives and urges to keep us going, pure objectivity does not necessarily give a 'reason' to live. They can be derived and nourished by various means, religion being what many rely on, of course. Art of various kinds, finding creative outlets, exchanging ideas with others, pursuing ever 'deeper' insights into 'Life, the Universe, and Everything', and so on, are some of the other ways, which need no reference to religious ideas, altho some will inevitably find ways to bring 'God' in.
But in these pursuits I feel it is important not to confuse the need for subjective experience for 'spiritual' nourishment with the complementary need to have an understanding of objective reality to the extent it is possible, and even more important not to let our desires lead us to confuse fantasy and imagination with empirical reality. We need to have a reasonably accurate model of objective reality to allow us to successfully address the demands and challenges of the 'real' world.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
So what is the brink? At what point is the 'line' crossed, and how do I know if I've crossed it? Periodically, I'll find an atheist who engages metaphysics or the "beyond natural" (I won't use supernatural) and find utility is the drive.
I still can't the naturalist or naturalized evidence of an "objective reality." I see continual demand for "proof" of my mythology (easy now), help me out here.
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
??
Who are you addressing?
I can't find any posts talking about a 'brink' or 'crossing a line' on at least the last few pages of this thread.
'Beyond natural' is still just a reference to stuff that can only be guesswork, speculation, about things we currently know nothing about.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
BobSpence1,
Did you come up with this system yourself or from others or both?
Woot!! You finally said something simple and straight forward. So does this mean you can answer a multiple choice question now? What do you value more, truth or your beleifs? Type A for truth and B for your beleifs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You cannot disprove the existance of God, but you also cannot disprove the existance of an all powerfull, incomprehesible, pink elephant that lives in the boot of my car.
Nah he is just preconceiving rebuttals to his little multiple choice Q to Bob. This guy is easy to read.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Both of course, like everything of importance.
I read a lot, talk to people, listen to broadcast programs, now more podcasts, weigh it all against my own experience, including a number of really high points observing nature, people, the Universe (especially those incredible Hubble pics), some internal 'revelations', like when I finally purged the last sneaking vestige of respect for 'God' ideas, from my mind.
I don't see it as a 'system', just how the continuing process of 'growing up', maturing, continuing to learn from all kinds of experience, has worked out for me.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Fonzie. Since you still haven't answered my question, I will rephrase it in a way that might be easier for you to understand.
If you had to choose between Jesus and truth, which one would you choose?
(Yes, I know Jesus = truth. Which one would you choose in the hypothetical case where they are not equal?)
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
double post
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
BobSpence1,
Bob that's faith invested in people you talk to, broadcast and podcast people, your experience, your judgment on it all, your observation, your inner 'revelations' like when you focused all your faith on and in yourself - and faith in your not seeing it as a 'system' but 'growing up', 'maturing', continuing to improve this wonderful whatever you have confidence is working out for you. You can't prove you're right in your faith. And just because you produce a laptop it's not proven - anymore than getting a dishwasher for your wife proves love. You atheists are running on unadmitted faith. You can't prove what you have your faith and life treasury invested in is right. Maybe you can prove it to yourself to your own satisfaction, but you can't prove conclusively you are right in your conclusions.
I have a totally different faith - it's not a result of my own work. Though it was delivered through men they didn't speak with their own interpretation - they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The faith I have "is finished" - it was finished when Christ died - I mean it is not a developing system. It is there complete - I just have to try to make it complete in me. I'm trying to grow up into the Head which is Christ. I admit faith as faith - I am walking by faith in Jesus Christ. I can't prove Christ to you - but that's your problem. I Know Whom I believe in. What you are doing is nothing new according to my Bible (conclusive for me). You are trying to direct your own life path from men (including yourself - the "top man). Scripture says it's not within you to direct your own path, so your path goes nowhere according to the Word of God which I have faith in as true in every respect. The Path, The Way, which is Jesus, gets brighter and brighter until the Dawn of New Day.
Just because I'm saying this to you frankly and direct doesn't prove I have no concern. Surely your reasoning would admit that possibility. It would be fruitless to try to prove that to atheists who have no faith in me or my God, so I won't. But I'm right about this. You can put that in your flame spectrometer and smoke it.
Fonzie, that is a simply not true.
My attitude does not involve 'faith', in any meaningful sense. Just making a series of reasonable starting assumptions, not even beliefs, just because we have to start somewhere.
They do not represent 'faith', since I am prepared to adjust them as experience shows that some variation may work better.
I now stay with my current attitudes because they seem to work, having developed over a long period, and appear to be consistent with other information I get from other people, both from what they say and do. Even so, I still occasionally hear or read something which causes me to rethink something.
The key difference is that my ideas are drawn from observation of reality, in as wide a sense as possible, and checking them against other ideas.
Whereas yours seem to be focussed on one particular set of ancient writings and ideas and beliefs based on them. How many other religions have you investigated to check whether you have the 'right' faith?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
The problem with your faith in the writers of your book, Fonzie, is that they have an amazing knack of pulling each other in the opposite directions.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Fonzie, my understanding is not all my own work, I listen to many people, many of my fundamental insights have been triggered by, adapted from, the expressed understandings of others. And I hope, and have reason to believe, that I have in turn helped others to grasp new insights.
Are you saying that you made no personal decisions, judgements, as to what particular doctrine, what of the many interpretations of the scriptures to follow?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Science generally "runs into a concrete wall" with regards to human behavior and subjective reasoning. Scientists aren't going to one day become world leaders and founders of major cities, political organizations, supreme court justices, banking institutions or public speakers, and with good reason: scientific philosophy is in a near-constant 'struggle' with human cognizance.
Our first thoughts, sensations, preferences, talents, ideas, beliefs, and, of course, desires... are not developed along the lines of "logic" but rather creative reasoning, and instinct.
(As well as a shitload of biological chemicals that promote rapid learning of new skills, even with a brain that's a fraction of the size of an adult brain)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I have to say if you don't know how something works, but would like too, saying god did it does not mean you actually know anything.
When you let something go and it falls to the ground, saying god did it doesn't help you understand it. Fanatics act as if god has done everything and they do not need to know anything because..god did it and he had a reason.
The amish are a good example, they do not wish to partake in technology nor do they pursue it. Technology is the work of the devil through man. If I were to worship this mythical deity I would join the amish or go find a cave to live in, and hope for death to come soon so I could go to daddy. Whata a life!
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
BobSpence1,
No I didn't say it was all your own work and I understood you didn't say that either - but I said in all of this you placed faith in those who had a convincing argument and also faith in your acceptance of it. You can't say all of these decisions were provable like the acceleration of gravity - there is too much fuzz in life for that. So you have your faith - to you a many splendored thing - and I think part of your faith in this house built on the sand is in the complexity of it.
I'm saying it doesn't matter what you have come up with for your "wow machine" it is yours and you, BobSpence1 that have put all your weight down on it (and its future tweaks) - also done with faith and conviction by none other than: BobSpence1 and his mighty men of science and industry, those with their finger on the pulse of technology and "what's happening now". It's a novelty and it's interesting but it won't withstand the coming flood and storm of death - maybe even less than that.
Bob I have admitted that I have faith in Jesus (the Living Word, back from the dead, alive now) and the Written Word (the Living Scriptures). I also have faith in people in whom I see Christ and the results of their faith and personal relationship with Christ. There are different parts of the LORD'S body (the church) (He is the HEAD) and I see different manifestations of Jesus in them. I trust them deeply and am open to their counsel and correction - in harmony with the Word of God.
And there is a unity of fellowship that is unlike any on earth if each of us maintain unity with the Spirit personally. We are in unity with each other because there is only One Spirit. It is a living burning faith lived in the presence of God, sustained by the life and light the Spirit has ignited and constantly supplies oil to the lamp. I try to keep the wick trimmed. This house is a simple tent, maybe too simple for you - but it will stand firm because it is set on the Rock which is Christ. It is not of my making. It is simple childlike trust in Jesus and His Words and His atoning death on the Cross. The foolishness of God is wiser than your wise guys. But I can't convince you of that.
Huh ? Why would he even need faith if the argument holds up ? "Placed faith in his acceptance of it" ??? Again, why would he even need faith ? None of this makes sense. What is your definition of "faith" anyway ? Or would you like to keep that as vague as possible as well ?
Btw, it's almost a relief to see that you don't discriminate in your not-reading of what people actually post. Makes me feel less singled out.
If even a single one of these contradicting claims held even the tiniest grain of truth, then why did you lie ?
Or to put in words that might resonate a little further : Why did you bear false witness ?
I think this guy is an adult, so we don't have to worry too much about his pastor having his way with him in the name of JESUS!
Why does this fictional god allow obvious perverts to do terrible things in his name? Oh yea, he's fictional, I forgot. All powerful deity allows people to molest children in his name it's freakin awesome that people can have faith in this carp.
Molesting kids in the head of jesus, very interesting thought of the day.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
If this is faith, it is a very different kind of faith from the kind of faith one has in the invisible and the supernatural. Maybe Bob can't prove any of his assertions one hundred percent, but that's okay if he doesn't believe in them one hundred percent. Bob places his belief in reasons that are convincing. Bob places his belief in those claims which the evidence indicates. If belief is all you mean by "faith", then sure, but why use the word faith at all then? If the evidence started to show a different conclusion, Bob's opinion would change. For you, and other people of faith, it doesn't matter what the evidence indicates, or how compelling the reasons are. You believe out of sheer will. If by "faith" you mean something other than that, then please let us know, will you?
Yeah, I put all my 'faith' in the idea that those ideas which the weight of evidence currently points to are most likely to be true.
And that I am more likely to be close to the 'truth' if I inform myself from a wide range of sources, especially those that seem to have a good 'track record' of coming up with discoveries that are confirmed and lead to better understanding of the nature of reality.
Yes, I admit I do have absolute dogmatic 'blind' faith that the best way to seek the Truth about the World is to study the World as widely and deeply as possible, rather than concentrate on the words and ideas of a particular group of long-dead writers from the ancient Middle East that happen to make me feel good.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
BobSpence1,
You characterize it as true because you believe it - but you can't prove without a doubt it is. You have your supporting evidence for you and I have supporting evidence for me. You would say yours is "hard evidence" or something somehow better than mine - of course because you believe in it. You probably even forgot to some degree how you arrived where you are - I mean you've probably forgotten learning some things you know and digested.
It's the same with me. I have faith that produces evidence in the exercise of it. Some things seemed dark at the time but now they have come to light and I can see the reason for them. I believe none of my faith originated within me - because I believe the Scripture account of how it happens, "and you He made alive when you were dead in your sins" - what I mean is when God ignited me it all came from Him. When I "came to myself" and saw things as they are, the light came from Him, from without.
You, however, have faith in a framework that comes from within you, it is uniquely yours. You have pushed back the darkness and found light within yourself - to your glory I might add. I view that as a clue to your weakness - you glorify yourself.
The faith that God wants us to have, the faith He spoke of in the OT - "he who through faith is righteous shall live" - or, "the righteous shall live by his faith" is a faith that glorifies God and Christ. Your glory is misplaced and your "righteousness" is false. Your glory will see corruption; whereas, Christ has been raised never to die again, He will never see corruption. We who are in Him will be delivered from the Second Death. Your righteousness is no different than any other man's righteousness - described as "filthy rags" in Scripture. It won't deliver you, it won't connect you with the Living God. The light in you is darkness according to Scripture. You don't know what you are stumbling over. This could all change however and there could be a celebration.
No, he doesn't need to believe it. Wether or not he believes whatever has no actual effect on anything he studies.
Actually, yes, he can. It's called science.
No, you do not. You have your feelings. They do not support any of your claims.
No, because it is based on fact, not imagination. Again, he doesn't need to believe.
I'll give you an example : Let's say Bob was studying some facts he didn't particularly like very much. Unlike you, he would be aware that his feelings about those facts, would not magically make said facts vanish in a puff of smoke.
Not sure what your point is here, but instead of making assumptions, you could just ask him. On the other hand, yeah, this is easier. Saves you the trouble of ignoring his answer.
Again, your feelings aren't evidence of anything, except your own emotional state.
At this point, I would suggest that you actually read what Bob has written in his many replies to you. You will find him patiently explaining, over and over again, the exact opposite of what you're accusing him of here.
Again, I'm happy to notice that it's not just my posts you don't read.
And as you have explained to us in your threads, this would involve murder without remorse, and lying without shame, to name but a few "righteous" things.
Yes, well, that might be because he never claimed to have either. But what he actually writes is, of course, of no real importance. You could have this whole conversation without Bob even showing up.
"Me good. You bad". Sure, okay.
Sounds like he is saying he is better than us because his invisible magical deity loves him so much.
It's nifty how the knowledge he has about his "god" is only useful after he is dead, and scientific knowledge is only useful while you are alive. A fearful mind can't accept that dead is dead.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Chndlrjhnsn,
And why not use the word "faith" - except because you atheists are exercising it in different things and people but not wanting to face it? Thus it irritates you to mention what you're not facing. You have faith in what you have faith in. For you guys to come on here and claim you are without faith is just part of your ritual quando omni flunkus moritadi
My faith was first ignited by God - my understanding was appealed to by the gospel, and the light supported things that came after that. Light is a sustaining thing - and like you mention I see things that need to be corrected also killed in my spiritual battle.
Since you were referring to my conversation with BobSpence1, I will mention that my perspective on his "faith" is that he needs to "trade up" in pearls - and sell all to purchase The Pearl.
This has been explained to you many times. Most recently in Bob's replies.
You've had an entire 1000+posts thread devoted to the same shtick even before this one.
For you to come on here, ask questions, and then to happily ignore the answers no matter how many times we repeat them, is just...well, let's just say it was getting a bit old about two years ago.
Since you're referring to it as well, I would suggest that you actually read it. No faith, with or without quotation marks, is needed. He explained why. You had nothing to say to that, except to repeat your accusation. Many other people have patiently explained the same thing to you, over the many years that this farce has been going on. You've ignored them all.
Even after all this time, your dishonesty still amazes me.
You know, when I first came here, I had some god-belief left, and I thought the whole "religion is a delusion" line was a bit too much. And then I started reading your posts. Three years later, I have personally deconverted 3 previously devout christians. Without you, the mere notion of doing that wouldn't even have crossed my mind. More than any atheist ever could, you've convinced me of the real danger of religion.
Still, I can't help but wonder, though...Why do you still lie when the question I ask you has nothing to do with religion ? Why ? Does lying make you happy ? Seriously, why did you lie ?
Is belief all you mean by "faith", or do you mean to suggest something else?
Except you forget that the "faith" you claim we use is based ion demonstrable evidence and observation - perform an action and get a conclusion often enough and you expect that performing the action will get the same conclusion.
Your "faith" is based on magic and you believe that you can do something and get a different conclusion each time you do it if the being you have faith in wants it to. Einstein called that insanity.
If your faith was first ignited by God, that means you didn't have faith when you didn't believe in God. How then can you say that those who don't believe in God have faith if you din't have faith until God ignited it?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
If you're defining faith as synonymous with belief, then fine, we have faith. But then, our faith is based on reason and evidence while your faith is based on emotions and wishful thinking. Nothing has changed, just the words we use to describe it.
No. He believes it because he thinks it is true. You're projecting.
Absolutely certainty is unnecessary; near certainty is enough for all practical purposes. Very little can be known with absolute certainty anyways; generally, those who profess to know something with absolute certainty are merely deluding themselves.
You mean objective evidence? Yes, objective evidence is better than your personal experiences because your personal experiences can only apply to you, whereas objective are, in principle, universal. If I see a UFO in the sky, that is my personal experience; I can tell other people that I saw a UFO, but how could they just trust my words? On the other hand, if I record a video of the UFO in the sky, anyone can watch that video. So, the video is objective evidence that there was a UFO.
No, no, no. It's the opposite with us. Don't you understand?
We don't "have faith that produces evidence." We try to observe the evidence first, without any faith, and then we pick the faith that matches the evidence.
Edit:
Btw, you still haven't answered my question. But, let's back up a step. I'll ask you this instead. Can you imagine a world where Jesus is not truth? Yes or no?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
butterbattle,
Life doesn't stand still and yes you are exercising your faith as you move through life or it moves without you. It's "in" to try to show here who's the most "faithless" - it looks pretty ridiculous.
But you have faith in things that you view as good solid reasoning, repeatable experiments, dismissing the idea of God, things made that demonstrate knowledge and insight, other atheists who share the same attitudes, &et. I'm saying you have faith in things that actually aren't solid and aren't eternal. You think because you see them and have them in hand you can count on them - but there you have fallen for a trick. The unseen things are eternal.
Faith is comparable to sight but different. It is light within that shines on the truth of Jesus' atoning sacrifice and the gospel. Other things come from that and are supported by it - like plants by the sun. But God counts faith as righteousness - faith in Him in Christ.
Fonzie,
It pains me to see you so intellectually castrated by the illogicality of your bloody, nonexistent zombie. The christchlamydia has eaten away at your Elvis-given integrity; still you lack the courage to answer simple 'a' or 'b' questions, now an infinite + 7 times.
Each time you avoid an honest response, you prove that christianity is nothing but a self-inseminating lie.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Gosh, once again I wonder if "fonzie" may have mustered the courtesy to answer Butter's watered down question...
Well, no. And he explained why.
Are you going to ignore that and simply repeat your accusation ? Again ? (Rethorical question. Of course you are)
Can you quote the sentence where that happened, please ? Outside of your own head, I mean. Of course you can't, because it didn't happen. "Faith" seems to be all about your ability to lie.
You just made a list of things that don't need any "faith", and you ignored years worth of posts that explain to you why that is. Can you explain how not having faith in repeatable experiments is somehow going to influence the outcome of said experiment ? Well ?
Sez the man, typing on his computer.
If that is true, then why do you lie ? Why ?
And all you have to do is believe Paul's assertion about Jesus being God - an assertion that would offend Jesus if he heard Paul make it.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Justifying anything by 'faith' is the ultimate circular argument, "I know this is true because I know this is true".
Whereas justification by evidence and argument is the opposite.
Fonzie, do you really not 'get' the irony/satire in my assertion that my fundamental 'faith' is that reason and evidence, ie the opposite of 'faith-based ' justification, are the only path to knowledge?
Once to start applying a description or statement to the statement itself, "I have faith in faith", you in logical no-man's land.
Of course your twists and turns, your denial of logic, etc, are exactly what we would expect of someone so deeply emotionally dependent on your delusion. You cannot for a moment entertain the idea that you have founded your life on a lie - even though it is blindingly obvious (to us) that you have, and you reaffirm this with every statement you make...
Maybe it is that we have planted the seed of doubt in your sub-conscious, and you can't let yourself leave this forum until you have found some way to expose a flaw in our arguments.
Otherwise I doubt you would have persisted here posting the same old non-arguments for this long. If we were merely a target of proselytizing, surely you would have given up and gone on to put the time into more promising targets.
Or perhaps having spent this long, to quit now would be to tacitly acknowledge you have no adequate response.
Whatever it is, you really are in a psychological bind now, I guess.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Poor little guy. Can we keep him?
I don't understand what you're saying. Life "moves without" me?
For convenience, I'll follow along with your definition of faith, where faith = belief.
So yes, I do have faith in that kind of stuff. In general, I have faith in whatever I've observed to be probable based on reason and evidence.
Well, I don't "dismiss" the idea of God, per se. I just haven't seen any good definition of God that had enough evidence supporting it for me to believe it. The only possible exception is pantheism. Of course, for more complex, religious Gods like Jehovah, Allah, and Brahman, I also have some evidence and reason against it, rather than just the lack of evidence for it.
Perhaps.
Well, now you're just conflating so many different definitions of faith that it's getting confusing.
What you mean is that I trust other atheists who are like me. I suppose that has to be true to an extent, but I don't allow their ideas a free ticket because of that. There are many beliefs that trouble me more than mere theism; if someone espouses such a belief, I'm not going to respect it just because they're an atheist.
Yes, I know.
But, you're just making assertions. You believe I have fallen for a trick. I don't believe I have. You believe there are these eternal things. I don't believe there are.
If you want to convince me, you can't just say I'm wrong over and over again; that gets nowhere. You have to give reasons.
---
Alright, you still haven't answered my question, so let's back up again and try to start as simple as possible. We'll begin with the simplest question I can think of and see if you can answer it.
Do you have faith in Jesus Christ? Yes or no. Surely, you can answer that.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
No matter how you look at it, things that we have 'in hand', that we can see and touch and test against reality in various ways, are way more certain and worth putting some trust in than things that are merely feelings and ideas, no matter how intensely you feel they 'should be ' believed in.
Our minds are all but infinitely capable of leading us astray, so it is folly, or perhaps arrogance, to put such faith in your purely internal experiences and feelings. No matter how you twist it, to claim such certainty based on your own personal feelings means you are claiming infallibility in your ability to judge such things - no 'mortal' being can have such ability.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
"But Jesus gave me the power to know these things and it is in your heart to know them too. You are in denial and worshipping the material which your faith is in."
There I shortened his future response for ya.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Lol ! Only just met him, have you ?
Back when he was only getting started here, I used to simplify that as : "You don't have magic powers !". He didn't get it. I fail to see how I can dumb it down even further.