religious debate

[Guest]

Don't you think that believing the above statement is hate-filled, nonsensical and/or unforgiving and hence it is not compassionate and therefore should not be preached by any religious organization?

Personally, I have a huge moral problem with the idea that Hell exists, that this idea is heavily preached and that people actually believe it. I believe it to be religious terrorism forcing people to do and believe out of fear. I also believe it to be in direct contrast with the moral goodness I'd expect people of faith to derive from their religion.

I do not believe it is hate-filled. You only go to hell if you dont ask for forgiveness. if you dont ask for forgiveness, then it cant be unforgiving!

I dont think is against the "moral goodness", because we are just telling it as it is. No need to sugar-coat something this serioius.

[Guest]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Hell quite simply not being in the presence of God, which is Heaven ? I am no religious scholar, and would never profess to be one, but I thought I saw that written somewhere or heard it from something. Even more, not all religions even have a concept of Hell. I would say being some form of Christian believer must be a tough life with all the constant worrying about Hell.

On another point, this discussion could go on until everyone on Earth has either decided to adopt a religion or belief in a god, or everyone becomes an atheist. The believers all believe they have some kind of proof, intangible as it may seem to the non-believers. To say that their proof is anymore less weighty than providing a tangible proof is unfair to them. If you told an ancient Greek (or any ancient human) about atoms, they'd say you have no proof and argue the point until their last breath. Maybe not the best analogy, but don't bother picking it apart, you get the gist. Personally, I am an atheist. I don't believe in a god, souls, ghosts, the tooth fairy, or anything that people claim exists without it showing up and talking to me. I was lucky enough to have survived a very traumatic head and brain injury, and even better, came out of it without any lasting brain damage. The last point friends may argue...

Anyway, some would say that is proof of a god. Others, like me don't think so. But a lot of what I've seen through this thread is attacking each other's 'proof' or lack of 'proof'. I suppose, in the end, the only way we'll know is whether we end up as worm food, or sitting around staring at the face of some god. Perhaps the agnostics have it right. They're just not sure. I guess they can say "Glad I kept the possibility open" if it ever comes up.

Enjoy your days and nights now folks

[Guest]

If you have no desire to listen to my answers because I believe on faith and am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints then what is the point of this discussion continuing? Why try to speak to someone with a different view if you are just going to shut them down solely because of that view?

And I have one question Can you PROVE there is no God?

Noa, I can't disagree. He did listen to your input. He was simply being extremely ignorant of your perspective and not giving enough thought to your logic. Don't get flustered. It doesn't help matters of this topic. People don't give in. I'd like to say that there is no proof of evolution, as there is proof of God. I agree whole heartedly on your faith comment. To atheist people: trust hope and love are things no one can see with the physical eye. Faith is alike. Faith is a virtue that you must have to participate in these arguments fairly because it gives you understanding to the perspectives around and surrounding you. Let's face it, your not going to get away from oppinionated perspective.

Respond?

[Guest]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Hell quite simply not being in the presence of God, which is Heaven ? I am no religious scholar, and would never profess to be one, but I thought I saw that written somewhere or heard it from something. Even more, not all religions even have a concept of Hell. I would say being some form of Christian believer must be a tough life with all the constant worrying about Hell.

On another point, this discussion could go on until everyone on Earth has either decided to adopt a religion or belief in a god, or everyone becomes an atheist. The believers all believe they have some kind of proof, intangible as it may seem to the non-believers. To say that their proof is anymore less weighty than providing a tangible proof is unfair to them. If you told an ancient Greek (or any ancient human) about atoms, they'd say you have no proof and argue the point until their last breath. Maybe not the best analogy, but don't bother picking it apart, you get the gist. Personally, I am an atheist. I don't believe in a god, souls, ghosts, the tooth fairy, or anything that people claim exists without it showing up and talking to me. I was lucky enough to have survived a very traumatic head and brain injury, and even better, came out of it without any lasting brain damage. The last point friends may argue...

Anyway, some would say that is proof of a god. Others, like me don't think so. But a lot of what I've seen through this thread is attacking each other's 'proof' or lack of 'proof'. I suppose, in the end, the only way we'll know is whether we end up as worm food, or sitting around staring at the face of some god. Perhaps the agnostics have it right. They're just not sure. I guess they can say "Glad I kept the possibility open" if it ever comes up.

Enjoy your days and nights now folks

No. Hell is where you'll live for eternity if you choose to disregard or especially completely deny God. Let me ask, are there any satanists here? I'm guessing not. Satanists, full satanists, worship the devil and long to go to Hell. I think it's the saddest thing in the world because in Hell... lets just say it wouldn't be good to go there.

[Guest]

Noa, I can't disagree. He did listen to your input. He was simply being extremely ignorant of your perspective and not giving enough thought to your logic. Don't get flustered. It doesn't help matters of this topic. People don't give in. I'd like to say that there is no proof of evolution, as there is proof of God. I agree whole heartedly on your faith comment. To atheist people: trust hope and love are things no one can see with the physical eye. Faith is alike. Faith is a virtue that you must have to participate in these arguments fairly because it gives you understanding to the perspectives around and surrounding you. Let's face it, your not going to get away from oppinionated perspective.

Respond?

You probably read the discussion in the last couple pages between me and Octopuppy regarding what faith is. You seem to use the word in the sense that he describes, which is a belief which does not need evidence. Is that what you feel faith is? If so, why would that be a virtue that's necessary to have a reasonable discussion about these things? If not, how would you describe it?

[unreality]

I'd like to say that there is no proof of evolution,

Then I'd say you're wrong. There is a heap of proof ;D

as there is proof of God.

I think you meant to say "as there is no proof of God", which would fit the sentence into your analogy... but maybe you actually meant "there is proof of God"... if so, give it to us. What's your proof?

I agree whole heartedly on your faith comment. To atheist people: trust hope and love are things no one can see with the physical eye. Faith is alike.

I agree with all of that. Trust, hope, love, even faith are powerful and usually good virtues. And by

'faith=good', I don't mean specifically religious faith, I mean faith in general. Having faith in stuff. But by "having faith" I mean "being sure of yourself or someone or something BASED ON SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE". having blind faith is dangerous, as octopuppy (and Duh Puck, I think) has been saying. Then again, if you do have sufficient evidence, does it count as faith anymore? It pretty much comes down to semantics

Faith is a virtue that you must have to participate in these arguments fairly because it gives you understanding to the perspectives around and surrounding you.

Why must we have faith to participate in these arguments fairly? You're implying so that we can know where the theists are coming from with their arguments... in other words, you're saying "know your enemies". Isn't that a quote from the Bible? "Know thy enemy" or something?

'Thegirlyouneverknew', see what I just did with the quote thing? I'm not a believer like you, but I UNDERSTAND where you're coming from with your arguments (by "you", I mostly meant Duh Puck). I can relate. I can understand. So faith is not necessary, though having faith in general isn't necessarily a bad thing

[Guest]

You only go to hell if you dont ask for forgiveness. if you dont ask for forgiveness, then it cant be unforgiving!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Hell quite simply not being in the presence of God, which is Heaven ?

No. Hell is where you'll live for eternity if you choose to disregard or especially completely deny God.

We seem to have a variety of descriptions of what Hell is. Anyone care to explain why you believe what you do?

I understand that once a person is convinced that the Bible is inspired by God, he is willing to accept what the Bible says without necessarily understanding all the reasons. After all, if you believe that the God of the Bible is the creator and mastermind of the universe, with abilities such as simultaneously listening to the brain waves of millions of people (i.e., prayer), then it would follow that our individual thinking and reasoning would be trivial by comparison, and it would be wise for us to trust the instruction of our creator, much as small children will readily accept what their parents tell them. This humble willingness to trust the creator without complete understanding of all the details is a manifestation of the "faith" we were discussing earlier, and while this can be good in many respects, it also opens one up to deception and misunderstanding if he or she is not careful.

For example, consider the statement: "You only go to hell if you don't ask for forgiveness." Really? What is your basis for that statement? Is it because you heard a priest say that from the pulpit, or is it because you read it in the Bible? The words translated "hell" in the Bible are "Sheol" (Hebrew) and "Hades" (Greek). Both of these words refer to the resting place of the dead, the common grave of man where both the righteous and the wicked go. The righteous men Jacob and Job asked that they go to Sheol rather than endure suffering, and Job acknowledged that God could bring back to life those who had died and were in Sheol. (Ge 37:35, Job 14:13,14) David said that God had rescued him from the "ropes of Sheol." (Ps 18:5,6) Jesus fulfilled the prophecy at Ps 16:10 in that God did not leave his soul in Hades, or hell. In other words, Jesus met the same fate as all men in that he died, but God did not leave him in that state, resurrecting him back to life. Both of these words are used many times in the Bible, and always as a way of referring to the condition of being dead, in contrast to being alive.

A while back one of the atheists in the discussion insisted that the Bible teaches the idea of eternal torment in Hell, and I asked him to show me. The scriptures he came back didn't make that point at all, but for the sake of a fair argument, I'll go ahead and cite the few verses that are usually used to justify the belief:

Luke 16:22-24: "Also, the rich man died and was buried. 23 And in Ha′des he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments, and he saw Abraham afar off and Laz′a‧rus in the bosom [position] with him. 24 So he called and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Laz′a‧rus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in this blazing fire.’"

Rev 14:9-10: "And another angel, a third, followed them, saying in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the wild beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, 10 he will also drink of the wine of the anger of God that is poured out undiluted into the cup of his wrath, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur in the sight of the holy angels and in the sight of the Lamb."

Rev 20:10: "And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet [already were]; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."

Rev 21:8: "But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death."

Just for completeness, let me also include the following, related verses:

Rev 20:14-15: "And death and Ha′des were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire. 15 Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire."

Notice that death itself is thrown into the "lake of fire" where the devil, the symbolic wild beast, and anyone who worships that wild beast are said to be. And yet, twice, this lake of fire is described as "the second death." There is plenty of reason to believe that this represents complete and eternal destruction. For example:

2 Thes 1:6-9: "This takes into account that it is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for YOU, 7 but, to YOU who suffer tribulation, relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength"

When Jesus talked about the wicked religious leaders who were hypocritically oppressing the people rather than teaching them spiritual truth, he said they would receive the judgment of Gehenna (Matt 23:27-33):

"Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men’s bones and of every sort of uncleanness. In that way YOU also, outwardly indeed, appear righteous to men, but inside YOU are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. ... Serpents, offspring of vipers, how are YOU to flee from the judgment of Ge‧hen′na?"

Gehenna was a garbage pit outside the wall of Jerusalem which was kept continually burning. In addition to trash, it was also where the bodies where thrown of criminals who had been executed and deemed unworthy of a proper burial. It was a fitting symbol of everlasting destruction. The eternal fire of the "lake of fire" in Revelation likewise is a symbol of eternal destruction. While God could resurrect those in hell (Sheol or Hades) back to life, those in the "lake of fire" would no longer have that hope. They would simply be dead.

Regarding the illustration of the rich man and Lazarus, I believe there is good reason to conclude that Jesus was using a literary device and that the illustration was not literal. Since the Jews he was talking to did not already subscribe to the belief of eternal torment in a fiery hell (a doctrine which was incorporated from other religions later on), they would have understood the parable to be figurative.

I realize that some will say, "Well, that's just a matter of interpretation, isn't it? Jesus' words certainly could have been referring to literal hellfire." That's true, but if one is serious about taking the Bible as the source of their beliefs, they would have to consider the teaching as a whole, and at least attempt to identify what makes the most sense in the light of all scriptures together, as well as taking into consideration what the Bible teaches us about God's personality. If you think you have a convincing argument for why those scriptures should be taken literally, and how that harmonizes with the notion that "God is love," then by all means, do share.

[Guest]

Okay, I know that I just joined this conversation so I really haven't read all of the comments. so Don't attack me if I say anything that someone else has already said..

I'm a Christian. (I'll just let you know ahead of time.) But I have had my doubts just like most other people. You know how someone says that they don't believe because God really hasn't done anything for them in their life... Well... I'm just curious on how we know (if we don't believe) that there really is a God... and on the other hand... Satan (if you believe in that sorta thing) how do we know that he's real as well... I mean when is the last time that you have spoken to someone that's said " oh Satan did so and so for me yesterday..." but all the time we are hearing from people saying " God did so and so for me yesterday..." I mean I'm just curious and I'm not questioning my belief... But no one really KNOWS anything until they die... And if there is a heaven and hell (again if you believe in that)... then why are there ghosts. I mean what did heaven and hell spit them out and say " your neither good nor bad... so you get to haunt people..." (which would actually be pretty cool...) But really.... all these questions... and when you talk to people about it they say either, "Your stupid because you don't believe." or "You believe so don't question."

I mean it is pretty awesome that someone made us... I mean really. I can't make people. (Heck I can't even draw stick people.) But in the bible, and I read this one time and it just blew my mind, it said that when he made us that he became so fed up with us that he made it so that we could only, at the max, live to be a little over 115 years old. I mean what was that about... I mean is wasn't born that long ago... I didn't do anything to make him mad... and then I find out that he just gets to kill us whenever. It's kind of a rip off if you ask me, but hey, still pretty cool. I still can't figure out why he gets to walk on water and we don't. I mean is there even water where he is right now... He's not going to need that gift.... I mean come on... loll...

[unreality]

It's good that you value life I appreciate your open-minded-ness. FollowingMyDreams, can you do something for me? Can you imagine a world without any gods, without heaven, without hell, without demons nor angels nor anything else supernatural? A world where the chaotic and beautiful processes of Mother Nature have led us to where we are now? Do you see any physical difference so far from the world with all that religious stuff- gods and whatnot? Now think of non-physical differences... you are free. You do good things because you LIKE to do good things, because as a species we WANT to do good things... not because we are afraid that we're going to hell, or trying to get into heaven- but because we want to do good. Because we're all part of something bigger, and each of us plays an important role..... think of a colony of bees or ants or cells. Have you ever heard of Swarm Theory?

anyway... I'm rambling now... but just close your eyes... imagine... then open them. We are living in that world now

[Guest]

It's good that you value life I appreciate your open-minded-ness. FollowingMyDreams, can you do something for me? Can you imagine a world without any gods, without heaven, without hell, without demons nor angels nor anything else supernatural? A world where the chaotic and beautiful processes of Mother Nature have led us to where we are now? Do you see any physical difference so far from the world with all that religious stuff- gods and whatnot? Now think of non-physical differences... you are free. You do good things because you LIKE to do good things, because as a species we WANT to do good things... not because we are afraid that we're going to hell, or trying to get into heaven- but because we want to do good. Because we're all part of something bigger, and each of us plays an important role..... think of a colony of bees or ants or cells. Have you ever heard of Swarm Theory?

anyway... I'm rambling now... but just close your eyes... imagine... then open them. We are living in that world now

oh babe if only that were true...

[Guest]

Noa, I can't disagree.

Wow, that was like a month ago! And it was Noa who chose not to engage in any further discussion. I take it you did read both of his posts and both of my responses.

He did listen to your input.

Indeed I did. And responded to each and every point made in both of his posts, in depth and detail. If he disagreed with any point he was, of course, welcome to make his arguments in that regard - He chose not to. I would have actually welcomed such debate. If he chose to take it on a personal and emotional level, that's his problem Oh well, it might have been interesting, and no doubt I would have learnt a little something (and perhaps he would have as well.)

He was simply being extremely ignorant of your perspective and not giving enough thought to your logic.

Ignorant? Of course I am (and was) ignorant of his position, he gave me so little of it, choosing not to continue the conversation. That is what dialogue and argument if all about; shedding ourselves and each other of certain areas of ignorance. But it kind of looks like you are using "ignorant" in something of a different (and perhaps odd) manner here.

I gave plenty of thought to his "logic", I actually studied Logic in university as a part of my philosophy degree, I know a bit about it. I assessed this arguments, and found them largely lacking in logic. He could have further developed his points if he chose, but he chose not to. As it stood any attempts of his at using logic failed. But mainly what he offered was preaching of what he believed, not logical argument. I disagreed. He was THEN welcome to offer logical arguments to defend his claims and views, as one would in any rational discussion. Instead he chose to take personal offense.

As is often the case, as if happens, when peoples views are not "Rationally Reached Conclusions" but rather "Cherished Beliefs."

Don't get flustered. It doesn't help matters of this topic.

Well, as he has not posted since, I guess he did get flustered, and then got out of here.

It certainly does not help matters, in ANY rational discussion and/or argument situation.

People don't give in. I'd like to say that there is no proof of evolution, as there is proof of God.

While I would say that there in not simply proof of evolution, but that it is a well known and accepted FACT - I say again: Evolution is a FACT. The "Theory of Evolution" is what we call those theories, hypotheses and attempts to understand just what those facts mean, entail, and lead to.

There, however is ZERO proof of God, any god. And all the attempts to argue for the existence of such an entity, that I have ever come across have been dismal failures. Invariably relying on some logical fallacy or other. There is no "Evidence" for god(s) let alone any "Proof"!

THAT is why "Faith" is so important, you require it (which I define as "Belief through the willful abandonment of Reason) in order to hold onto theistic beliefs.

I agree whole heartedly on your faith comment.

What comment? That I had "no desire to listen to [his] answers because [he] believe on faith"? Well I did listen didn't I? I simply disagreed, as is my right (and I feel; rational duty), and explained why.

Or that "if He let us find evidence of Him at every turn, faith would have no purpose."? Well, I agree with that as well - with evidence, Faith is meaningless and worthless. I just happen to think that Faith is a great evil, possibly the Greatest evil. And we should be well rid of it!

If you can argue and/or define "Faith" in such a way to argue against this view, then please do so.

To atheist people: trust hope and love are things no one can see with the physical eye. Faith is alike.

To Homo sapiens (and probably all organisms) trust, hope, love, faith are things that no one can see with the physical eye (as if there was another kind of eye )

They aren't physical things! No-one can see sound or the wind, nor any of the fundamental Forces (Gravity, electro-magnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces). So what? They ALL (yours and mine) still exist in their own ways. No one is denying that.

Faith is a virtue that you must have to participate in these arguments fairly because it gives you understanding to the perspectives around and surrounding you.

??

First off; Faith is NOT a virtue. Never was, never will be.

What you need to participate in rational arguments is a certain degree of valuing Reason (NOT Faith), a willingness to engage in rational argument and discussion without resorting to appeals to Faith. One can argue for the value of Faith of course [using reasoned argument], but resorting to the "Just take it on Faith" or "I just have Faith that it is so" type retort is rationally worthless, as it is suggesting one abandon reason. In doing so, one is opting OUT of rational debate.

Nor does Faith give any understanding of anything. Understanding comes through reasoning not the abandonment of said reason.

Let's face it, your not going to get away from oppinionated perspective.

Nor should you. That is how dogmatic convictions set in.

It is through the hearing of, or discussion on, dissenting and varied opinions, views and positions, that one can learn and perhaps improve one's own views and outlook. And it is from such discussions that one can understand better the foundations of ones own beliefs and views as well. This may weaken or even changes those views (and one should never "cherish" ones own views in such a way as to fear such changes), Or it may well strengthen them through a deeper understanding of both them and the differing views of others.

[Guest]

We seem to have a variety of descriptions of what Hell is. Anyone care to explain why you believe what you do?

I believe Hell is the place you go if you don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, was sent to earth in human form, died for our sins, and was buried and came back to life 3 days later, all to forgive us of our sins. I believe Hell is the "home" ,per-se, for Satan, Lucifer, etc. (All the same person), who was kicked out of heaven, mainly by the Archangel Michael, for believing that he was equal to or better than God. I also believe that Hell is a fiery pit of eternal flames, with no water, food, etc. NOTHING!! In other words, it would suck to be there.

Now, on the point of getting out: I have no clue about that.

Rev 12:7-8

7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven

I believe that when it says here, "and the dragon fought and his angels," "his angels" is referring to the demons that roam the earth, because Satan is not omnipotent; now I'm getting carried away, so I'll stop.

Edited April 26, 2008 by Sharpie357

[unreality]

you believe that Hell is an eternal pit of flames and stuff- I'm not saying it's not- but do you have any proof to back up your belief? Other than the Bible of course- you can't take the word of a book, no matter how "old" or "holy" it is, we've already established that

[Guest]

Okay, okay, every one. I actually did mean there is no proof of God as well. lol, sorry for the typo. sheesh.

I truly believe and accept the fact that reason is essential to these conversations. Faith is not essential. What I think should happen is that people need to realize that they have faith just as theists do. You must have faith for something or I don’t see how you can live healthy, and of course I don’t mean physical health. It seems like you’d be awfully hurt without faith in SOMETHING.

Any arguments with THAT?

[Guest]

What I think should happen is that people need to realize that they have faith just as theists do.

If you want people realize that we all have faith, then you should be the one to provide the evidence. I live my life 100% without faith.

You must have faith for something or I don’t see how you can live healthy, and of course I don’t mean physical health.

Why? What do you believe happens to a person without faith?

It seems like you’d be awfully hurt without faith in SOMETHING.

Any arguments with THAT?

Hurt how? It's hard for anyone to give you any arguments when yours are so vague. Tell us why you believe we all live with faith, how life without faith would be unhealthy, and in what way one would be hurt.

BTW, ADPArker did give arguments for some of your claims about faith, as well as your other comments about his ignorance, there being no proof of evolution, etc.- and you didn't respond back.

[Guest]

If you want people realize that we all have faith, then you should be the one to provide the evidence. I live my life 100% without faith.

Why? What do you believe happens to a person without faith?

Hurt how? It's hard for anyone to give you any arguments when yours are so vague. Tell us why you believe we all live with faith, how life without faith would be unhealthy, and in what way one would be hurt.

BTW, ADPArker did give arguments for some of your claims about faith, as well as your other comments about his ignorance, there being no proof of evolution, etc.- and you didn't respond back.

So, you're telling me that you have faith in no one? Nothing is there that you can cling on to and be faithful in? Someone you love, something that's always been there? A place where you can go back to no matter what? You are telling me you have no faith right there. Be careful in saying that, because I'm sure you do. Life without faith is unhealthy. You need faith in something to be at all optimistic or on occasion to have support.

[Guest]

I wasn't insulting when I said he was being ignorant. That isn't entirely a bad thing. Neither is being vague. You did give me an argument after that, didn't you?

[Guest]

So, you're telling me that you have faith in no one? Nothing is there that you can cling on to and be faithful in? Someone you love, something that's always been there?

Why don't you give your definition of "faith" and then I'll answer. Since you said you wholeheartedly agree with Noa about faith, I guess you're defining it as we usually define it when it comes to the way the religious use it which is belief without evidence.

Be careful in saying that, because I'm sure you do.

No, you should be careful, as I know myself much better than you know me.

Life without faith is unhealthy.

How?

You need faith in something to be at all optimistic or on occasion to have support.

One needs no faith to be optimistic. Optimism can be hopeful beliefs based on evidence that things in a certain situation will turn out okay. Optimism based on faith may help some feel better, but I'd rather not be deluded. I can be optimistic that I'll get a promotion, because I know I'm highly qualified and have a good repoire with the boss. I can't be optimistic about me living on in an afterlife, as I have no evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

I wasn't insulting when I said he was being ignorant. That isn't entirely a bad thing. Neither is being vague. You did give me an argument after that, didn't you?

Excuse me, but I specifically stated that it would be hard to give you an argument unless you were more specific in some regards and I requested that you explain what you meant by certain things. You haven't done that. You also haven't responded to anything ADParker took the time to refute you on.

[Guest]

Dude. Calm down. Take a chill pill. lol.

My definitions of faith

1 confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2 belief that is not based on proof

3 belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.

4 the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.

5 the observance of this obligation

6 hope placed in a person or thing: the inability to live without that hope

And I am well aware that you know yourself better than I do since I don't even know you in the least. I'm also unaware of the purpose that has to the conversation. Just stating "you" as sort of a general word and most people do have faith.

I'll look at the other guys posts now.

[Guest]

Dude. Calm down. Take a chill pill. lol.

I'm perfectly calm. Where do I not seem to be? Or is that just a tactic to make it seem like you've gotten me all hyped up?

My definitions of faith

1 confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2 belief that is not based on proof

3 belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.

4 the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.

5 the observance of this obligation

6 hope placed in a person or thing: the inability to live without that hope

Those aren't your definition; those are many differing definitions you copy and pasted. #2 is the one most of us here are using when talking about faith, but I would replace "proof" with "evidence" (as there's ultimately no proof for anything).

And I am well aware that you know yourself better than I do since I don't even know you in the least. I'm also unaware of the purpose that has to the conversation. Just stating "you" as sort of a general word and most people do have faith.

No, you were obviously talking about me. You said to me, "Be careful in saying that, because I'm sure you do". Whether most people have faith or not is irrelevant. I have no beliefs that aren't accompanied by evidence and I'm waiting for you to tell me how this is unhealthy and how I would be hurt by it.

[Guest]

I'm a buddhist. Does that count as being a theist because mostly all other religions originate from the sun and stars,

but buddhism is on it's own in that it's main values are enlightenment and the greater peace of all beings.

[Guest]

I'm a buddhist. Does that count as being a theist

No. Being a Buddhist does not mean one is a theist or an atheist as believing or disbelieving is not part of Buddhist doctrine. If you're a Buddhist that believes God/gods exist, then your a theist, if you're not, you're an atheist.

[Guest]

I've usually found that atheist/theist discussions are completely worthless. Usually the most productive discussions are between atheists, who discuss the reason others believe, or between theists, who discuss the nature of God.

The problem with the atheist/theist discussion is that you have no common ground with which to discuss anything. If you disagree there is a God, then how can I possibly get you to relate to my experience that tells me there is? How can you tell me there is not when I have experienced things that tell me there is? Usually the only way is for the non-believer to test the beliefs. Most are completely unwilling. It doesn't work for the believer to "unbelieve" because that is tantamount to trying to prove the non-existence of something, which is impossible in our finite existence. The only way to get any traction is for the non-believer to give a honest test to the experience of the believer - and I have NEVER found a single athiest willing to do so.

If you are, or you can think of some other frame for the discussion, I am ready and willing to discuss.

Here's my opening to you: I KNOW there is a God. I have felt his presence and have experienced personal, sacred things from outside my own psyche that tell me He IS. Those experiences have led me to explore and discover the nature of His will. The more I explored, the more I became convinced. Now as an atheist, how do you dispute my personal experience? It's not only folly, but arrogance to try to do so. How can you, without having experienced what I have, tell me that my experience was somehow fake, contrived, or willed? Where do you go from there?

i notice that you refer to God as "he." I believe in God, i am a nazarene. but i have trouble with that usage. how do you know the sex of God? Does it really matter? if it doesnt, then its kind of like the problem of what to call blacks. "black" could be taken offensively, but then others say that african american isnt apropriate because they dont want to be distinguished from other americans. So if it doesnt matter, do we just call God whatever feels correct? will God be offended if called she or he? i dont think so, because God is a loving god. I dont think that God cares what term we use, but i also dont think that we should just assume a male persona. why is it that God is never refered to as female, that Jesus is male, that we call the Holy Spirit an it. If women (and sorry this is kind of getting off topic) were thought of as weak, and werent important in terms of beliefs, why wasnt jesus female? He came from a lowly house, town, and occupation, why not take it one step further and have a woman save the world? there would be more of an impact in changing the view of the world into something more of equality and love.

[Guest]

If I may butt in on Scraff and thegirlyouneverknew's exchange on the matter of faith, it's clear to me that a lot of misunderstanding is caused by the term "faith" because of its ambiguity. As I was explaining earlier, that's one of the problems with it, because acceptance of faith in one form can lead to acceptance of other forms of faith which are best avoided.

Particularly relevant in this case is the notion of faith in other people. In that case faith can mean either trusting someone because you judge them to be of good character, or simply giving people the benefit of the doubt as a matter of principle (or a bit of both).

In that context faith is a virtue, and I find that even when people let you down, it is a good idea to hang on to your faith in people as a matter of general principle. It's worth it just for the sake of the few people who will prove themselves worthy of it.

But when we talk about faith as a reason to believe in God, the thinking behind it tends to get confused with these ideas. Can we trust the Bible? Should we give God the benefit of the doubt? Those principles work fine for interpersonal relationships, but as a reason to form a religious belief they are completely flawed.

We have no basis for trusting the Bible, though we may feel like we do because we are conditioned to consider the Bible as a source of truth and wisdom. We hear Bible stories as young children, so it seems comfortable and familiar. Perhaps it would be more accurate to consider the Bible as the product of primitive, unenlightened religious zealotry which was promoted as the "Word of God" to serve the political needs of the early Roman Catholic Church (and earlier rulers, in the case of the Old Testament).

What about giving God the benefit of the doubt? In practice this leads a lot of people to religion. If you give superstitions credence (the benefit of the doubt) they become hard to shake off. Habit and fear keep you in their grip. Religion differs from a typical superstition in two ways:

1) Complexity - an intricate web of mutually reinforcing concepts and encouraged behaviours support a much greater degree of compulsion, fear, attachment, and false logic. Once you're in it may be hard to find the way out.

2) Cost - religion demands much more of you than a typical superstition. In extreme cases people give up their lives for it. At the very least the price you pay is the undermining of your rationality by the muddled thought processes that religion demands.

Giving God the benefit of the doubt may seem like a good idea in the same way that throwing salt over your left shoulder seems like a good idea if you spill it. The cost seems minimal compared to the perceived consequence (go to Heaven, not Hell). But it is very habit forming (no nun pun intended).

People prove themselves worthy or unworthy of your faith in the end. Religion just expects you to keep having faith. Your belief may grow over time but it will never gain justification. So what is a wise strategy when applied to people is very unwise when applied to adopting a belief. It's yet another way that religion promotes foolishness in the guise of common sense.

[Guest]

i notice that you refer to God as "he." I believe in God, i am a nazarene. but i have trouble with that usage. how do you know the sex of God? Does it really matter? if it doesnt, then its kind of like the problem of what to call blacks. "black" could be taken offensively, but then others say that african american isnt apropriate because they dont want to be distinguished from other americans. So if it doesnt matter, do we just call God whatever feels correct? will God be offended if called she or he? i dont think so, because God is a loving god. I dont think that God cares what term we use, but i also dont think that we should just assume a male persona. why is it that God is never refered to as female, that Jesus is male, that we call the Holy Spirit an it. If women (and sorry this is kind of getting off topic) were thought of as weak, and werent important in terms of beliefs, why wasnt jesus female? He came from a lowly house, town, and occupation, why not take it one step further and have a woman save the world? there would be more of an impact in changing the view of the world into something more of equality and love.

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen 1:27)

As for Jesus:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

But then again, God isn't human, so he doesn't really have a gender. . . . . But if he was. . . . ^

Edited April 28, 2008 by Sharpie357