Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Serenity]

"Trust" is still not a reason. You're basically just using a synonym for faith here.

There is a tendency for apologists to use the words "faith" and "trust" not only to refer to mindless conviction, but also to reasonable conclusions, like the "faith" that I'm communicating with other people via this computer. The key difference, of course, being that one of them is actually a reasonable conclusion from known facts.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Serenity

There is a tendency for apologists to use the words "faith" and "trust" not only to refer to mindless conviction, but also to reasonable conclusions, like the "faith" that I'm communicating with other people via this computer. The key difference, of course, being that one of them is actually a reasonable conclusion from known facts.

Faith in a god isn't a reasonable conclusion based on facts? Throughout history science has been used just as much to support the existence of a deity as it has been used to disprove.

[Edit] And let me just point out that your very signature is evidence that you aren't researching the context of verses very thoroughly.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Serenity

There is a tendency for apologists to use the words "faith" and "trust" not only to refer to mindless conviction, but also to reasonable conclusions, like the "faith" that I'm communicating with other people via this computer. The key difference, of course, being that one of them is actually a reasonable conclusion from known facts.

Sure, and that's a valid usage of those words, so I originally qualified it as "faith alone."

Originally Posted by Bob

Faith in a god isn't a reasonable conclusion based on facts? Throughout history science has been used just as much to support the existence of a deity as it has been used to disprove.

Roy_D_Mylote cited no such scientific proof, and in fact specifically claimed to have none. If you have something convincing, I think we'd be glad to hear it. I know I would.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Roy_D_Mylote cited no such scientific proof, and in fact specifically claimed to have none. If you have something convincing, I think we'd be glad to hear it. I know I would.

I have no proof, but I have a book full of research that is actually pretty interesting. I'll try to dig it up.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

[Edit] And let me just point out that your very signature is evidence that you aren't researching the context of verses very thoroughly.

I'm just curious, what "context" am I missing here?

[ZAKtheGeek]

Oh, and just sort of a random, almost irrelevant little rangent (rant tangent; it's copyrighted) here...

Anybody else get tired of reading or hearing that not believing in God/Christ is "rejecting love/mercy/peace/heaven/truth?" That's really an inaccurate way to put it, and a bit insulting too, because if that were actually the choice, it'd obviously be a no-brainer and would take some kind of idiot to turn down. I don't know about any of you, but the only offers I've ever actually turned down were those of rules and authority. Anything about rewards was just promises for a faraway future. Plus, all these supposed rewards obviously can't come from the people that actually offer them, so that's misleading too. Jesus never offered me jack shit. If God actually told me, "Hey, do this stuff and you'll go to heaven," it might be a different story, but so far it's just been people in no position to make such claims.

[Odjn]

Buddha wins.

[Roy_D_Mylote]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Oh, and just sort of a random, almost irrelevant little rangent (rant tangent; it's copyrighted) here...

Anybody else get tired of reading or hearing that not believing in God/Christ is "rejecting love/mercy/peace/heaven/truth?" That's really an inaccurate way to put it, and a bit insulting too, because if that were actually the choice, it'd obviously be a no-brainer and would take some kind of idiot to turn down. I don't know about any of you, but the only offers I've ever actually turned down were those of rules and authority. Anything about rewards was just promises for a faraway future. Plus, all these supposed rewards obviously can't come from the people that actually offer them, so that's misleading too. Jesus never offered me jack shit. If God actually told me, "Hey, do this stuff and you'll go to heaven," it might be a different story, but so far it's just been people in no position to make such claims.

I actually totally agree with you.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

If God actually told me, "Hey, do this stuff and you'll go to heaven," it might be a different story, but so far it's just been people in no position to make such claims.

I made a post around 40 or so pages ago that said that the entire basis of our faith is that we don't have to do a thing to get to heaven except accept that God gave us heaven and Jesus gave us the means to get there.

Are you actually waiting around for God to come down and tell you "hey Zak, go do this and I'll let you in." I'm guessing that's why the Bible and millions of evangelists exist.

This thread can go in circles as many times as you guys want it to go. But, if two people don't want to agree, there's never going to be an end to the debate.

[Edit] Also, for Zak, a site for you. http://www.godandscience.org/

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Bob

I made a post around 40 or so pages ago that said that the entire basis of our faith is that we don't have to do a thing to get to heaven except accept that God gave us heaven and Jesus gave us the means to get there.

Okay... So your point is...?

Originally Posted by Bob

Are you actually waiting around for God to come down and tell you "hey Zak, go do this and I'll let you in."

Well, I'm not exactly holding my breath. I'm just saying, that's a situation in which it would be possible for me to actually "reject heaven," but nothing of the sort has happened, so it's inaccurate to say that I've done that.

Originally Posted by Bob

I'm guessing that's why the Bible and millions of evangelists exist.

Because God is unable to, or is he just unwilling? I ask only half-jokingly. Anyway, like I said, that would just be me taking a promise from a person that can't possibly keep it. Or, more precisely, it'd be me trusting the alleged words of people from a couple of millennia ago, as delivered by modern evangelists. Why would I do that?

Originally Posted by Bob

This thread can go in circles as many times as you guys want it to go. But, if two people don't want to agree, there's never going to be an end to the debate.

The best possibility, I think, would be if we could agree on the fundamental difference in our lines of thought (assuming one side isn't simply blatantly wrong). Lately it seems the difference is that some of us are willing to put stock in completely unsubstantiated ideas, and some aren't. Sorry if that's blunt, but that's how it's panning out.

Originally Posted by Bob

[Edit] Also, for Zak, a site for you. http://www.godandscience.org/

Yeah, we've looked at that site in, like, the first thread. And, yeah... no. Just, no good. Here's a fun excerpt that stuck in my head and happened to be easy to find:

Originally Posted by God and "Science"

However, God is not restricted to our limitations and could choose to reveal part of Himself to us. God could not reveal His entirety to us without causing major problems in our universe. The sudden appearance of dimensions and matter(?) from outside the universe would destroy anything in the vicinity and maybe even destroy the entire universe. This is why the Bible says that nobody can see God and live.

Have fun with the context.