Faith Defined
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
(Q)]
As i said before, belief or confidence does not mean faith. Please read my examples.
Your reasoning is inept and you seem ignorant, naive or stubborn when it comes to understanding God as described in the scriptures.
Definitions are neither here nor there, it is about what happens at the moment. We can say we do or don't have faith in this or that all day long, but it won't matter untill the time comes to put that faith to the test, then we'll know where we are really at.
There are no "brands" of faith, there is only faith. What you describe as "brands of faith" are belief and confidence. These two states of mind are required in faith, but faith is not necessarily required in neither. Again, please read my examples. Until you understand what faith is, it is pointless talking about life being dictated by gods plan.
One step at a time heh!
This is a silly point.
You do not have a good understanding of faith.
What about "in light of evidence?"
No.
Jan Ardena.
As i said before, belief or confidence does not mean faith. Please read my examples.
Your reasoning is inept and you seem ignorant, naive or stubborn when it comes to understanding God as described in the scriptures.
Definitions are neither here nor there, it is about what happens at the moment. We can say we do or don't have faith in this or that all day long, but it won't matter untill the time comes to put that faith to the test, then we'll know where we are really at.
There are no "brands" of faith, there is only faith. What you describe as "brands of faith" are belief and confidence. These two states of mind are required in faith, but faith is not necessarily required in neither. Again, please read my examples. Until you understand what faith is, it is pointless talking about life being dictated by gods plan.
One step at a time heh!
This is a silly point.
You do not have a good understanding of faith.
What about "in light of evidence?"
No.
Jan Ardena.
As i said before, belief or confidence does not mean faith. Please read my examples.
Your assertion and your examples are substantially less than convincing.
Your reasoning is inept and you seem ignorant, naive or stubborn when it comes to understanding God as described in the scriptures.
Tossing out a few insults does nothing to support your argument. And you didn't answer the question.
Definitions are neither here nor there, it is about what happens at the moment.
Ok, Jan - whatever YOU say, o' arbiter of authority.
We can say we do or don't have faith in this or that all day long, but it won't matter untill the time comes to put that faith to the test, then we'll know where we are really at.
I put my faith to the test everytime I get up in the morning to the time I go to bed. You on the other hand will never know your "test of faith" since you'll be dead, just like the rest of us.
There are no "brands" of faith, there is only faith. What you describe as "brands of faith" are belief and confidence. These two states of mind are required in faith, but faith is not necessarily required in neither. Again, please read my examples.
As I said, your examples are pointless as is your argument. You are merely making assertions. What is your reasoning for these assertions?
Until you understand what faith is, it is pointless talking about life being dictated by gods plan.
Oh, I see, you're going to play the, "superiority" card. That is not an argument and does not support anything you say.
This is a silly point.
That is not an argument.
You do not have a good understanding of faith.
Not an argument.
What about "in light of evidence?"
What about it?
No
That would be a contradiction to almost every post you've ever made regarding your beliefs.
Your argument is weak to say the least and is comprised of mainly pointless insults and diatribe. And you have provided this thread with evidence to support my argument in that as a fundamentalist, you cannot accept my definiton of faith.
Jan Ardena.
Jan Arbiter of Authority Ardena.
Your assertion and your examples are substantially less than convincing.
Your reasoning is inept and you seem ignorant, naive or stubborn when it comes to understanding God as described in the scriptures.
Tossing out a few insults does nothing to support your argument. And you didn't answer the question.
Definitions are neither here nor there, it is about what happens at the moment.
Ok, Jan - whatever YOU say, o' arbiter of authority.
We can say we do or don't have faith in this or that all day long, but it won't matter untill the time comes to put that faith to the test, then we'll know where we are really at.
I put my faith to the test everytime I get up in the morning to the time I go to bed. You on the other hand will never know your "test of faith" since you'll be dead, just like the rest of us.
There are no "brands" of faith, there is only faith. What you describe as "brands of faith" are belief and confidence. These two states of mind are required in faith, but faith is not necessarily required in neither. Again, please read my examples.
As I said, your examples are pointless as is your argument. You are merely making assertions. What is your reasoning for these assertions?
Until you understand what faith is, it is pointless talking about life being dictated by gods plan.
Oh, I see, you're going to play the, "superiority" card. That is not an argument and does not support anything you say.
This is a silly point.
That is not an argument.
You do not have a good understanding of faith.
Not an argument.
What about "in light of evidence?"
What about it?
No
That would be a contradiction to almost every post you've ever made regarding your beliefs.
Your argument is weak to say the least and is comprised of mainly pointless insults and diatribe. And you have provided this thread with evidence to support my argument in that as a fundamentalist, you cannot accept my definiton of faith.
Jan Ardena.
Jan Arbiter of Authority Ardena.
Last edited:
(Q),
I doubt that Q, if they were i'm quite sure you would have pointed out their lack of substance.
There can be no argument untill you realise that your definitions of "faith" do not describe faith itself, only some required attributes.
Oh! don't be daft.
Okay, let's say for the moment that what you regard as "your brand of faith", (namely the 2nd definition) is a real definition, why doesn't it apply to me also?
What is my test of faith?
My reasoning comes from everday life, for example i am confident that if i come close to a rattle snake and start moving around, it will bite me, but I do not need to have faith that it will bite me. I can believe i will live to 99 years old because my grandfather did, but faith is not necessary.
Because you're not presenting an argument.
Are you frightened to argue?
We can't have an argument unless you have some real understanding of faith. I gave a good definition of faith from the Bible, which surely is part of this discussion. Why don't you use it?
You said "strong belief" is unshakeable belief in something in light of contradicting evidence. I am asking why is it not also in light of evidence (non-contradictory).
How so?
You have not given any reasonable argument to support you definition(s) as meaning faith, you have only present attributes which are require for faith.
Please explain how confidence and belief is FAITH.
You betchya!
Jan Ardena.
I doubt that Q, if they were i'm quite sure you would have pointed out their lack of substance.
There can be no argument untill you realise that your definitions of "faith" do not describe faith itself, only some required attributes.
Oh! don't be daft.
Okay, let's say for the moment that what you regard as "your brand of faith", (namely the 2nd definition) is a real definition, why doesn't it apply to me also?
What is my test of faith?
My reasoning comes from everday life, for example i am confident that if i come close to a rattle snake and start moving around, it will bite me, but I do not need to have faith that it will bite me. I can believe i will live to 99 years old because my grandfather did, but faith is not necessary.
Because you're not presenting an argument.
Are you frightened to argue?
We can't have an argument unless you have some real understanding of faith. I gave a good definition of faith from the Bible, which surely is part of this discussion. Why don't you use it?
You said "strong belief" is unshakeable belief in something in light of contradicting evidence. I am asking why is it not also in light of evidence (non-contradictory).
How so?
You have not given any reasonable argument to support you definition(s) as meaning faith, you have only present attributes which are require for faith.
Please explain how confidence and belief is FAITH.
You betchya!
Jan Ardena.
I doubt that Q, if they were i'm quite sure you would have pointed out their lack of substance.
One cannot point to that which does not exist.
There can be no argument untill you realise that your definitions of "faith" do not describe faith itself, only some required attributes.
My claims are to distinguish between two definitions of faith, not to describe it.
Okay, let's say for the moment that what you regard as "your brand of faith", (namely the 2nd definition) is a real definition, why doesn't it apply to me also?
I've already explained that. But to reiterate, your faith is in your god and your gods grand plan, therefore the second defintion does not apply to you.
My reasoning comes from everday life, for example i am confident that if i come close to a rattle snake and start moving around, it will bite me, but I do not need to have faith that it will bite me.
You have faith in your god that the snake will not bite you.
Are you frightened to argue?
Uh, yeah right.
We can't have an argument unless you have some real understanding of faith. I gave a good definition of faith from the Bible, which surely is part of this discussion. Why don't you use it?
The definition from the Bible is only relevant to believers such as yourself. It has no relevance to me whatsoever. Again, that is why two definitions are required.
I am asking why is it not also in light of evidence (non-contradictory).
Huh?
You have not given any reasonable argument to support you definition(s) as meaning faith, you have only present attributes which are require for faith.
That statement only supports my argument.
Please explain how confidence and belief is FAITH.
Again, see definitions in first post.
One cannot point to that which does not exist.
There can be no argument untill you realise that your definitions of "faith" do not describe faith itself, only some required attributes.
My claims are to distinguish between two definitions of faith, not to describe it.
Okay, let's say for the moment that what you regard as "your brand of faith", (namely the 2nd definition) is a real definition, why doesn't it apply to me also?
I've already explained that. But to reiterate, your faith is in your god and your gods grand plan, therefore the second defintion does not apply to you.
My reasoning comes from everday life, for example i am confident that if i come close to a rattle snake and start moving around, it will bite me, but I do not need to have faith that it will bite me.
You have faith in your god that the snake will not bite you.
Are you frightened to argue?
Uh, yeah right.
We can't have an argument unless you have some real understanding of faith. I gave a good definition of faith from the Bible, which surely is part of this discussion. Why don't you use it?
The definition from the Bible is only relevant to believers such as yourself. It has no relevance to me whatsoever. Again, that is why two definitions are required.
I am asking why is it not also in light of evidence (non-contradictory).
Huh?
You have not given any reasonable argument to support you definition(s) as meaning faith, you have only present attributes which are require for faith.
That statement only supports my argument.
Please explain how confidence and belief is FAITH.
Again, see definitions in first post.
(Q)
It is understandable that you can't see it.
Then distinguish how having complete confidence in a person or plan, is faith and not just being confident for whatever reason.
So you believe that as a human being, i am completely unable to have complete confidence in a person or plan?
And you don't know me?
But i've just told you that i am confident that the snake will bite me, so how have you come to the conclusion that i have faith in MY god that the snake will not bite me?
Is my word not good enough why you contradict me?
Well something's wrong. You invited me to this thread and now i'm here you offer virtually nothing in terms of argument. Either that or you got a 10 year old kid to post on your behalf.
We can't have an argument unless you have some real understanding of faith. I gave a good definition of faith from the Bible, which surely is part of this discussion. Why don't you use it?
The definition from the Bible is only relevant to believers such as yourself. It has no relevance to me whatsoever. Again, that is why two definitions are required.[/QUOTE]
Now this is very interesting. You usurp the word 'faith' by giving it a meaning that suits your lifestyle.
If it don't fit, then give it another meaning.
WHY DOES STRONG BELIEF HAVE TO MEAN UNSHAKABLE BELIEF WITH CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE. WHY NOT UNSHAKABLE BELIEF WITH NON-CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE OR NO EVIDENCE?
I hope that's clear enough for you.
Don't be silly, you say "confidence in a person or plan" is faith as is "belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny." None of these define "faith" as these positions can be attained without the need for faith. Faith is clearly something apart from these, which is why you should accept the biblical definition over yours.
In short you don't have an argument, you have hope.
I can’t see them, maybe you can spell it out for me.
Jan Ardena.
It is understandable that you can't see it.
Then distinguish how having complete confidence in a person or plan, is faith and not just being confident for whatever reason.
So you believe that as a human being, i am completely unable to have complete confidence in a person or plan?
And you don't know me?
But i've just told you that i am confident that the snake will bite me, so how have you come to the conclusion that i have faith in MY god that the snake will not bite me?
Is my word not good enough why you contradict me?
Well something's wrong. You invited me to this thread and now i'm here you offer virtually nothing in terms of argument. Either that or you got a 10 year old kid to post on your behalf.
We can't have an argument unless you have some real understanding of faith. I gave a good definition of faith from the Bible, which surely is part of this discussion. Why don't you use it?
The definition from the Bible is only relevant to believers such as yourself. It has no relevance to me whatsoever. Again, that is why two definitions are required.[/QUOTE]
Now this is very interesting. You usurp the word 'faith' by giving it a meaning that suits your lifestyle.
If it don't fit, then give it another meaning.
WHY DOES STRONG BELIEF HAVE TO MEAN UNSHAKABLE BELIEF WITH CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE. WHY NOT UNSHAKABLE BELIEF WITH NON-CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE OR NO EVIDENCE?
I hope that's clear enough for you.
Don't be silly, you say "confidence in a person or plan" is faith as is "belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny." None of these define "faith" as these positions can be attained without the need for faith. Faith is clearly something apart from these, which is why you should accept the biblical definition over yours.
In short you don't have an argument, you have hope.
I can’t see them, maybe you can spell it out for me.
Jan Ardena.
Then distinguish how having complete confidence in a person or plan, is faith and not just being confident for whatever reason.
This question contradicts itself. Distinguish confidence and not confidence?
So you believe that as a human being, i am completely unable to have complete confidence in a person or plan?
That is correct. Your decisions are governed by your faith in god, therefore they are not your decisions to make. The consequences of your decision can be neither good or bad for you because whatever happens is all part of your gods plan. If you deny that, you deny your faith in god.
so how have you come to the conclusion that i have faith in MY god that the snake will not bite me?
There is no other faith for you as long as you have faith in your god.
Now this is very interesting. You usurp the word 'faith' by giving it a meaning that suits your lifestyle.
I've done no such thing. As I stated before, it's not possible for you to accept that definition of faith because of your unshakeable faith in your god.
WHY NOT UNSHAKABLE BELIEF WITH NON-CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE OR NO EVIDENCE?
Shouting does not help convey your message with any more clarity.
Like I said before, if I claim 'no evidence' that would be a logical fallacy. In other words, I leave it open to you and anyone else to provide evidence for gods.
What 'non-contradictory' evidence are you talking about?
None of these define "faith" as these positions can be attained without the need for faith. Faith is clearly something apart from these, which is why you should accept the biblical definition over yours.
That is exactly my point. I don't accept biblical definitions any more than you accept rational definitions.
In short you don't have an argument, you have hope.
I have a solid argument that you either don't understand or most likely will not accept. That's fine because that is the exact point of my argument.
Thank you for supporting it.
As we can see, Jan has provided me with the supporting evidence to my claims in that Jan is unable to accept the second definition of faith. Jan cannot possibly share in that definition because the first definition is the faith that dominates and controls every facet of her life. She may even delude herself into thinking the second definition can apply to her but this is only faith in her god to provide the same motive as that of a rational person.
We can further hypothesize that decisions based on the first definition can never be right or wrong for that person since the consequences will be a result of their gods grand plan.
Exciting! This could make for a good paper.
This question contradicts itself. Distinguish confidence and not confidence?
So you believe that as a human being, i am completely unable to have complete confidence in a person or plan?
That is correct. Your decisions are governed by your faith in god, therefore they are not your decisions to make. The consequences of your decision can be neither good or bad for you because whatever happens is all part of your gods plan. If you deny that, you deny your faith in god.
so how have you come to the conclusion that i have faith in MY god that the snake will not bite me?
There is no other faith for you as long as you have faith in your god.
Now this is very interesting. You usurp the word 'faith' by giving it a meaning that suits your lifestyle.
I've done no such thing. As I stated before, it's not possible for you to accept that definition of faith because of your unshakeable faith in your god.
WHY NOT UNSHAKABLE BELIEF WITH NON-CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE OR NO EVIDENCE?
Shouting does not help convey your message with any more clarity.
Like I said before, if I claim 'no evidence' that would be a logical fallacy. In other words, I leave it open to you and anyone else to provide evidence for gods.
What 'non-contradictory' evidence are you talking about?
None of these define "faith" as these positions can be attained without the need for faith. Faith is clearly something apart from these, which is why you should accept the biblical definition over yours.
That is exactly my point. I don't accept biblical definitions any more than you accept rational definitions.
In short you don't have an argument, you have hope.
I have a solid argument that you either don't understand or most likely will not accept. That's fine because that is the exact point of my argument.
Thank you for supporting it.
As we can see, Jan has provided me with the supporting evidence to my claims in that Jan is unable to accept the second definition of faith. Jan cannot possibly share in that definition because the first definition is the faith that dominates and controls every facet of her life. She may even delude herself into thinking the second definition can apply to her but this is only faith in her god to provide the same motive as that of a rational person.
We can further hypothesize that decisions based on the first definition can never be right or wrong for that person since the consequences will be a result of their gods grand plan.
Exciting! This could make for a good paper.
Do you believe that if my hand fell off without scientific explanation I can therefore ascribe that act to an unknown I can term a God? Do think that reasoning through inference is logical?(Q) said:
Your definition in 1) is not representative of religious fate or even blind fate. Blind fate could be an unshakable belief that if you utter the words "blister" you shall fall down dead, and the belief has no basis nor was it inferred. You qualify 1) also with "control human destiny". why? why couldn't you simply leave it as a belief in the supernatural?
You (Q) have an unshakable belief that God does not exist, and that it is mere delusion to accept his existence. What evidence do you have to prove he does not exist? You have absolutely no evidence that can show he does not exist. Hell, you answer to a question asking you for proof showing that he does not exist would probably be a question asking if I can prove he exists. Well here, I will answer you: I don't think he exists. I have my reasons why. Now tell me, do you have any proof that shows concretely that God does not exist? If having no such proof your are nevertheless 100% certain that he-- God does not exist, can I therefore not ascribe your belief as blind faith?
Atheism as exists in the western world is tantanmount to a religion. It is a religion shaped by the conventional views of Christianity. Perhaps if I feel like it, I will start that thread.
Atheism as exists in the western world is tantanmount to a religion. It is a religion shaped by the conventional views of Christianity. Perhaps if I feel like it, I will start that thread.
(Q),
Only if you accept that confidence=faith and vice-versa, and i have demonstrated that the two words have different meanings.
I accept that they can be interlinked depending on the individual circumstance, but they are not the same thing.
How do you know i have faith in God?
Actually that is an excellent position to be in.
Unfortunately for me, and for you, i am not so exhaulted,
and would be very surprised you understood that.
It is very difficult to have firm faith in God in this day and age, those who do are very fortunate.
But i said i am 'confident' that the snake will bite me. Doesn't that register anything with you?
But you haven't given a definition of "faith" you've given two instances of "strong belief" and "confidence". I've already accepted that these two can be attributed to faith. But they are not the meaning of faith.
You have given the word "faith" two meanings because it supports your lifestyle. So you have hijacked the word.
Faith; the subtance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen. That is a perfect definition of faith. Try and think about it for a while before coming to rash conclusions, based on flights of fancy.
It wasn't a message, it was a question. And your right the clarity of my question fell on deaf ears (blind-eyes).
What contradictory evidence are you talking about?
If you can answer that then you will answer your question.
What is irrational about the biblical definition?
So everytime someone doesn't accept your argument, you take that as victory?
I will accept your argument if you can demonstrate confidence=faith=confidence, and strong belief=faith/confidence=strong belief, in a more detailed manner than the 4 lines or so in your first post.
You can't just make things up whimsically, then claim victory because no one agreed with the point in which you claimed no one agreeing with your point is proof of evidence that you're right, its just plain silly.
LOL!!!
Jan Ardena.
Only if you accept that confidence=faith and vice-versa, and i have demonstrated that the two words have different meanings.
I accept that they can be interlinked depending on the individual circumstance, but they are not the same thing.
How do you know i have faith in God?
Actually that is an excellent position to be in.
Unfortunately for me, and for you, i am not so exhaulted,
and would be very surprised you understood that.
It is very difficult to have firm faith in God in this day and age, those who do are very fortunate.
But i said i am 'confident' that the snake will bite me. Doesn't that register anything with you?
But you haven't given a definition of "faith" you've given two instances of "strong belief" and "confidence". I've already accepted that these two can be attributed to faith. But they are not the meaning of faith.
You have given the word "faith" two meanings because it supports your lifestyle. So you have hijacked the word.
Faith; the subtance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen. That is a perfect definition of faith. Try and think about it for a while before coming to rash conclusions, based on flights of fancy.
It wasn't a message, it was a question. And your right the clarity of my question fell on deaf ears (blind-eyes).
What contradictory evidence are you talking about?
If you can answer that then you will answer your question.
What is irrational about the biblical definition?
So everytime someone doesn't accept your argument, you take that as victory?
I will accept your argument if you can demonstrate confidence=faith=confidence, and strong belief=faith/confidence=strong belief, in a more detailed manner than the 4 lines or so in your first post.
You can't just make things up whimsically, then claim victory because no one agreed with the point in which you claimed no one agreeing with your point is proof of evidence that you're right, its just plain silly.
LOL!!!
Jan Ardena.
Do you believe that if my hand fell off without scientific explanation I can therefore ascribe that act to an unknown I can term a God?
You would have to first show that hands do indeed fall off without scientific explanation.
Your definition in 1) is not representative of religious fate or even blind fate
True, but I never said anything about fate.
You (Q) have an unshakable belief that God does not exist
Can you quote me on that or is that your own opinion?
What evidence do you have to prove he does not exist?
Off topic - go to another thread discussing the existence of gods.
Perhaps if I feel like it, I will start that thread.
By all means, do so. Do you have any comment on the definitions?
You would have to first show that hands do indeed fall off without scientific explanation.
Your definition in 1) is not representative of religious fate or even blind fate
True, but I never said anything about fate.
You (Q) have an unshakable belief that God does not exist
Can you quote me on that or is that your own opinion?
What evidence do you have to prove he does not exist?
Off topic - go to another thread discussing the existence of gods.
Perhaps if I feel like it, I will start that thread.
By all means, do so. Do you have any comment on the definitions?
Only if you accept that confidence=faith and vice-versa, and i have demonstrated that the two words have different meanings. I accept that they can be interlinked depending on the individual circumstance, but they are not the same thing.
Jan, are you actually reading my posts? I have already explained that.
How do you know i have faith in God?
Actually that is an excellent position to be in.
For you perhaps. But I don't place my faith in imaginary gods.
It is very difficult to have firm faith in God in this day and age, those who do are very fortunate.
You either have it or you don't.
But i said i am 'confident' that the snake will bite me. Doesn't that register anything with you?
Read my previous posts, please.
Faith; the subtance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen. That is a perfect definition of faith.
Exactly, FOR YOU!
Try and think about it for a while before coming to rash conclusions, based on flights of fancy.
I did think about, that's why I started the thread.
What contradictory evidence are you talking about?
The evidence of evolution is one example.
What is irrational about the biblical definition?
It is a defintion based on an assertion.
So everytime someone doesn't accept your argument, you take that as victory?
Did I say that?
I will accept your argument if you can demonstrate confidence=faith=confidence
Again, it is apparent you are not reading or perhaps not understanding my posts. I never once said that confidence=faith.
You can't just make things up whimsically, then claim victory because no one agreed with the point in which you claimed no one agreeing with your point is proof of evidence that you're right, its just plain silly.
Where did I claim victory?
Jan, are you actually reading my posts? I have already explained that.
How do you know i have faith in God?
Actually that is an excellent position to be in.
For you perhaps. But I don't place my faith in imaginary gods.
It is very difficult to have firm faith in God in this day and age, those who do are very fortunate.
You either have it or you don't.
But i said i am 'confident' that the snake will bite me. Doesn't that register anything with you?
Read my previous posts, please.
Faith; the subtance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen. That is a perfect definition of faith.
Exactly, FOR YOU!
Try and think about it for a while before coming to rash conclusions, based on flights of fancy.
I did think about, that's why I started the thread.
What contradictory evidence are you talking about?
The evidence of evolution is one example.
What is irrational about the biblical definition?
It is a defintion based on an assertion.
So everytime someone doesn't accept your argument, you take that as victory?
Did I say that?
I will accept your argument if you can demonstrate confidence=faith=confidence
Again, it is apparent you are not reading or perhaps not understanding my posts. I never once said that confidence=faith.
You can't just make things up whimsically, then claim victory because no one agreed with the point in which you claimed no one agreeing with your point is proof of evidence that you're right, its just plain silly.
Where did I claim victory?
Substitute fate for faith. I was talking about the former before the post, and therefore the slip.
And showing your proof is not off topic. YOu make the claim that a belief in a God is a different form of faith as it not based on observation or evidence. I'm saying that there is no proof suggesting that God does not exist. One can infer that God exists. Therefore the belief is not blind if arrived through inference and if validated as some claimed by subjective experience.
I have asked two questions of you that are relevant to the topic at hand:
1. Do you think inference is reasoning?
2. Do you believe that God exists?
And showing your proof is not off topic. YOu make the claim that a belief in a God is a different form of faith as it not based on observation or evidence. I'm saying that there is no proof suggesting that God does not exist. One can infer that God exists. Therefore the belief is not blind if arrived through inference and if validated as some claimed by subjective experience.
I have asked two questions of you that are relevant to the topic at hand:
1. Do you think inference is reasoning?
2. Do you believe that God exists?
One can infer that God exists.
... as one can infer invisible pink unicorns exist.
if validated as some claimed by subjective experience
Ok, my subjective experiences have validated that pink unicorns exist.
I have asked two questions of you that are relevant to the topic at hand
Those are not relevant to my claims. Start a new thread.
... as one can infer invisible pink unicorns exist.
if validated as some claimed by subjective experience
Ok, my subjective experiences have validated that pink unicorns exist.
I have asked two questions of you that are relevant to the topic at hand
Those are not relevant to my claims. Start a new thread.
I have a remark for point 2:(Q) said:
Complete confidence is not faith. If you have complete confidence based on evidence then that is not faith.
I can do things that I normally wouldn't do if my life for the moment goes downwards. A person with faith in me could then trust that I'm still the same deep inside.
Children often say "I will never start smoking!" and then later on in his life we can see him smoke. Then we could have faith that the attitude that he had from the start is still there, hidden to us.
I know, because I once said that I would never start smoking, but nevertheless I did. But I still have the attitude deep down, that it's not good to smoke. I still feel a bit of sorrow when I think about it, I should have kept the promise I made to myself and not start smoking. Then I think I would be a much more confident person as well as healthier. Trusting yourself is the key to confidence and if you say things to yourself that you don't keep then you gradually loose that confidence, it's better not to make promises than breaking them.
(Q) just has way too much confidence and pride and will never condede. He's the type that will never be able to utter the words "I love you". Heh, it'll be a cold day in hell before he says "I'm wrong" or even worse, agrees with a psuedosciencer. (note: not to say he's ever wrong or not)
As for him vehemently denying there being the existance of God, I think it'd be more along the lines of him agreeing that there is a God.. in the sense that there is something that has always existed and started creation (more along the lines of God being the universe or big bang), it's just that 99.9% of the world's definition of who and what God is is completely wrong and he just can't get himself to utter that word "God". I believe whatever the first thing to have existed and to have created to be God, for lack of a better word due to not knowing what "it" is, but I sure as heck don't believe God to be some old man with a long beard, fiery eyes, a white robe, that is omnipotent, omniscient, and all that other "stuff".
It sure is fun trying to fill in all the blanks and ASSUME and PHILOSOPHIZE (what religion is) as to who and what God is, but the horrendous error comes when trying to spout off those assumptions and ideas as truth, and there's where the major distaste of religion and God comes from.
Oh and Rosa, I love ya, and I want you around, but darn I love Medicine Woman's fiesty bite she has as well. Woohoo, cat fights!
- N
(note: not to say he's ever wrong or not)As for him vehemently denying there being the existance of God, I think it'd be more along the lines of him agreeing that there is a God.. in the sense that there is something that has always existed and started creation (more along the lines of God being the universe or big bang), it's just that 99.9% of the world's definition of who and what God is is completely wrong and he just can't get himself to utter that word "God". I believe whatever the first thing to have existed and to have created to be God, for lack of a better word due to not knowing what "it" is, but I sure as heck don't believe God to be some old man with a long beard, fiery eyes, a white robe, that is omnipotent, omniscient, and all that other "stuff".
It sure is fun trying to fill in all the blanks and ASSUME and PHILOSOPHIZE (what religion is) as to who and what God is, but the horrendous error comes when trying to spout off those assumptions and ideas as truth, and there's where the major distaste of religion and God comes from.
Oh and Rosa, I love ya, and I want you around, but darn I love Medicine Woman's fiesty bite she has as well. Woohoo, cat fights!
- N
Heh, yeah, that's something I find highly amusing when it comes to athiests. The only things they ever debunk is Christian doctrine! I mean hey, at least make it a bit more fun and discuss and debunk other religions too, ya know. Buddhism and Hinduism, those two outta be fun.
- N