Re: How can we 'know'? Faith!
Originally posted by MarcAC
Well you basically answered the questions you asked. I actually integrate science, logic, and religion - through logical reasoning, based on what is observed in reality, one ends with many paradoxes which more often than not represent ignorance about certain phenomena.
Okay.
Originally posted by MarcAC
The interesting thing is that most non-theists will always see a problem which crops up in religious doctrine as a contradiction [via short sighted rationale] when many times, when treated as paradoxes, these 'contradictions' can be resolved.
Interesting perspective, but I belive I see short sighted rationale. You say "problems that come up with religious doctrines" lead to pardoxes. I'm okay with paradoxes in certain cases, but you spun the point. The point is why are you consulting religious doctrine in the first place. Sure, it contains certain valid elements of history, but to place more focus on it that for instance, my physics book.. or my calculus book, seems unwarrented. Further, your insistence that you're integrated logic, reason and religious seems false since you seem (and pardon me please if this is incorrect) to choose religion as a base and then integrate logic and reason on top of it. Certainly this will lead to parodox. No problem if the conditions leading to said paradox are consistent with demonstrable repeatable evidence, but kind of lame when you're just making them up.
Originally posted by MarcAC
But however, my main point is that there is no basis on 'truth' where one can definitely say scientific/logical or religious thinking are better methods of obtaining truth - the only way you can take a side is to excersises faith.
I agree, but there are reasonable thing to have faith in.. for instance reason. To have faith in that which is NOT reason is to abandon reason, leaving yourself without the integrated picture you claimed before. Further, I would say that truth is only knowable subjectively (by definition, focus: knowable, ie... to know, ie, to cognificate (I made that last one up because I thought it sounded cool)). If that is true then the truth cannot be ascertained literally through any type of external input, it can only be "known". If that is true... what makes your truth more valid than mine?
Okay, I may have bullshitted a bit in that last part there. I think there is validity.. but it might just be my ass hanging out. Pardon.
Originally posted by MarcAC
In essence atheists think they are so very different from religious people - they don't realise that they are 'religious' themselves.
They generally eat, shit and fuck like everyone else.
Originally posted by MarcAC
And as a note - I abhor the word and concept of religion, though, I'm a Christian. I hate to be labeled as religious.[/color]
I mostly do to.. but it's hard for me to completely loath it when it does comfort people sometimes. I hate the religion.. but the folks is allright.
Originally posted by MarcAC
To add; Why do you think Jesus sooooo strrrreeeessed the importance of faith in the bible? He knew that without it you had nothing - in fact without faith in Him you do have nothing.
I don't care what jesus said to be honest. He's a dead guy, I am sometimes interested in what dead guys said.. but pretty much anyone who would say "I am the light, I am the way" or whatever really pisses me off and I think they are delusional and sick in the freakin head.