Celpha Fiael,
There are two conclusions to arrive at, and both rely on belief. To believe that Jesus is the son of God, is different than saying "I know Jesus is the son of God. If I were to ask you if Jesus is the son of God, what would your reply be, and why?
Personally, I would say that there is not enough, not even spiritually, to convince me of that. I have considered it seriously and based my world-view around it before. But aside from that, you dodged my point about all the reasons are founded in the same scriptures that declare that he is. Now having given you an example, I repeat myself, "It is very much like somebody--or multiple people if that pacifies you more--saying 'This is so because I(/we) say so.'"
The truth does not rely on any type of authentication, or scientific evidence.
So you would say that your beliefs are backed by no form of authentication whatsoever? Not spiritually, not empirically? I disagree with this in the first place; how are you ever going to know if something is true if the question of whether it is or not is never applied?
This was in response to that I believe that scientific truth is the only sense in which truth can truly be spoken of. The answer can be found in one of the links I provided you earlier...did you not do your homework?
(It's here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1494853#post1494853)
So you think one should only believe in God, once evidence of God has arisen, and if there is no evidence that points to God, then we should dismiss the idea God completely? Or are you one of those that tries to keep a foot in camp-rational by trickily postulation that, as there is no evidence of the non-material (spiritual) it most likely that God does not exist, however as we do not know for sure, there is always the possibility, which is another way (imo) of saying "God does not exist", but you didn't hear it from me.
It wouldn't surprise me if you opted for the latter, which prompts me to ask, what type of evidence would convince you of Gods' existence.
There is evidence for God's existence, I never denied that. What I am affirming is that that evidence is insufficient and weak in comparison to other types of evidence, which point to a God not existing. But I'm not sure why you ask this, apparently, evidence doesn't matter at all to you (see three quotes above). You might as well believe in fairies or leprechauns, there is no scientific evidence against or for their existence yet I'm sure you don't. (The only difference is that God is a potentially more meaningful concept than trivial fairytale creatures and so has voluminous books debating people's speculations of him.) How is this not a double-standard?
Probably the same source who told me that pinapple is simply delicious.
You miss the point, dear.
You have effectively condemned a religion, and its adherents who believe in that religion, I think you should give details (they don't have to be long) so you justify what seems like an attack.
I have not condemned anyone, and I would appreciate it if you didn't put words like that in my mouth. I have pointed out that religion is holistically pejorative. And you're wrong, it
would have to be long, too long for me to put the effort into it here. Go look up 9/11 and fundamentalist faith, I'm sure you'll be more than satisfied if you'll put a bit of study into it.
What do they actually base on faith?
For starters, that God exists, which shapes everything else in their entire lives profoundly.
Let's say that you're right (for the sake of argument), can you explain how the religion itself (Qur'an) justifies the such actions?
And would it be fair to assume that all devout muslims would commit similar acts, as it would be a means to reach their objective goals? If that assumption doesn't follow, could you explain why?
I wouldn't be able to tell you that, as I am far more familiar with Christianity and the Bible than with Islam and the Qur'an. Of what I can see in Christianity that justifies such actions correlates with what I see extreme Islamic fundamentalists doing, and by that I conclude that there is a similar mechanism at work here. And there is; faith. I don't know the details of the Qur'an as I've said, but I've already given examples of how I see the Muslims using faith to uphold several overlying tenants found therein. I think it would not be fair to say that all devout Muslims are apt to commit such acts, I stated in an earlier post (though its precise location escapes me) that indeed some people who shared the faith with these 9/11 high-jackers would wish to separate themselves from such acts of violence. That was not my point however, my point was that these high-jackers were able to do what they did in the first place because of a stronger delusion than most Muslims adhere to, which was rooted in pure speculation, i.e. faith.
You must first present evidence which suggests this was the case before jumping to that conclusion. As you can apreciate, it is a hefty accusation which has connotations not only on Islam, but all scriptural religions.
I can't help but get the feeling you are painting yourself in to a rather awkward corner; earlier you denounce evidence as necessary for truth, and now you beg it of me, like you consider it of utmost importance.
For the sake of argument again, let's assume you have a point. You still cannot argue that religion itself is to blame, any more than you can blame young virgins. I suggest we debate the religion or religion itself in order to conclude whether it is the CAUSE of such conflict, as opposed to a reason.
Oh good, because I do have a point. I don't blame religion, I blame faith, which is unfortunately largely what religion is rooted in. If religions were able to exorcise themselves of faith and retain successful institutions then I would have no qualms with it. Faith
is the cause of such conflict (given that the adherents are willing to delve into it), and it
is opposed to reason in the highest magnitude.
If the scriptural god exists, then we have a good idea of what happens after we die.
So again we are left with belief, as death from this existence is a one time event.
Yes,
if. There is where the speculation and assumptions that later develop into faith are introduced. By the same token,
if the Hindu gods exist, then we have a good idea of what happens after we die; reincarnation. To say that an assumption exists in scriptural context is not enough to say that it is a reliable or insightful belief.
Where is the intellectual stumbling block in this scenario?
Faith is the only thing that can allows belief in God, as their is no universal evidence which says God is real,outside of interpretation, to make us know for sure that God is real.
It is in realizing that this God is unreachable through any of the major sense organs which are most vital and primary to our existence. And see, you've demonstrated this twisted system of thinking right before our very eyes; "Faith is the only thing that can allow belief in God..." It's like buying something before knowing what you're getting into; "first have faith (which you have provided no good reason for doing in the first place), then you will know God." It's very much like a salesman saying, "First give me your money,
then I'll take you to look at the house for sale." I highly doubt you would be suckered so easily. The use of faith, and the reasons for doing so in the first place, is just as absurd in this scenario as it is concerning belief in a God. If that's the only thing keeping belief in God alive, then God is all but dead, he just hasn't fallen over yet. If this is truly the case for you, then I would suggest you find a new route to believe in God. Perhaps now would be a good time to consider evidence, because you
would be able to muster up some arguable empirical evidence for God, though it would be of a lesser degree of strength than scientific evidence, of which, there is no supportive evidence of God.
That begs the question as to why all devout muslims, in all societies past and present don't adopt the same tactics.
Could it be they don't because it is not a part of their religion?
No, it's because some abandon themselves more to the idea of faith than others.
That is a baseless assumption coated with paranoia and fear, not to mention disrespectful to people who have faith in God.
If you
still think (erroneously) that this is a baseless assumption after all the questions I've answered for you and explanations, then let me know because I think we will have reached the end of our possible progress.
That is not evidence that; "...these people believed so fervently and were so sure that if they flew high-jacked planes into the twin towers that they would go to heaven and receive virgins as a reward could only be achieved through faith.
Again you must provide evidence of this, otherwise your claims will be considered an out and out attack not only on Islam, but on scriptural religion, period.
Once again we have this leering contradiction in your ideas of evidence and its importance. Let's try an approach from a different angle, as to keep you from falling into this again; what other reasons can you think of for these otherwise sane and loving people (all had families with children) to do such a heinous act?
How do you suggest one checks to see if God is real?
You cannot check to see if God is real, just as you cannot check to see if Zeus is real or unicorns are real. Faith says, "we know this, but you should believe it anyway."
Justify what claims? That they believe in God?
If they say they know for sure God is real, as they know oranges are orange, then surely you can understand that they are mistaken, not that God does not exist.
Precisely. But we are still left with this problem, if I was to ask one of these hypothetical people
why they believe in God, it would be--and if I read you correctly, you agree from your above quote--a matter of preference. They can't know for sure, but they like to believe it. It is purely wishful thinking, and it is on those grounds that I dismiss it as a candidate for truth--or a pathway to truth--at all.
It says in the Qur'an (in so many words), that to harm even a tree is a great sin, as well as suicide. So there is a misunderstanding of the religion itself, which when compounded with suffering on a unprecidented scale of either ones self, family, nation, or culture, can affect a person not grounded in knowledge, to the point of irrational acts. This, however, is quite removed from the scripture and the religion, as brought foreward by its leader and prophet.
It seems you know the Qur'an better than I. Let me ask then, can you think of
no scripture that says something contradictory to this? I know there are some, I just don't have the knowledge to know quickly where to look. If you can't find any, I will do it, but I'm hoping you could save us some time if you know of them.
Another fault with religion; its "truth" is founded in pure subjective interpretations. Some interpretations may be less contradictory than others, but that doesn't make them true. I could (not easily) construct an interpretation of symbols and metaphors found in the Odyssey with great elegance and harmony but that doesn't make it by default true.
Even if you replace the teapot with God, I wouldn't recognise good things occuring in your life, as a response to a prayer, because good thing occur frequently to so many people who do not pray or even believe in God.
I would have no reason to label you as deluded either, just superstituous maybe.
Okay, let's run with this. What if I then said that this teapot cares for me in such a way that it constantly monitors my life, even down to my thoughts, gives me advice, and forgives me of my sins? Deluded yet?
How are we to know via an independant enquiry, that the scriptures are truth? An atheist will say one thing, a theist, another, which of them is qualified to give a truthful answer, one way or the other?
I don't think you have a very good understanding of inquiry; if you are to claim that something is truthful then it must be doubted first. The opposing potentiality must be considered; you must question first to find an answer. If the Bible is true or not does not have special leverage or excuse from this. I, an atheist, say one thing but am willing to fully consider what you, a theist, have to say concerning the matter. You seem to not want to reciprocate in fairness, and I'm saying that is telling of how insecure you may be with your convictions' authenticity.
If the absolute truth changes, then it could not have been the absolute truth in the first place.
Ignoring that this is a circular argument, why would you say this is this so? Perhaps you discovered this via revelation?
My point is, that there is no difference.
This your original statement which prompted this individual set of point-counterpoint here: "Apologies if you misunderstood my sentiment, but insulting you was not part of my intention, but I've yet to hear a good reason from any explicit atheist as to why they are atheist, that doesn't equate to "i don't believe.." or "i deny the existence..." I said these reasons are the same ones theists give, and you say you agree; which means that you also think that these reasons theists give are also not "good reasons"?
