-->
@SkepticalOne
Faith is one aspect of internal data management............As is scepticism.
"Faith is the basis for my belief"
Posts
Total:
278
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you mean by internal data management?
-->
@SkepticalOne
Brain function....The acquisition, storage, manipulation and output of data....Faith and scepticism are two labels that we apply to bits of this process.
-->
@zedvictor4
Brain function....The acquisition, storage, manipulation and output of data....Faith and scepticism are two labels that we apply to bits of this process.
Faith provides no reliable pathway to knowledge. Skepticism does.
Irrationality is part of brain function too. Should we strive to increase it?
What point are you trying to make?
-->
@SkepticalOne
The "many, many words" were an example of various thoughts on the subject, thus not just my opinion. They are confirmed by dictionaries, encyclopedias, and religious authorities as well as from the etymology of the word "faith." They do not deflect; rather they prove.I have agreed faith *can* mean trust, but that is not the definition of faith provided by the Bible."Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Biblical faith is not defined by just one verse, but the whole context, the whole chapter speaks of a trust in God. You still have to trust in the substance of things you hope for, that God exists and is a rewarded of those who diligently seek Him. The biblical record is one of trust in Him identified by those who are faithful and distrust and doubting Him for the faithless.
Trust in the Lord with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.
Jesus constantly demonstrated trust in His Father and others recognized this faith.
He trusts in God; let God rescue Him now, if He delights in Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”
[ Jesus Comforts His Disciples ] “Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.
Believing in Someone you have not seen requires a faith. And when we trust, when we place our trust in Him He does not disappoint if we do not give up.
Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
The same trust and faith could be said for Paul, as he said,
indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead;
He had faith in the substance of the things he hoped for and encouraged others to hope as well in the things not seen in the physical.
...meaning faith itself is evidence. "Trust" is not evidence - it is built on evidence. That being said, all the definitions you've provide do not argue against this point. There are multiple definitions for many words - that is not in contention. What is in contention is that a particular (Biblical) definition of faith is a dubious basis of reasonable belief, and most especially, knowledge.
The thing or objected hoped for - God - provides us evidence. His Spirit interjects with our spirits. We reason with God through His word.
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Those who place their faith in Jesus, and do not tun back, are rewarded by the knowledge of Him. When they read the Word they recognize who it is speaking to them through the message,
For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has gone forth, so that we have no need to say anything.
For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.
Now, again, I have provided many Scriptural verses that give evidence of what I am saying. I do this not solely for you, as a witness against your opposition, for I believe you will reject it (your objections demonstrate this), but for those who are open.
Also, you should keep in mind, my reply was directed at posts which primarily railed on things unrelated to definitions of trust and/or faith - that is the gish gallop.
No, the word faith could be replaced by belief or trust depending on the context.
And, you are confusing an attack on a bad strategy as an attack on your character. That's your mistake. Even still, at no point have I refused to discuss this topic. I left it up to you to get back on track or end the discussion. That's not ad hom, buddy.
I will let others decide for themselves, yet when someone says to me that I am not honest but does not address the issue at hand I see it as an ad hom.
You said: "I do not 'trust' you mean to have an honest discussion..."
That did not address the issue (what I was arguing for and what I had said), it just focused on discrediting me as dishonest.
How many times have you skipped my questions while again charging gish gallop.
My faith is not a blind faith and yet while I do not see God in this physical dimension I know He exists. He continually confirms to me His existence by His Word, His Son, His Spirit, and by what has been made. Through Him I make sense of my existence.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Are you using the label to identify what you really believe in - a flying spaghetti monster, first revealed in 2005 - or are you just using the term as a form of mockery of religions in general, especially Christianity?Neither.
Please explain further. What do you believe about Pastafarianism?
Do you really believe in Pastafarianism (what you have labelled yourself as), or is it just a platform to express your atheism, a smoke screen label to create attention to religion as absurd?
I would have thought that someone who claimed allegiance to such a religion would also adhere to its tenants and identify with its creator, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you really believe in Pastafarianism
Yes - I believe religion shouldn't be taught as true or factual by government in schools. Do you disagree with that notion?
-->
@SkepticalOne
Do you really believe in PastafarianismYes - I believe religion shouldn't be taught as true or factual by government in schools. Do you disagree with that notion?
I make a distinction between religion and Christianity based on James 1:27, so what is classed as religion does not usually represent the true tenents of Christianity. Thus, I can agree that what is not pure should not be taught as true. As for teaching Christianity as true, I agree that it is, so I see the benefits of teaching the Judeo-Christian belief system since your country was founded on many of its principles. IMO, the further we distance ourselves from God the more riots and loots and social disorder we find within our socieities. I believe the Sermon on the Mount is worth teaching. The golden rule is worth teaching. The Ten Commandments are worth teaching.
As for the factuality of Christianity, I believe I can make a good case for it. The biblical God is certainly reasonable to believe and capable of making sense of existence. I believe God is true and every human, in his/her limited capacity, a liar. As for your "version" of truth, what is truth?
Do you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real as your religion states?
-->
@SkepticalOne
The point simply is that faith, scepticism or irrationality and labelling them, are simply a bodily function that occurs within the brain.
And although religion is otherwise meaningless, it nonetheless can/does have meaning within said context.
-->
@SkepticalOne
@zedvictor4
Brain function....The acquisition, storage, manipulation and output of data....Faith and scepticism are two labels that we apply to bits of this process.Faith provides no reliable pathway to knowledge. Skepticism does.
I would like to cut in here with my two cents to your comment to zedvictor4, SkepticalOne.
You have as much faith as I do, I would say more, it is just directed in another direction, to scientism when you speak of origins. Are you applying this comment to yourself too? Faith in the biblical God does have its evidence, and the biblical God makes sense of meaning, value, and purpose. How does your Flying Spaghetti Monster do so?
-->
@PGA2.0
Biblical faith is not defined by just one verse, but the whole context, the whole chapter speaks of a trust in God. You still have to trust in the substance of things you hope for, that God exists and is a rewarded of those who diligently seek Him. The biblical record is one of trust in Him identified by those who are faithful and distrust and doubting Him for the faithless.
You're assuming your conclusion when you pull verses which use 'trust' instead of 'faith', and your language is confused where you integrate "trust" into a Biblical definition for faith - "trust in the substance of things you hope for". The verses says 'faith is the substance of things hoped for', not 'faith is the trust in the substance of things hoped for'.
Yes - I believe religion shouldn't be taught as true or factual by government in schools. Do you disagree with that notion?I make a distinction between religion and Christianity based on James 1:27, so what is classed as religion does not usually represent the true tenents of Christianity.
I don't follow that distinction. The Christian church does not stand untainted by the world (and neither does any other religion that I know of). There are plenty of examples of 'wordly stains' on the church. Regardless of the seeming no true scotsman in the works here, religious texts aren't the place to draw a definition of religion for secular government, and I highly doubt this definition of religion was discussed in the Continental Convention.
As for teaching Christianity as true, I agree that it is, so I see the benefits of teaching the Judeo-Christian belief system since your country was founded on many of its principles.
Yah...no. David Barton and Christian Nationalists have done much to distort the facts, but America was not founded on Judeo-Christian values. That's a whole other debate though.
As for the factuality of Christianity, I believe I can make a good case for it.
As do adherents of every religion.
Do you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real as your religion states?
As I answered in an earlier post:
"Pastafarianism is not contrary to atheism, agnosticism, or even Christianity since it is not a belief in a real god, but a clever illustration of why government sponsored religion in public schools is a bad idea."
You're asking a question that was already answered by a previous reply. If you're going to ask questions please pay attention to the answers.
You have as much faith as I do, I would say more, it is just directed in another direction, to scientism when you speak of origins.
Ultimately, I acknowledge my ignorance on the origins of life and the BB (until more data comes to light). Unless you're willing to admit faith and ignorance are linked, I don't think this is the direction you want to go.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Biblical faith is not defined by just one verse, but the whole context, the whole chapter speaks of a trust in God. You still have to trust in the substance of things you hope for, that God exists and is a rewarded of those who diligently seek Him. The biblical record is one of trust in Him identified by those who are faithful and distrust and doubting Him for the faithless.You're assuming your conclusion when you pull verses which use 'trust' instead of 'faith', and your language is confused where you integrate "trust" into a Biblical definition for faith - "trust in the substance of things you hope for". The verses says 'faith is the substance of things hoped for', not 'faith is the trust in the substance of things hoped for'.
I am not confused, and yes, I trust the overall biblical demonstration of faith - trust in the substance of things hoped for, in a God hoped for and trusted in, of people believing God and acting accordingly. To believe you must trust. To place faith you must trust . Why would you put your faith in something you did not trust in? My conclusion is based on solid evidence, the word of God. These people believed God, they trusted God.
Galatians 3:5-7 (NASB)
5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
6 Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
6 Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
James 2:22-24 (NASB)
22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Abraham was looking for the substance of things not seen. In Hebrews 11 you quote one verse but you ignore the rest that describes that substance in believing God. Thus, Scripture says:
Hebrews 11 (NASB)
The Triumphs of Faith
11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old gained approval.
The Triumphs of Faith
11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old gained approval.
By faith these men of old believed God's word. They were sure of the conviction of the things hoped for because they understood that God does not lie. By faith they and all people of faith in the biblical God understand that what is seen, the physical, is not made by the physical, but by God. We understand God, by His Word, spoke the universe into being. So the substance of things hoped for, things not yet seen, including God, is the surety of our convictions. That is our faith, our trust has an object - God.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
Hebrews 11:8-10
By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; 10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
The substance of the things hoped for was what Abraham placed his faith in, in the God who was able to deliver that substance.
By faith...[Abraham] believed in God's promise, the substance of which was the inheritance God had promised him.
By faith...(Abraham] was looking for the city of God. That was the substance he hoped for and believed in because he had faith that God was able to deliver it.
Hebrews 11:13-19
13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15 And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, “In Isaac your descendants shall be called.” 19 He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, “In Isaac your descendants shall be called.” 19 He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.
In faith...all {mentioned in the chapter] died, welcoming the promises of God from afar, having faith that God was able to deliver what He promised to those who put their trust in Him. Just like Abraham, they were looking for the substance of things hoped for believing God will make it happen because of their trust in Him.
By faith Abraham, who had been promised by God, believed in the substance of that promise and trusted God. He put his faith in the substance of God's words and trusted God was able to do what He said.
Through God, I understand the impossibility of the contrary, of His necessity in making sense of life's ultimate questions - origins, existence, morality, truth. I know His words are true. There is a conviction that come from my faith in Him. He opens His word to my spirit. He confirms His word in so many ways because I have placed my faith in His Son. I believe in what the Word says of Jesus. I understand how reasonable it is and how God confirms His Word by what He has made. Prophecy is just one of those ways that He gives evidence of His word in history.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Yes - I believe religion shouldn't be taught as true or factual by government in schools. Do you disagree with that notion?I make a distinction between religion and Christianity based on James 1:27, so what is classed as religion does not usually represent the true tenents of Christianity.I don't follow that distinction. The Christian church does not stand untainted by the world (and neither does any other religion that I know of). There are plenty of examples of 'wordly stains' on the church. Regardless of the seeming no true scotsman in the works here, religious texts aren't the place to draw a definition of religion for secular government, and I highly doubt this definition of religion was discussed in the Continental Convention.
The church is not a building but a body of believer, of believers who place their faith in Jesus Christ and what He has done. They trust His word. They have faith in the substance of His word. They are given assurance of His word because of their faith. God confirms in them His truth. They understand the falsity of the contrary.
Even though we are frail and tainted in ourselves, we do not look to ourselves but to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. Our works are nothing compared to His, who obtained eternal salvation not because of what we had done or could do, but because of His glorious righteousness. We, by faith, recognize His life lived in our stead, His righteousness in exchange for our unrighteousness, His penalty and payment sufficient before God, recognizing that He died in our stead, the righteous for the unrighteous. So, there is no boasting on our part in what we do but on what He has done for us!
We see the difference between Christianity and other religions in what we are incapable of doing in and of ourselves God has done for us. That is the faith we hold, the substance of the things we hope for and the assurance of things to come, and have come to us who believe. We believe. We see the difference between Christianity and other religions in that they are built upon our works, not the work of God. We rest in God.
Hebrews 4:8-10 (NASB)
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
That day has come for us Christians for we not only have peace with God but we rest in His Son. By faith and with the reason provided by Scripture I believe that great day dawned in AD 70.
The stains of the church come from our disobedience, not our obedience or following Scripture, yet the blood stains of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice has done more than we could ever hope for, more than we can ever do. As Christians we are taught by His word to forgive others as we have been forgiven.
We understand that pure religion is to sacrifice ourselves for others, to help them in their times of need in as much as God has given us the ability, to put them before ourselves.
As for teaching Christianity as true, I agree that it is, so I see the benefits of teaching the Judeo-Christian belief system since your country was founded on many of its principles.Yah...no. David Barton and Christian Nationalists have done much to distort the facts, but America was not founded on Judeo-Christian values. That's a whole other debate though.
Who fled on the Mayflower? What principles did they build upon?
As for the factuality of Christianity, I believe I can make a good case for it.As do adherents of every religion.
Our belief in built upon a history like no other religious belief, an interaction. As I said, prophecy is a reasonable proof that is not easily explained away, as you have attempted to do through eisegesis. The problem is that in doing so you reflect on ideas that are not found in the Bible. You ignore the primary audience and interject your own.
Do you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real as your religion states?As I answered in an earlier post:"Pastafarianism is not contrary to atheism, agnosticism, or even Christianity since it is not a belief in a real god, but a clever illustration of why government sponsored religion in public schools is a bad idea."
That is where you are mistaken. The Christian God is real and He has given you adequate proof of His existence not only through what is made but also by His Word, His Son, His Spirit, that you would be wise to take note of.
You hide your real belief behind this Pastarianism as a mascarade. You will not commit to saying that its tenants are real or true because you know, deep down, they are not. I ask you a simple question - "Do you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real" - and you admit it is not a belief of a real god. It is just fiction made up in 2005 to mock Christianity and that you also use as a club, IMO.
You're asking a question that was already answered by a previous reply. If you're going to ask questions please pay attention to the answers.
That is the difference between our beliefs. You do not believe what you noted as your belief (Pastafarianism). IMO, you use it to mock the Christian belief. Why is it that you have such animosity for Someone you say you have no faith or belief in - the Christian God? You make it a point to center the Christian beliefs out as unreal yet you are inconsistent. What you say is not how you act. You charge the Christian God as non-existence and unreal while you critique Him as if He is real and as if it matters to you what He does. Why do you treat Him as if He is real if He is just a fiction? Why do you constantly think about Him? You get upset by the injustice of God in the Bible on the one hand then say He does not exist on the other. That is inconsistency.
You have as much faith as I do, I would say more, it is just directed in another direction, to scientism when you speak of origins.Ultimately, I acknowledge my ignorance on the origins of life and the BB (until more data comes to light). Unless you're willing to admit faith and ignorance are linked, I don't think this is the direction you want to go.
Until more subjective opinion about origins comes to light?
I am not the one in ignorance towards the biblical God - you are.
I ask you what would be necessary for our knowledge of origins since you claim ignorance? Is that something you have an answer for because I do. I understand that you are not necessary, nor am I. And, you admit you are ignorant. I claim that is because you have not identified what (or rather, Who) would be necessary to make sense of origins. Both you and I are limited in our understanding, limited in our knowledge. Every human being, save one - Jesus Christ - is lacking in omniscience.
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not sure who and what you are referring to when you suggest "more Faith".
Faith has two main sub-definitions.
1. A general trust in day to day stuff....I have faith in the weather forecast etc.
2. Strong belief in doctrines of religion.
I have no strong belief in doctrines of religion, and little faith in the weather forecast....Though it is fair to say that we all need to have faith in day to day stuff, or we would never get anything done.
So can you explain, why you think that I might have more faith than you?
And I would suggest that you and more specifically your brain, derives meaning, value and purpose and attributes it to a god, relative to programmed information....In exactly the same way (process) that SkepticalOne and myself attribute meaning, value and purpose in other ways.
And furthermore, there is no factual evidence for the existence of a god, only hypothetical suggestion....Hence, you have faith and we are sceptical.
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't follow that distinction. The Christian church does not stand untainted by the world (and neither does any other religion that I know of). There are plenty of examples of 'wordly stains' on the church.Even though we are frail and tainted in ourselves,
Here's what I got from that:
'You're right the church is stained, so, it's a religion like any other..., but, I think my religion is better and should have a privileged place in schools anyway'.
Who fled on the Mayflower? What principles did they build upon?
As I said above, this is a whole other debate. Start a thread if you want to discuss it.
Our belief in built upon a [insert attribute here] like no other religious belief,
Still claimed by adherents of every religion.
It [Pastafarianism] is just fiction made up in 2005 to mock Christianity and that you also use as a club, IMO.
...I didn't bring it up, and I certainly haven't clubbed you or anyone with it.
I ask you what would be necessary for our knowledge of origins since you claim ignorance? Is that something you have an answer for because I do.
You've mistaken having an answer with having knowledge.
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not sure who and what you are referring to when you suggest "more Faith".Faith has two main sub-definitions.1. A general trust in day to day stuff....I have faith in the weather forecast etc.2. Strong belief in doctrines of religion.I have no strong belief in doctrines of religion, and little faith in the weather forecast....Though it is fair to say that we all need to have faith in day to day stuff, or we would never get anything done.So can you explain, why you think that I might have more faith than you?And I would suggest that you and more specifically your brain, derives meaning, value and purpose and attributes it to a god, relative to programmed information....In exactly the same way (process) that SkepticalOne and myself attribute meaning, value and purpose in other ways.And furthermore, there is no factual evidence for the existence of a god, only hypothetical suggestion....Hence, you have faith and we are sceptical.
The post was addressed to SkepticalOne. I just included you because I cut into your conversation. The "more faith" reference was addressing SkepticalOne, not you.
There is factual evidence that confirms the biblical words are true and reasonable to believe. You mention meaning, value, and purpose. If you do not believe in God how do you come up with these three specifics without it being nothing more than relativism? If you believe in a god, which one? Give me your absolute, objective best, the reference point you judge good and better against. If you can offer no final measure and reference point what makes your views as anything more than shifting and changing? If they are shifting and changing, how do you arrive at goodness?
I'll take a specific example, abortion, since SkepticalOne and I had a debate (actually two) on this very subject. How do you measure the worth of the unborn human being as an example of values?
Do you have what is necessary in what you believe about meaning, values, and purpose to make sense of these three qualitative terms? If so, do so. I challenge you.
-->
@SkepticalOne
I don't follow that distinction. The Christian church does not stand untainted by the world (and neither does any other religion that I know of). There are plenty of examples of 'wordly stains' on the church.Even though we are frail and tainted in ourselves,Here's what I got from that:'You're right the church is stained, so, it's a religion like any other..., but, I think my religion is better and should have a privileged place in schools anyway'.
Religion is "do, do" to earn your salvation or make yourself right with God. Christiinity is what Another has done for you. That makes it different from other religious beliefs. What makes you so good that you think you are better than those who have faith in Jesus, stained and all? Christianity focuses on our righteousness before God. How would you meet that standard? How do you meet its criterion?
Have you ever disrespected God? Have you taken His name in vain?
Have you ever been angry with your brother or someone unjustly? Jesus equated that to murder. Have you been complicit in shedding innocent blood? Have you defended the innocent?
Have you ever committed adultery? Jesus defined that as lust for a woman.
Have you ever coveted something not your own?
Have you ever lied? Do you misrepresent the truth? Do you know what the truth is?
Have you ever dishonoured your parents?
Have you ever stolen?
Have you ever been hypocritical?
Have you promoted what is evil? How do you know?
Have you ever falsely beared witness against someone else, slandered, or miligned their character?
Do you promote stife for people of biblical faith?
Are you for or against Jesus?
Who fled on the Mayflower? What principles did they build upon?As I said above, this is a whole other debate. Start a thread if you want to discuss it.
You mentioned it. Let me remind you:
"David Barton and Christian Nationalists have done much to distort the facts, but America was not founded on Judeo-Christian values. That's a whole other debate though."
Why should I value David Barton's opinion? Why should I value Christian nationalism? Did the founding fathers of your country believe in a deity and many specifically in the Judeo-Christian God? What of the Declaration of Independence?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I'm just answering your charges. Is you aim just to state things without accountability? Do you want me to remain silent and let you control the whole narrative?
Our belief in built upon a [insert attribute here] like no other religious belief,Still claimed by adherents of every religion.
And not every religious belief is true since every religion makes absolute claims that contradict other religions. I only defend my Christian beliefs since I do not believe other worldviews are based on truth. That is where my arguments come from.
It [Pastafarianism] is just fiction made up in 2005 to mock Christianity and that you also use as a club, IMO....I didn't bring it up, and I certainly haven't clubbed you or anyone with it.
In your profile, you stated it was your religion. When I questioned you on some of its tenants you say you do not believe in them. Thus, my conclusion is that you are using that platform to mock and make fun of the Christian belief.
I ask you what would be necessary for our knowledge of origins since you claim ignorance? Is that something you have an answer for because I do.You've mistaken having an answer with having knowledge.
I have what is necessary for such knowledge of origins, a God that has revealed Himself to His creatures. It is necessary for an absolute, objective, omniscient, unchanging, eternal God to reveal what happened for us to have certainty of such things as origins. Do you have what is necessary? Your opinion is not necessary regarding morality, origins, existence. I would still form my own relative views regardless of whether you exist and you would do the same whether I existed, so neither of us meets the criteria for being necessary for the knowledge of such things as our origins, morality, existence. But to have an objective view God must reveal.
Not only that, I make the claim that I do not believe you are capable of making sense of such things because once again you do not start from what is necessary.
-->
@PGA2.0
O.K.
1. Meaning, value and purpose can be placed upon anything, they are not god specific qualities.....Ultimate meaning, value and purpose is only an assumption, no matter how strong ones beliefs might be.
2. As for the abortion issue.......Firstly explain what you think live is.....Not a life or a period of existence....But life.
3. The bible contains simple factual evidence, but it also contains a lot of supernatural embellishment. Therefore I prefer to regard the bible as a mythology or a naive hypothesis. Mythologies and associated gods were once a commonplace explanation of the unknown.
-->
@zedvictor4
1. Meaning, value and purpose can be placed upon anything, they are not god specific qualities.....Ultimate meaning, value and purpose is only an assumption, no matter how strong ones beliefs might be.
If ultimate meaning, value, and purpose are only an assumption then everything is relative. That means that people's views of killing innocent human beings are no better than the opposite views in preserving and protecting innocent human beings. The problem is the inconsistency. A person may espouse it is okay to kill one innocent human being but when they are innocent and someone threatens to kill them then they object as though such thinking is wrong. Thus, a relativist cannot live with their own premises. They are hypocrites. While the say one thing they have a double standard when their faulty thinking is applied to themselves. It is okay as long as their views do not effect them, only others.
Not only this, but your views are also illogical. They contravene the laws of logic - identity, contradiction, and middle exclusion. If the wrong is only relative then what is wrong for one person can be right for another. A =/= A. An object can have any identity. A dog can be a cat. Good can mean anything depending on who holds the view. Are you willing to live with that view or are you being inconsistent? Are you willing to let a dictator decide you are not worth being kept alive even though you are innocent? It is just because he/she does not like some attribute of yours, perhaps your heritage, maybe he has a grudge against your father and therefore you will pay the price with your life. Nothing wrong with that, depending on who holds the view and who controls who. Nothing wrong with riots, looting, arson, murder. Nothing wrong with destroying your property, burning your house down, killing your son or wife, as is happening in Portland, NY, Seattle, Minneapolis, or Kenosha. If you happen to be the victim who cares? BLM! Anything can be justified for that Marxist cause.
No, I do not believe that is how you feel. As soon as an injustice is done to you then you know that some things are absolutely wrong. There is an ultimate wrong committed.
2. As for the abortion issue.......Firstly explain what you think live is.....Not a life or a period of existence....But life.
Do you mean life, alive, what?
With the abortion issue we are speaking about a human life, the beginning of human beings existence and the development of their physical being as well as their consciousness. Something begins to exist at a point in time and that something is a human being. By nature human beings are a particular kind of being. Do you think the unborn is not human until it meets a point in time? If so, what is that point and how does your view match science?
3. The bible contains simple factual evidence, but it also contains a lot of supernatural embellishment. Therefore I prefer to regard the bible as a mythology or a naive hypothesis. Mythologies and associated gods were once a commonplace explanation of the unknown.
Supernatural embellishment? Do you not believe that God is capable of doing things that contravene the natural order or are you limiting God's power?
What you prefer is to identify the Bible as mythology even though it claims otherwise. You "prefer" because there are many copy-cats and you do not see one as the authentic and the others borrowing from and embellishing it. Either you or the Bible is wrong unless of course you are a relativist and hold that truth is whatever a person makes it to be, something you make up just for you. What is more reasonable to believe? I will argue for the Bible.
-->
@PGA2.0
That makes it [Christianity] different from other religious beliefs.
Being different is unimportant. Being substantiated outside (and apart from) the religious texts and belief is. Christianity cannot be objectively shown to be true - if it could, and were, your Christian views wouldn't be considered heretical by other Christians. Thats the whole point of Pastafarianism. Faith (or claimed faith) doesn't make something true.
I'm just answering your charges. Is you aim just to state things without accountability? Do you want me to remain silent and let you control the whole narrative?
Hold me accountable...in a relevant thread.
Still claimed by adherents of every religion.And not every religious belief is true since every religion makes absolute claims that contradict other religions. I only defend my Christian beliefs since I do not believe other worldviews are based on truth. That is where my arguments come from.
That's my point - I can't tell the difference between your defense and a defense other religious adherents might make. They're identical and said with just as much passion, conviction, and lack of substantiation.
You've mistaken having an answer with having knowledge.I have what is necessary for such knowledge of origins [...]
You have nothing I lack except for additional presuppositions which seem to be based on what you want to be true and not on what is necessary or pragmatic.
-->
@SkepticalOne
That makes it [Christianity] different from other religious beliefs.Being different is unimportant. Being substantiated outside (and apart from) the religious texts and belief is. Christianity cannot be objectively shown to be true - if it could, and were, your Christian views wouldn't be considered heretical by other Christians. Thats the whole point of Pastafarianism. Faith (or claimed faith) doesn't make something true.
But it does make it important. What makes you think that your imperfect sinful nature is acceptable to God? Why would He compromise His goodness, and justice for someone who does not want to repent? Second, it boils down to where you place your highest authority. Third, the Christian faith is verifiable from other sources, the reason being that what is written would be confirmed in what is made. History has unfolded as God said it would. We find people, places, events from external sources that confirm many of the biblical accounts.
I'm just answering your charges. Is you aim just to state things without accountability? Do you want me to remain silent and let you control the whole narrative?Hold me accountable...in a relevant thread.
You made a statement. I aswered it.
Still claimed by adherents of every religion.And not every religious belief is true since every religion makes absolute claims that contradict other religions. I only defend my Christian beliefs since I do not believe other worldviews are based on truth. That is where my arguments come from.That's my point - I can't tell the difference between your defense and a defense other religious adherents might make. They're identical and said with just as much passion, conviction, and lack of substantiation.
I offered you substantiation. Prophecy is evidence. It is most reasonable to believe. The unity of the biblical narrative is reasonable and substantiative. The resurrection and growth of Christianity is evidence and reasonable. Our existence pointing to God is most reasonable. There is no reason for our existence without God. The funny thing is that an atheist/agnostic is inconsistent in their beliefs. They constantly look for and seek meaning when their worldview tells them there is none.
You've mistaken having an answer with having knowledge.I have what is necessary for such knowledge of origins [...]You have nothing I lack except for additional presuppositions which seem to be based on what you want to be true and not on what is necessary or pragmatic.
You lack certainty of knowledge and cannot get there unless such a revealed God exists. You can't get to certainty with your worldview. So, you are ignorant of truth and lack what is necessary for it regarding existence, origins, morality. I am arguing for what is NECESSARY for truth. Let's start there. You are wonderful at avoiding the issue! Full credit is due. Congratulations!
-->
@PGA2.0
Faith (or claimed faith) doesn't make something true.But it does make it important.
No, it doesn't. If I believe something on faith that is demonstrably false, it is not more important than what is actually true.
Hold me accountable...in a relevant thread.You made a statement. I aswered it.
In fairness, I answered your statement regarding the "Judeo-Christian" principles, and you pushed against my rejection of that. If it is important to you, start a debate and we can devote all our attention to that subject rather than derailing this one.
That's my point - I can't tell the difference between your defense and a defense other religious adherents might make. They're identical and said with just as much passion, conviction, and lack of substantiation.I offered you substantiation. Prophecy is evidence.
Again, adherents of other religions can offer the same heartfelt defense. An internally consistent belief is not evidence of anything except internal consistency. Harry Potter has that too.
You have nothing I lack except for additional presuppositions which seem to be based on what you want to be true and not on what is necessary or pragmatic.You lack certainty of knowledge and cannot get there unless such a revealed God exists [...]
I have certainty of knowledge not absolute (and unreasonable) certainty - a god is not necessary for either.
-->
@PGA2.0
Well.
The Christian bible is as much a copy cat as any other mythological hypothesis. Copy cat is simply the development of ideas.
If I actually knew there was a god then I might have a chance of understanding it's real capabilities. This is not the same as understanding the mythical capabilities of a mythical god.
Death or not living is as essential as living, the two are inter-dependant.
Human emotion is and human bias is inevitable and therefore we oftentimes have a tendency to be selectively moral.. Nonetheless what is life and how do you unbiasedly differentiate between the life potential contained within one species and another, without being hypocritical.
And logic is believing in mythical deities and logic isn't believing in mythical deities....Relativism if you like.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Faith (or claimed faith) doesn't make something true.But it does make it important.No, it doesn't. If I believe something on faith that is demonstrably false, it is not more important than what is actually true.
Faith is the object trusted in. Faith and trust go together. I place my faith in Jesus Christ as my Saviour, Lord, and God. It is Him that I trust in, believe upon. And faith is the substance of things hoped for (such as salvation and what Jesus did to meet the requirements) and the assurance of things hoped for because of who is doing the saving. I trust in the Bible as His word. You do not trust His word; those who doubt do not. You exchanged His word for subjective opinion. You are banking on your subjective authority and limited understanding (or that of some other subjective authority in such matters) because you no longer recognize the greater authority.
The Bible has a word for those who reject God for the reason that they act upon their own limited understanding and knowledge. How well does that work?
Hold me accountable...in a relevant thread.You made a statement. I aswered it.In fairness, I answered your statement regarding the "Judeo-Christian" principles, and you pushed against my rejection of that. If it is important to you, start a debate and we can devote all our attention to that subject rather than derailing this one.
Yes, I pushed against your statement as you continually push against mine. I pushed against it because it deserved a reply. You have admitted you work from ignorance about God, origins, existence, morality. I ask what would be necessary for the knowledge of such things? I say that it is your belief system and structure that is unreasonable (granting you are still an atheist or agnostic, although you are hiding behind Pastafarianism), not mine.
What kind of debate would you suggest? Would you pit Pastafarianism against Christianity as to which is more reasonable? (There would be a lot of work to such a debate). Or do you still consider yourself truly as an atheist or agnostic? How reasonable are those beliefs?
That's my point - I can't tell the difference between your defense and a defense other religious adherents might make. They're identical and said with just as much passion, conviction, and lack of substantiation.I offered you substantiation. Prophecy is evidence.Again, adherents of other religions can offer the same heartfelt defense. An internally consistent belief is not evidence of anything except internal consistency. Harry Potter has that too.
Show me how their prophecies come true and what they are based upon. I welcome the comparison or are these baseless assertions?
A belief that is not internally consistent shows that it is not logical to believe in. If I say "a dog is a dog" then later on I say "a dog is a cat," I am not being consistent. Inconsistency goes against logic.
You have nothing I lack except for additional presuppositions which seem to be based on what you want to be true and not on what is necessary or pragmatic.You lack certainty of knowledge and cannot get there unless such a revealed God exists [...]I have certainty of knowledge not absolute (and unreasonable) certainty - a god is not necessary for either.
What you build your worldview upon are core beliefs or values that are not verifiable in the same way normal science is verifiable. Such beginnings as the BB or life from non-life are not repeatable. We look back upon such things to their beginnings and interpret DATA. And, as I have said many times (building upon others), we take for granted that what we learn in the present and look at in the present is the key to the past since we are working from the present. Do you think and know that the present is the key to the past?
-->
@zedvictor4
Well.The Christian bible is as much a copy cat as any other mythological hypothesis. Copy cat is simply the development of ideas.
That is your assumption. It is easy to say that Judeo-Christianity is a copy cat religion and mythology. The task is to prove your allegation. Go ahead! Many have refuted such claims to reason that Christianity is neither.
Eg.
Now, do you want to get into such a discussion? If so, I suggest you create a thread and document your charges.
If I actually knew there was a god then I might have a chance of understanding it's real capabilities. This is not the same as understanding the mythical capabilities of a mythical god.
Again, you assert that the biblical God is mythical.
Death or not living is as essential as living, the two are inter-dependant.
Death is essential? Do you want death?
Human emotion is and human bias is inevitable and therefore we oftentimes have a tendency to be selectively moral.. Nonetheless what is life and how do you unbiasedly differentiate between the life potential contained within one species and another, without being hypocritical.
How do you differentiate? What makes you think we are the same as other species in "life potential?" Can any different kind of being do the same things we do to the same extent as humans? How does a dog contemplate and appreciate Beethoven? Hoowwwoff!
And logic is believing in mythical deities and logic isn't believing in mythical deities....Relativism if you like.
Mythical is your assumption. What are the alternatives? Blind, indifferent, mindless, unreasoning chance happenstance - an accident that causes such unity and diversity?
Relativism in general and even your relativism worries me. When you lose sight of objectivity, you lose sight of truth. And to say that everything is relative is like saying, "nothing is true." It is a self-refuting statement for it questions, even its own premise. Relativism is just that. It says that truth is what you make it or that there is no objective truth. Is that statement objectively true?
-->
@PGA2.0
Faith is the object trusted in.
We agree. As I stated earlier, Hebrews 11:1 holds faith as evidence. This functionally makes belief more important than actual evidence. Anyone who accepts this epistemology will find "evidence" for anything they belief simply because they have the belief.
In fairness, I answered your statement regarding the "Judeo-Christian" principles, and you pushed against my rejection of that. If it is important to you, start a debate and we can devote all our attention to that subject rather than derailing this one.Yes, I pushed against your statement as you continually push against mine. I pushed against it because it deserved a reply. You have admitted you work from ignorance about God, origins, existence, morality. I ask what would be necessary for the knowledge of such things? I say that it is your belief system and structure that is unreasonable (granting you are still an atheist or agnostic, although you are hiding behind Pastafarianism), not mine.What kind of debate would you suggest? Would you pit Pastafarianism against Christianity as to which is more reasonable? (There would be a lot of work to such a debate). Or do you still consider yourself truly as an atheist or agnostic? How reasonable are those beliefs?
Lol, for some reason I was thinking we were on debateisland where a "debate" is a forum event. I meant for you to start a new thread. That being said, I'm not opposed to a debate if that is your preference. I'm not sure why you've changed the subject of the proposed debate though. Did you not want to defend you statement that the U.S was founded on Judeo-Christian principles?
I've already told you Pastafarianism is not in opposition to atheism, agnosticism, or even Christianity since it is a tool to highlight the need for religion and state to be seperate, and my religious position has not changed. If you want to believe otherwise I don't care, but don't expect me to continue to correct your misapprehensions. You either get it or you don't.
I offered you substantiation. Prophecy is evidence.Again, adherents of other religions can offer the same heartfelt defense. An internally consistent belief is not evidence of anything except internal consistency. Harry Potter has that too.Show me how their prophecies come true and what they are based upon.
You're missing the point. It's not up to me to argue someone else's belief. It is for believers to provide real evidence (not faith).
A belief that is not internally consistent shows that it is not logical to believe in. If I say "a dog is a dog" then later on I say "a dog is a cat," I am not being consistent. Inconsistency goes against logic.
Yep...no disagreement there. If Internal consistency were the only qualification for acceptance of claims - it would be an extremely low bar.
What you build your worldview upon are core beliefs or values that are not verifiable in the same way normal science is verifiable.
I agree we all have presuppositions.
And, as I have said many times (building upon others), we take for granted that what we learn in the present and look at in the present is the key to the past since we are working from the present. Do you think and know that the present is the key to the past?
Do you think the sun will rise tomorrow - if so, why? If you hold a ball up and let it go, will it fall? How fast does Uranium decay and how do you know?
-->
@SkepticalOne
Faith is the object trusted in.We agree. As I stated earlier, Hebrews 11:1 holds faith as evidence.
As I said before, there are three types of faith, blind, rational, and irrational. The Christian faith is a rational faith even though many accept it blindly.
This functionally makes belief more important than actual evidence. Anyone who accepts this epistemology will find "evidence" for anything they belief simply because they have the belief.
All religious views are held in faith since we start with a presupposition or core building block (or blocks) and build upon it. Where you start determines whether you CAN make sense of life, ultimately. That is why atheism is an irrational belief. It starts with blind, indifferent chance happenstance as its number one assumption, whether it does so in believing there is no evidence for God or no God. It looks to that presupposition in explaining things. Thus, it takes a completely naturalistic approach.
Atheism is the kind of faith happening in Kenosha right now. Anything goes, chaos, chance happenstance!
In fairness, I answered your statement regarding the "Judeo-Christian" principles, and you pushed against my rejection of that. If it is important to you, start a debate and we can devote all our attention to that subject rather than derailing this one.Yes, I pushed against your statement as you continually push against mine. I pushed against it because it deserved a reply. You have admitted you work from ignorance about God, origins, existence, morality. I ask what would be necessary for the knowledge of such things? I say that it is your belief system and structure that is unreasonable (granting you are still an atheist or agnostic, although you are hiding behind Pastafarianism), not mine.What kind of debate would you suggest? Would you pit Pastafarianism against Christianity as to which is more reasonable? (There would be a lot of work to such a debate). Or do you still consider yourself truly as an atheist or agnostic? How reasonable are those beliefs?Lol, for some reason I was thinking we were on debateisland where a "debate" is a forum event. I meant for you to start a new thread. That being said, I'm not opposed to a debate if that is your preference. I'm not sure why you've changed the subject of the proposed debate though. Did you not want to defend you statement that the U.S was founded on Judeo-Christian principles?
Either, both, but I'm lazy right now and do not want to do the leg work. I would rather debate the central issue of abortion, why pro-choice treat the unborn as secondary human beings. 0 :^)
I've already told you Pastafarianism is not in opposition to atheism, agnosticism, or even Christianity since it is a tool to highlight the need for religion and state to be seperate, and my religious position has not changed. If you want to believe otherwise I don't care, but don't expect me to continue to correct your misapprehensions. You either get it or you don't.
Sure it is in opposition to Christianity. It mocks Christianity.
I offered you substantiation. Prophecy is evidence.Again, adherents of other religions can offer the same heartfelt defense. An internally consistent belief is not evidence of anything except internal consistency. Harry Potter has that too.Show me how their prophecies come true and what they are based upon.You're missing the point. It's not up to me to argue someone else's belief. It is for believers to provide real evidence (not faith).
You equated the same defense to other religions, not me. I'm asking you to show me how the evidence is same regarding prophecy.
A belief that is not internally consistent shows that it is not logical to believe in. If I say "a dog is a dog" then later on I say "a dog is a cat," I am not being consistent. Inconsistency goes against logic.Yep...no disagreement there. If Internal consistency were the only qualification for acceptance of claims - it would be an extremely low bar.
It is the starting point in showing that a belief is at least logical.
What you build your worldview upon are core beliefs or values that are not verifiable in the same way normal science is verifiable.I agree we all have presuppositions.And, as I have said many times (building upon others), we take for granted that what we learn in the present and look at in the present is the key to the past since we are working from the present. Do you think and know that the present is the key to the past?Do you think the sun will rise tomorrow - if so, why? If you hold a ball up and let it go, will it fall? How fast does Uranium decay and how do you know?
I know the sun will rise because I have what is necessary for its uniformity. How does an atheist know it will? How does blind indifferent chance happenstance make anything certain or even possible?
With uranium decay, you assume that what we determine in the present is the key to the past.
I don't think it is si much a problem of definition as usage. Sure you could define faith as any strongly held belief but then there is still a difference between holding a belief strongly because there is some demonstration of the proposition and holding a belief because it is comforting or because your parents taught it to you or because with or without evidence you personally cannot imagine another answer.
-->
@PGA2.0
As I said before, there are three types of faith, blind, rational, and irrational. The Christian faith is a rational faith even though many accept it blindly
When you concede 'faith is the object of trust' you also give away any rational foundation. If your understanding of you religious beliefs is based on no evidence how can it be rational?
Either, both, but I'm lazy right now and do not want to do the leg work. I would rather debate the central issue of abortion, why pro-choice treat the unborn as secondary human beings. 0 :^)
Secondary human beings? Sounds like you're assuming your conclusion in the question....how are you defining human beings so that germ cells, cancer, or teratomas aren't included? Feel free to start a thread.
Sure it [Pastafarianism] is in opposition to Christianity. It mocks Christianity.
At worst, Pastafarianism mocks versions of Christianity which reject reality as we've come to know it through real and verifiable data. Those versions dogmatically cling to ignorance (and deserve mockery). On the whole, Pastafariansim is not in opposition to any religious view which does not seek to undermine verified and validated knowledge.
You equated the same defense to other religions, not me. I'm asking you to show me how the evidence is same regarding prophecy.
They are the same because the evidence for each is faith itself.
It is [logical consistency] the starting point in showing that a belief is at least logical.
Logical consistency is one of many rudimentary hurdles a belief must clear to be considered logical. Being logically consistent alone doesn't make a belief true.
I know the sun will rise because I have what is necessary for its uniformity. How does an atheist know it will?
All that is needed to be certain there will be a sunrise tomorrow is every yesterday in recorded history - ie. Evidence. Same goes for being able to know what will happen to a dropped ball and the decay rate of uranium.
With uranium decay, you assume that what we determine in the present is the key to the past.
Rightly so.
-->
@PGA2.0
And non-mythical is your assumption.....Same old same old.