rehmwa 2 #126 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe basis of 'faith' is belief without proof. With proof, the entire religious structure would be a moot point. No. Belief without proof would be more like "blind faith." That's not the case with Christianity. There's plenty of evidence. Just not what all will accept. combined with QuoteI could be wrong but I don't think he's given us the capacity to understand everything yet. I think there's a trust element and that's what he's looking for. Paj - pick one, we've had this conversation before. It's more than semantics. "Evidence" does not equal "proof" - it's the whole basis of christianity - faith without proof. If you think you have proof, then you have no faith - they are mutually exclusive. Thinking people want to explain their faith by grasping at false indications of proof. The quietly religious believes regardless. The others are struggling in their faith because they need more reassurance. That's why you need formal churches and sacraments and ritual - reinforce faith "that which is acceptance without proof". ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #127 July 20, 2005 It's often vague and contradictory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #128 July 20, 2005 QuotePaj - pick one, we've had this conversation before. It's more than semantics. "Evidence" does not equal "proof" - it's the whole basis of christianity - faith without proof. If you think you have proof, then you have no faith - they are mutually exclusive. Thinking people want to explain their faith by grasping at false indications of proof. The quietly religious believes regardless. The others are struggling in their faith because they need more reassurance. That's why you need formal churches and sacraments and ritual - reinforce faith "that which is acceptance without proof". You’re right. I should have said faith without evidence is “blind faith.” You’re right in that evidence does not necessarily equal proof. I’m not trying to say that there isn’t an element of faith. There is. I’m just trying to say that there is plenty of evidence to consider. No one needs to accept or reject Christianity blindly. I just happen to think that the evidence out there is compelling enough to believe. Others do not and that’s ok with me. I guess in law terms I’d say that the preponderance of the evidence is in its favor but that it cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WrongWay 0 #129 July 20, 2005 Here's a good way to look at it..... Either 5 out of 8 rats with a certain type of cancer will die, or God loves 3 out of 8 rats. Healing by prayer is nothing more than psychological medicine, similar to a placebo. In the real world, God has nothing to do with it. Wrong Way D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451 The wiser wolf prevails. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #130 July 20, 2005 QuoteIt's often vague and contradictory. I'd have to examine specifics in context. Much of that has been done here before. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #131 July 20, 2005 QuoteHere's a good way to look at it..... Either 5 out of 8 rats with a certain type of cancer will die, or God loves 3 out of 8 rats. Everybody dies. Does God hate everybody? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #132 July 20, 2005 QuoteHealing by prayer is nothing more than psychological medicine, similar to a placebo. If so, then it's easy to set up an experiment to test it. Let half the patients know that they are being prayed for. Does it help? (big sample size needed, we are t-testing proportions and likely blocking several subgroups) If it does help as a placebo effect or otherwise, why begrudge them that? The effects matter and the mechanism is not definable. Just to belittle another's belief because it's different than yours? What's the point? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #133 July 20, 2005 Aren't we putting too much of a burden on language, here (in this thread)?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,157 #134 July 20, 2005 QuoteThere's actually quite a bit of interesting literature, and academic research, on the difference between a cult and a religion. So, in a sense, lots of people have tried to judge that Absolutely -- I was a sociology major after all Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #135 July 21, 2005 Just thought this was cool. It might have been posted before: Moses said the law is everything. Jesus said love is everything. Marx said capital is everything. Freud said sex is everything. Einstein said everything is relative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #136 July 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteHowever after nearly 2000 years since the supposed Birth of Jesus, there is still no evidence that he even existed.. Therefore I feel quite comfortable in saying there is no god... How do you figure that there's no evidence that Jesus existed? *yawn* do you have any evidence, not anecdotal or circumstantial, just some plain hard authentic undisputable evidence……----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #137 July 21, 2005 Quote*yawn* do you have any evidence, not anecdotal or circumstantial, just some plain hard authentic undisputable evidence…… What would do it for you? Why do you believe in Jesus but not Santa Claus? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #138 July 21, 2005 QuoteQuote*yawn* do you have any evidence, not anecdotal or circumstantial, just some plain hard authentic undisputable evidence…… What would do it for you? Why do you believe in Jesus but not Santa Claus? Argument (1) Santa Claus: When I write my list for Santa Claus, I feel such a rush of joy and happiness. With all these emotions, Santa Claus MUST be real! Jesus Christ: When I pray to Jesus Christ, I feel such a rush of joy and happiness. With all these emotions, Jesus Christ MUST be real! Argument (2) Santa Claus: If you don't believe in Santa Claus, you'll get no presents! Jesus Christ: If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, you'll not go to heaven! Argument (3) Santa Claus: If you don't believe in Santa CLaus, you'll get charcoal in your stockings and you'll be laughed at by all the other children! Jesus Christ: If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, you'll go to hell and burn in eternity in a bottomless pit where you feel pain eternally! Argument (4) Santa Claus: You just gotta have faith that Santa Claus is real! Jesus Christ: You just gotta have faith that Jesus Christ is real! Argument (5) Santa Claus: Stupid head! Jesus Christ: Heathen! Argument (6) Santa Claus: Our elders are intelligent and knowledgeable beings. They gave us knowledge of Santa Claus. Since they are intelligent and knowledgeable beings, as well as honest beings, they would never lie to us about the knowledge of Santa Claus. Jesus Christ: Our elders are intelligent and knowledgeable beings. They gave us knowledge of Jesus Christ. Since they are intelligent and knowledgeable beings, as well as honest beings, they would never lie to us about the knowledge of Jesus Christ. Argument (7) Santa Claus: Santa lives far, far away. He lives at the North Pole! However, we do see his effects, and just because we can't see him, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Jesus Christ: Jesus lives far, far away. He lives at the North Pole! However, we do see his effects, and just because we can't see him, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Argument (8) Santa Claus: Santa Claus has magic. If you can create millions of presents for millions of children and deliver them all on one night, then he must be magical. If you believe in him, then you'll get him working for you and giving his magical powers to you! Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ has magic. If you can create billions and billions of grams of matter in one week, then he must be magical. If you believe in him, then you'll get him working for you and giving his magical powers to you! Argument (9) Santa Claus: We can know that Santa is real! Where did the presents come from? Natural phenomenon? Natural phenomenom has explained nothing! Jesus Christ: We can know that Jesus is real! Where did the Universe come from? Natural phenomenon? Natural phenomenom has explained nothing! Argument (10) Santa Claus: Santa Claus use to be a saint who delivered presents to children. He did exist in one form! Therefore, he must truly be alive and around today! Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ was formed from the religion of various religions. Saturn, a god of a thousand year old religion, was born of a virgin mother, performed miracles, and was resurrected. Christmas, December 25, is actually the birth of the god Saturn, from December 25, as well, except it was called Saturnalia. He did exist in one form! Therefore, Jesus must truly be alive and around today! Argument (11) Santa Claus: Santa Claus, as you know, has been commercialized by the market. All around Christmas, people are buying lots and lots of toys. Lots of this money goes to charity and such. Why would you want to hurt good things like Santa Claus? Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ, as you know, has been commercialized by the churches. The churches use the money they get from willing donors to do good things and sometimes religion can even bring a community to either be closer or go on a crusade to rape women and torture children. Why would you want to hurt goods things like Jesus Christ? Argument (12) Santa Claus: But all the other kids believe in Santa Claus, and they're not stupid! Santa Claus must be real! Jesus Christ: But all the other people believe in Jesus Christ ,and they're not stupid! Jesus Christ must be real! Argument (13) Santa Claus: You'll believe someday! When you get your presents and see that they were designed with intelligence and beauty and that you wanted those exact ones, despite the fact that you told your parents or that you may have gotten ones that you didn't want, you'll know that a supreme designer of toys must exist. It must be Santa Claus! Jesus Christ: You'll believe someday! When you look into the world and see that animals are designed with intelligence and beaty and that they exist to reach a means, despite the fact that many of them have vestigal organs or that Natural Selection perfectly explains it, you'll know that Jesus Christ must exist. It must be Jesus Christ! Argument (14) Santa Claus: Sure! You may say Santa Claus is illogical, but that doesn't mean anything. Santa Claus created logic! He can disobey it! Jesus Christ: Sure! You may say Jesus Christ is illogical, but that doesn't mean anything. Jesus Christ created logic! He can disobey it! Argument (15) Santa Claus: Well, certainly NOT believing in Santa Claus is ALSO a myth! Jesus Christ: Well, certainly NOT believing in Jesus Christ is ALSO a religion! Argument (16) Santa Claus: The burden of proof is on the skeptic! Jesus Christ: The burden of proof is on the skeptic! Argument (17) Santa Claus: That's it! I proved Santa Claus and he exists! End of debate! Jesus Christ: That's it! I proved Jesus Christ and he exists! End of debate! Argument (18) Santa Claus: Why be a good little boy without Santa Claus? You're good and you get no presents. If you're bad, nothing happens. You're a fool and immoral! Jesus Christ: Why be a good person without Jesus Christ? You're good and you don't get heaven. If you're bad, nothing happens. You're a fool and immoral! Argument (19) Santa Claus: Why don't you just kill yourself now? There's no hope to live without Santa Claus! Jesus Christ: Why don't you just kill yourself now? There's no hope to live without Jesus Christ! Argument (20) Santa Claus: If Santa Claus isn't real, what is the meaning of life? Jesus Christ: If Jesus Christ isn't real, what is the meaning of life?----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #139 July 21, 2005 That's pretty funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #140 July 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteBy the way there is no proof that anyone named Jesus actually did come back from the dead. Just the eye-witness testimony of those who were there. Depends on what you consider proof. there IS NO 'eye-witness' testimony... there are simply literary accounts you BELIEVE and accept (without any evidence to support that belief) came from 'eye witnesses' that is the fundamental disconnect common to all who believe the bible as 'historical fact'____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #141 July 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteHere's a good way to look at it..... Either 5 out of 8 rats with a certain type of cancer will die, or God loves 3 out of 8 rats. Everybody dies. Does God hate everybody? no only those he doesnt really allow to 'live'... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #142 July 21, 2005 Quotethere IS NO 'eye-witness' testimony... there are simply literary accounts you BELIEVE and accept (without any evidence to support that belief) came from 'eye witnesses' that is the fundamental disconnect common to all who believe the bible as 'historical fact' How can you be so sure? When were the Gospels written and by whom? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #143 July 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuotenor can you prove there is not, and YOU are the one making assertions you cannot support, not i... but perhaps that subtle difference eludes you... It is not my job as a non believer to prove there is no God, the responsibility to prove there is one, lies with the believers. Actually it is. That's the difference between the atheist and agnostic view. If you categorically claim that God does not exist, the lack of proofs substantiating God's existence is irrelevant, you need to provide positive proofs of that non-existence. Otherwise, your statement is as vacuous as, "there are no lifeforms in the Universe based on silicon." The general principle, laid down in a court of law is that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the facts essential to their case. The general rule is that “he who asserts must prove”, i.e., the burden rests with the plaintiff….. you claim there is a God, therefore you the burden of proof lies with you..----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #144 July 21, 2005 absolutely positive.. perhaps you should research the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning... your source (and your religion honestly) uses quite a bit of the latter.. while it is a valid investigative technique its a poor excuse for real evidence.. its particularly bad when you use the LACK of an instance as evidence that something actually occurred..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #145 July 21, 2005 Quote The general principle, laid down in a court of law is that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the facts essential to their case. The general rule is that “he who asserts must prove”, i.e., the burden rests with the plaintiff….. you claim there is a God, therefore you the burden of proof lies with you.. this applies equally to those who claim there "is not a God"____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #146 July 21, 2005 QuoteQuote The general principle, laid down in a court of law is that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the facts essential to their case. The general rule is that “he who asserts must prove”, i.e., the burden rests with the plaintiff….. you claim there is a God, therefore you the burden of proof lies with you.. this applies equally to those who claim there "is not a God" To be clear, when it comes to the issue of the existence of God, on which side the burden of proof lies. The theist, of course, makes a positive claim that God exists; he believes in the existence of God. The atheist, the natural position for the skeptic on theistic issues, on the other hand does not make a positive claim. The believer may protest: isn't the skeptic here also making a claim: that God does not exists? This protest however is erroneous and is based on a misunderstanding of the skeptic or atheistic position; the skeptic does not assert that God does not exist, he simply says that he is without any belief in theism. Let us elaborate on this in more detail. Traditional theists and philosophers have defined atheism as the belief that God does not exist. Stated this way atheism is a positive belief, and the burden of proof of God’s non-existence must then fall on the atheist just as the burden of proof of God’s existence falls on the theists. Atheists themselves however, do not use such a definition of their position; and for a very good reason-for it is etymologically incorrect. The prefix “a” in any English word means “without”, thus amoral does not have the same meaning of immoral but simply means without morals. Similarly atheism means simply without theism or without theistic beliefs. As the atheist philosopher George H. Smith said: Atheism , in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a God. [1] Most people are atheist when it comes to the gods of Greeks without any positive proof that they do not exist. They are atheists as far as these gods are concerned for the same reason modern atheists are to the Christian God: there is simply no positive proof that such a thing exists. Thus the burden of proof falls squarely on the believer. If the believer is unable to provide positive proof of God's existence, the skeptic is justified in his atheism.----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #147 July 21, 2005 no the burden of proof falls on those who make absolute statements positive or negative.. your simply avoiding the fact that you have just as little evidence to support your assertion as those who claim he DOES exist.. nor you did not take the position of 'a skeptic' you made the assertion "Gods do NOT exist" ps.. when you so blatantly plagiarize from another source its nice to add quotes.....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #148 July 21, 2005 Quoteps.. when you so blatantly plagiarize from another source its nice to add quotes.... Isn't it funny when people do that? Either quote or at least attribute to the original author...like here.... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #149 July 21, 2005 Quoteno the burden of proof falls on those who make absolute statements positive or negative.. your simply avoiding the fact that you have just as little evidence to support your assertion as those who claim he DOES exist.. nor you did not take the position of 'a skeptic' you made the assertion "Gods do NOT exist" ps.. when you so blatantly plagiarize from another source its nice to add quotes..... ok fine, look you will never prove god exists, and as time goes by the case for him not existing only grows stronger... I am happy to claim that God does not exist, because I feel satisfied that after 2000yrs at least, there is no proof...----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #150 July 21, 2005 IMO, your starting point is wrong. God is _not_ a he. It's a verb. A flow through _everything_ that has ever existed and will ever exist, and that which hasn't existed, yet. Free will is your connection to that flow. It's _real_. God/the flow has a pronounced tendency to make rainbows, even if you can't see them. And there are billions (uncountable) across all interactions between cultures, etc., on this planet. Even in our day to day lives. Oh, too be able to traverse a rainbow, fully, at will. Now, that would be an accomplishment. Language evolves. To those who insist on seeing God as a noun, their interpretation involves with experience. That's OK for them. It's one of the reasons we have so many different religions basically saying the same thing, but at odds with each other. I've been fortunate in this life to have seen breath takingly complex rainbows (not the rain storm kind) and almost feel it made sense. Each time, it's made me feel small and insignificant, ...and thirstyWe are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
