The Great Faith Debate

[Memory]

One of the greatest drives of any human being is the need to improve oneself. Thus, much of our time is spent learning new things, going to the gym, using cosmetics to improve our appearance, or picking up social skills. Indeed, it is natural for us to show our "best face" in order to win over potential mates. The path to perfection is a continuing source of human effort. What then would be the appeal of believing in the combination of human and divine within a single en!@#$%^&*y? Quite obvious i would think. Jesus, our man-god, is the path to perfection that our biology so craves. Christianity is designed to play on our natural biological urges for the purpose of conversion to that system of belief. Why aspire to be succesful and strong in every-day life when perfection, eternal life, moral goodness, ultimate knowledge, safety and security are a leap of faith away? Why do you think the ill, desperate, weak and young turn to religion? Religion is the real temptation.

 

Do you honestly think it is the desire for self improvement which brings people to religion? Religion has nothing to do with self improvement, if anything adherents to the faith are cut down in this regard, the message is pummeled upon them that they can never be full, or perfect, or good.

 

Do you think that Christendom is only for the poor? Then why are so many followers wallow in money?

 

Christianity rose to power through an intellectual movement long ago, even if it was founded the religion of the poor, the weak, and the oppressed.

[SeVeR]

The Bible tells you how to live. Therefore it gives you a path to perfection that is decided upon by the most perfect being in the universe. If you ask a Christian what the most worthwhile thing to do in your life is, it would be to become a Christian and follow the Bible.

 

And it is a path to perfection. What else do you call following a path that God laid out for us, with heaven as the end-point.

 

Christianity is not only for the poor; you obviously didn't read too well. It's also for the young and the desperate. Those who have suffered a huge emotional loss or are in psychological turmoil are prone to the promises of religion. More importantly though, the young are easy to convert, and are not guaranteed to be poor when they are older. So yes, thank-you for your point about there being some rich Christians, but it's quite irrelevant.

 

Christianity and intellectual are two words that should never be in the same sentence. Where did you get that idea?

[ThunderJam]

The Bible tells you how to live. Therefore it gives you a path to perfection that is decided upon by the most perfect being in the universe. If you ask a Christian what the most worthwhile thing to do in your life is, it would be to become a Christian and follow the Bible.

 

And it is a path to perfection. What else do you call following a path that God laid out for us, with heaven as the end-point.

 

Christianity is not only for the poor; you obviously didn't read too well. It's also for the young and the desperate. Those who have suffered a huge emotional loss or are in psychological turmoil are prone to the promises of religion. More importantly though, the young are easy to convert, and are not guaranteed to be poor when they are older. So yes, thank-you for your point about there being some rich Christians, but it's quite irrelevant.

 

Christianity and intellectual are two words that should never be in the same sentence. Where did you get that idea?

I could try and make large arguments, but im just gonna make short statements cuz im getting bored of arguing on several of these topics.

 

1) Many people see christianity as a set of rules, or "How to live." It's more of an outlook, an at!@#$%^&*ute, a desire, that results in changing your lifestyle, as compared to "change the rules i live by so i can be a christian."

 

2) Path to perfection... meh. We know we can never be perfect, no where near it. More like a path of redemption. We are pursuing grace, and trying to be "good" in order to try and live up to the free gift we are getting, altho we know we never can.

 

3) Christianity and intellectuals can't go together? Wow, just wow. I can't believe you people who are so hung up on some things can say something like that, you truly think you are so intellectually superior to every christian? This is a statement you obviously can't back up, and it's simply foolish in how broad it is. Here I'll give you one name, just for the sake of pointing out all the degrees/!@#$%^&*les that come with it, even though I don't even know what half of them are: Viggo Olsen. Well known surgeon turned missionary after trying to disprove what he thought was his wifes absurd new fascination with Christianity, M.S., M.D., Litt.D., D.H., F.A.C.S., F.I.C.S., and D.T.M.&H.

[Memory]

The Bible tells you how to live. Therefore it gives you a path to perfection that is decided upon by the most perfect being in the universe. If you ask a Christian what the most worthwhile thing to do in your life is, it would be to become a Christian and follow the Bible.

A perfection which can never be fulfilled.

 

 

And it is a path to perfection. What else do you call following a path that God laid out for us, with heaven as the end-point.

Perhaps Morons believe they can become gods, perfect, but no one else does.

 

Christianity is not only for the poor; you obviously didn't read too well. It's also for the young and the desperate. Those who have suffered a huge emotional loss or are in psychological turmoil are prone to the promises of religion. More importantly though, the young are easy to convert, and are not guaranteed to be poor when they are older. So yes, thank-you for your point about there being some rich Christians, but it's quite irrelevant.

I read it quite fine, I was telling you about its roots.

 

Christianity and intellectual are two words that should never be in the same sentence. Where did you get that idea?

I wonder what is your expertise on the matter? To believe or not to believe, both are equally chosen, both are equally religion.

[Bak]

religion is a set of beliefs, not a set of non-beliefs

[Memory]

religion is a set of beliefs, not a set of non-beliefs

To make a choice is to take a stand. To take a stand is to believe.

 

 

And religion is belief.

[Bak]

let's try again: religion is philosophical whereas intellectuals follow a scientific approach

 

they're not necessarily mutually exclusive, except (possibly) when they overstep their domain (for example, religion saying Jupiter can't have moons or science explaining what's morally right and wrong).

[Memory]

Intellectuals follow a scientific approach? A rather meaningless argument, especially when you go on to say they are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

Besides, philosophy is the traditional domain of intellectuals. The word itself means "love of wisdom," science is simply something built over that. Philosophy deals with the irrational, science with the rational.

[Bak]

I meant that being an intellectual and being religious are not mutually exclusive.

 

philosophy is NOT irrational!

[Memory]

I beg to differ, for something to be rational we must be able to touch, taste, feel, smell, etc. Irrational is the opposite. I do not mean this to be demeaning, as it has become in common language. I myself am arguing the irrational, however, for example, when Plato talks of the existence of Justice in his great work The Republic, I must conclude that the argument is for something that does not physically exist, and is therefore irrational.

 

But if you say that intellectualism and religion are not mutually exclusive, we have no argument. I agree.

[Bak]

irrational means without reason, whereas if you read philosophy they (try to) have reasons for everything they say. The difference is that philosophy attempts the explain things science can not and never will be able to such as "what is the meaning of life?" or "what is knowledge?" or "what is morally right and wrong (is there such a thing?)?".

[SeVeR]

Memory:

I wonder what is your expertise on the matter? To believe or not to believe, both are equally chosen, both are equally religion.

So because i don't believe in God i am religious? Before you answer, i'm not an atheist either. God might exist, but there is no evidence either way.

 

To make a choice is to take a stand. To take a stand is to believe.

I make the choice not to believe. How can a choice and a belief be the same thing?!?!?

 

not physically exist, and is therefore irrational.

You mean immaterial...

 

A perfection which can never be fulfilled.

If you follow God's plan enough to get to heaven then you are as perfect as a human being can possibly be. Human beings desire a purpose and a way of improving themselves to the maximum extent that they believe to be possible. Religion gives us this path to perfection. So i don't understand why you think this perfection can never be fulfilled, as Christians outwardly believe that it can!

 

Perhaps Morons believe they can become gods, perfect, but no one else does.

But Christians believe God's level of perfection is unattainable. Perfection for man is eternal life in heaven. Even my goals are not that high.

[SeVeR]

TJ:

1) Many people see christianity as a set of rules, or "How to live." It's more of an outlook, an at!@#$%^&*ute, a desire, that results in changing your lifestyle, as compared to "change the rules i live by so i can be a christian."

So would you say that living in this way is what God wants you to do? Would you say that following the orders of the most perfect being in the universe is the best thing to do? Certainly a better thing to be doing that not living how he wants... yes?

 

2) Path to perfection... meh. We know we can never be perfect, no where near it. More like a path of redemption. We are pursuing grace, and trying to be "good" in order to try and live up to the free gift we are getting, altho we know we never can.

Every man has a limit on what he wants from life. My perfect life would be wealth, security, freedom, love and so on. Your limits are obviously higher, as your reward is heaven. We must both agree that going to heaven and living forever in paradise is an end-point that far surp!@#$%^&*es anything on Earth. Your quest for this level of perfection is laid out for you by the Bible, and the end-point is known to you. Surely then you recognise the psychological implications of believing in a rule-book to paradise... and how naturally desirable that is to any human being.

 

3) Christianity and intellectuals can't go together? Wow, just wow. I can't believe you people who are so hung up on some things can say something like that, you truly think you are so intellectually superior to every christian? This is a statement you obviously can't back up, and it's simply foolish in how broad it is. Here I'll give you one name, just for the sake of pointing out all the degrees/!@#$%^&*les that come with it, even though I don't even know what half of them are: Viggo Olsen. Well known surgeon turned missionary after trying to disprove what he thought was his wifes absurd new fascination with Christianity, M.S., M.D., Litt.D., D.H., F.A.C.S., F.I.C.S., and D.T.M.&H.

I never thought it would spark such debate, it was more of a joke actually. But the fact is, there is no evidence for God, and therefore any belief in God is based on suc!@#$%^&*bing to some level of stupidity. I won't go into examples, but so far i haven't met many Christian intellectuals, and as i said elsewhere on this forum, i've encountered more than an average number of Christians who can't use the English language properly. Edited December 4, 2007 by SeVeR

[Bak]

there's no proof for any philosophical issues almost by definition. That doesn't mean believing them is stupidity.

 

murder is wrong. want proof? I don't have any.

[SeVeR]

Thanks, what i meant was there is "no evidence for God" (editted last post accordingly).

 

This is not the same for other philosophical issues; at least not the kind i like to debate.

 

In fact by saying there is no proof, you also say there is no wrong. At least there is no wrong known to us. That i agree with.

Edited December 4, 2007 by SeVeR

[Bak]

So what you're saying is that

there is no proof of God, and therefore any belief in God is based on suc!@#$%^&*bing to some level of stupidity

does not generalize to "there is no proof for X, and therefore any belief in X is based on suc!@#$%^&*bing to some level of stupidity"???

 

why is the god issue different than any other philosophical issue?

[SeVeR]

There is no proof of anything. There is only evidence to indicate the likelihood of truth. Believing in a truth because it is supported by evidence is not stupid. Believing in a truth which is supported by no evidence at all (or very little evidence) requires stupidity.

 

BTW, you reply too quickly, i sometimes edit my posts.

[Memory]

So because i don't believe in God i am religious? Before you answer, i'm not an atheist either. God might exist, but there is no evidence either way.

Yes, I read the first page of this thread. You said you were "agnostic," haha, I'll give you that, you most certainly are. I would argue, however, that you are not Agnostic. You say God might exist, but you take the time to tell Christians why they are wrong. I'll grant you it is possible to be Agnostic and be against Christianity. Tell me, which god is it you believe might or might not exist?

 

I make the choice not to believe. How can a choice and a belief be the same thing?!?!?

A choice and a belief, when dealing with the philosophical or the theological, are the same thing.

 

You mean immaterial...

God is immaterial? No, that makes no sense.

 

If you follow God's plan enough to get to heaven then you are as perfect as a human being can possibly be. Human beings desire a purpose and a way of improving themselves to the maximum extent that they believe to be possible. Religion gives us this path to perfection. So i don't understand why you think this perfection can never be fulfilled, as Christians outwardly believe that it can!

What Christians have you been speaking to? I am apostate to Calvinist dogma, I read the ancient heresies and study the history of the church, I am unaware of anyone, other than Mormons, who believe that man can attain perfection.

 

But Christians believe God's level of perfection is unattainable. Perfection for man is eternal life in heaven. Even my goals are not that high.

God is perfect but man is not God. Eternal life is not perfection, but happiness.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Memory

[Memory]

irrational means without reason, whereas if you read philosophy they (try to) have reasons for everything they say. The difference is that philosophy attempts the explain things science can not and never will be able to such as "what is the meaning of life?" or "what is knowledge?" or "what is morally right and wrong (is there such a thing?)?".

Certainly they rationalize their subject matter, that does not change the base fact.

 

Science grew out of philosophy, but you are correct, they deal now with different things.

 

There is no proof of anything. There is only evidence to indicate the likelihood of truth. Believing in a truth because it is supported by evidence is not stupid. Believing in a truth which is supported by no evidence at all (or very little evidence) requires stupidity.

 

BTW, you reply too quickly, i sometimes edit my posts.

 

 

What evidence are you looking for?

[SeVeR]

So you're going to tell you what i believe now? Look no further than the definition of an agnostic to see why i am so anti-Christian. I am agnostic because i despise faith and the propagation of !@#$%^&*umptions through religion. If i were an atheist then i would be nothing but a hypocrite. I know you understand this, as it's what you were trying to make a point about a few posts ago.

 

Tell me, which god is it you believe might or might not exist?

All Gods, any God.

A choice and a belief, when dealing with the philosophical or the theological, are the same thing.

I suppose if one believes that something is not worth believing, then that is a belief. I guess the only truth we know is that no other truths can be known. One !@#$%^&*umption based on everything reality indicates... i guess that's faith in it's most singular form, but no-one is infallible are they.

 

God is immaterial? No, that makes no sense.

Look it up. It doesn't just mean irrelevent or inconsequential. It has a second meaning that describes God quite well. (not material; incorporeal; spiritual; Having no material body or form; not consisting of matter)

 

What Christians have you been speaking to? I am apostate to Calvinist dogma, I read the ancient heresies and study the history of the church, I am unaware of anyone, other than Mormons, who believe that man can attain perfection.

You still don't understand what i'm getting it. All people have an idea of what is possible for them to achieve in their life-time. This limit on achievement is what i speak of when i say perfection. The perfect human and the perfect God are two different things.

 

A Christian believes that their limits are far superior to non-Christians (heaven), and they believe they know the path to getting there (words of the Bible). Surely you can see how this "rule-book to paradise" provided by Christianity can be appealing to beings such as ourselves.

 

What evidence are you looking for?

There is no amount of evidence that can produce absolute faith. However, there are near-certainties that we accept without too much quibbling. If God were to appear to me at my death and assign me to an after-life then i would accept him. However, he may just be an advanced being with limited power, who has managed to harness the passage of the (as of yet) undiscovered human soul. Christianity may be true in every !@#$%^&*umption apart from God being omnipotent; indeed if "God" told the Bible-writers such lies, what reason would they have not to trust him.

 

So, as i said earlier, there is ALWAYS a reason to doubt. That is all of which i am certain.

Edited December 5, 2007 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

The only flaw in your logic sever is that things can have strong evidence can be wrong, so thus it makes you stupid to be right?

 

So being there is no scientific proof that there aren't a more than a hundred, possibly a couple hundred(theoretically) planets in the solar systems of the universe, are we stupid to believe that there are actually thousands?

 

Being there is no published scientific proof that there is inteligent life on planets outside of our own, does that make it stupid to believe that there is life on other planets in other systems?

 

Case in point for ages there was strong belief that the world was flat. And there was strong evidence to support that. Yet a lot of philosophers theorized that the earth was round, with little evidence to support that theory, and ironically they were right.

 

!@#$%^&* look at the majority of things we now know as true, and centuries to millenia ago people were told that " a truth which is supported by no evidence at all (or very little evidence) requires stupidity."

 

In fact most scientific breakthroughs follow a belief or theory based on little to no evidence. If it weren't for hundreds of people with beliefs based off of little to no evidence we wouldn't have any advances, or near the technology we have today.

 

The very idea is dogmatic in itself.

[Memory]

So you're going to tell you what i believe now? Look no further than the definition of an agnostic to see why i am so anti-Christian. I am agnostic because i despise faith and the propagation of !@#$%^&*umptions through religion. If i were an atheist then i would be nothing but a hypocrite. I know you understand this, as it's what you were trying to make a point about a few posts ago.

Ahh, so wish to be known as "agnostic" because you fear to be known as a hypocrite, now we get to the crux of the matter.

 

All Gods, any God.

But you are arguing that the Abramic god does not, is that the exception to your statement?

 

I suppose if one believes that something is not worth believing, then that is a belief. I guess the only truth we know is that no other truths can be known. One !@#$%^&*umption based on everything reality indicates... i guess that's faith in it's most singular form, but no-one is infallible are they.

There is truth, and there is Truth.

 

Look it up. It doesn't just mean irrelevent or inconsequential. It has a second meaning that describes God quite well. (not material; incorporeal; spiritual; Having no material body or form; not consisting of matter)

No, the connotations which such a statement bring to play are not necessary.

 

You still don't understand what i'm getting it. All people have an idea of what is possible for them to achieve in their life-time. This limit on achievement is what i speak of when i say perfection. The perfect human and the perfect God are two different things.

I understand exactly what you are saying, and you are wrong.

 

A Christian believes that their limits are far superior to non-Christians (heaven), and they believe they know the path to getting there (words of the Bible). Surely you can see how this "rule-book to paradise" provided by Christianity can be appealing to beings such as ourselves.

All are equal, all have the same potential.

 

There is no amount of evidence that can produce absolute faith. However, there are near-certainties that we accept without too much quibbling. If God were to appear to me at my death and assign me to an after-life then i would accept him. However, he may just be an advanced being with limited power, who has managed to harness the passage of the (as of yet) undiscovered human soul. Christianity may be true in every !@#$%^&*umption apart from God being omnipotent; indeed if "God" told the Bible-writers such lies, what reason would they have not to trust him.

Why must omnipotence be a lie? Because it creates the possibility of paradox?

 

So, as i said earlier, there is ALWAYS a reason to doubt. That is all of which i am certain.

One may justify anything they desire.

 

 

Case in point for ages there was strong belief that the world was flat. And there was strong evidence to support that. Yet a lot of philosophers theorized that the earth was round, with little evidence to support that theory, and ironically they were right.

Actually that thing about the earth being believed to be flat is a common misconception, most peoples, including Europeans, have known it was round for a long time.

[Bak]

Actually that thing about the earth being believed to be flat is a common misconception, most peoples, including Europeans, have known it was round for a long time.

 

you're arguing against his metaphor, not his point.

[SeVeR]

Memory:

Ahh, so wish to be known as "agnostic" because you fear to be known as a hypocrite, now we get to the crux of the matter.

I find it far more interesting that you would believe me to be an atheist rather than an agnostic for the sake of calling me a hypocrite. It says alot about you. Believing what one wants to believe is a common characteristic among Christians.

 

I know what i believe, and you can either trust me or not. But i ask you, how can someone that doubts everything be anything other than agnostic? An atheist believes there is no God, and that is an !@#$%^&*umption for which there is no evidence. For the sake of this discussion, trust me; for the sake of your ego, don't.

 

But you are arguing that the Abramic god does not, is that the exception to your statement?

What i'm saying applies to most religions and most Gods.

 

There is truth, and there is Truth.

In the words of the Greek philosopher Xenophanes: "No human being will ever know the Truth, for even if they happen to say it by chance, they would not even know they had done so"

 

In other words there are no known truths, but truth must exist for us not to know about it.

 

No, the connotations which such a statement bring to play are not necessary.

This is what you originally said:

"I must conclude that the argument is for something that does not physically exist, and is therefore irrational."

Then i said:

"You mean immaterial"

 

I then gave you a definition of immaterial which, is "something that does not physically exist". It seems to fit...

 

I understand exactly what you are saying, and you are wrong.

Nice of you to say. How?

 

All are equal, all have the same potential.

Actually, no.

 

God, by Christian definitions, is timeless and knows the future. He created a world where certain people would "find the Lord" and go to heaven, whereas others were destined for eternity in !@#$%^&*. Thus, we never were created equal. Its best to choose at this point, either God is not omnipotent and doesn't know the future, or all men were not created equal.

 

Why must omnipotence be a lie? Because it creates the possibility of paradox?

It was an example of how doubt can pervade every !@#$%^&*umption. The example doesn't reserve any special treatment for the idea of omnipotence. Please explain the paradox of which you speak.

 

One may justify anything they desire.

Exactly, but you don't have to desire it do you. It's possible to find reasons to doubt anything. Desiring to doubt something may help you doubt it, but ultimately desire has no place in logic.

[SeVeR]

NBV:

The only flaw in your logic sever is that things can have strong evidence can be wrong, so thus it makes you stupid to be right?

If you believe something that has a wealth of evidence in support of it, then you are not stupid. If suddenly a load of new evidence comes out in support of the opposite !@#$%^&*umption, then you are only stupid if you fail to change your mind after evaluating the new evidence. Thus, my logic is simple, follow the evidence when it becomes available.

 

It may turn out that Christianity was true all along, but non-Christians are not stupid for not believing in Christianity because the evidence doesn't point to it at this moment in time.

 

So being there is no scientific proof that there aren't a more than a hundred, possibly a couple hundred(theoretically) planets in the solar systems of the universe, are we stupid to believe that there are actually thousands?

Good question. Currently, we have found many extra-solar planets using Earth-based telescopes, and so the evidence for believing there are more planets to be found is growing stronger! Statistically we may have observed a thousand stars with close enough precision to detect planets, and found that 30% have planets. Thus, it would be an intelligent guess to say that 30% of all the billions of stars in our universe have planets. When new evidence becomes available we will be able to refine our estimates. So no, its not stupid to believe we will find thousands more planets at the moment.

 

It's worth mentioning the scale of a belief. Believing in God can be a simple inconsequential belief that has no effect on the actions of the individual. How can someone who says "I believe in God, but don't do anything about it" be stupid in comparison to someone who says "I believe in God and have altered my entire life to his worship". Obviously the second person has a little more faith in their belief. This is therefore important when asking the question about the existence of extra-solar planets. Some scientists will say "I believe we will find thousands more planets", but they won't stake their life or their reputation on it.

 

Being there is no published scientific proof that there is inteligent life on planets outside of our own, does that make it stupid to believe that there is life on other planets in other systems?

A better example. If someone devoted their life to the belief of aliens (like these UFO nuts) then i would say they are being stupid. If someone wrote a paper on evolution at the molecular level and compared the findings with a spectroscopic analysis of extrasolar planets (that we could get from our telescopes in the same way we do for stars), and found a match, then i would call that evidence. One must also count our existence on Earth as evidence that planets can support life. Thus there is a small amount of evidence that requires a small degree of consideration. One would certainly be stupid to have faith!

 

Yet a lot of philosophers theorized that the earth was round, with little evidence to support that theory, and ironically they were right.

A Greek scientist called Eratosthenes calculated the cir!@#$%^&*ference of the Earth over 2000 years ago using sticks and shadows. But lets be clear that a theory is not a belief.

 

In fact most scientific breakthroughs follow a belief or theory based on little to no evidence. If it weren't for hundreds of people with beliefs based off of little to no evidence we wouldn't have any advances, or near the technology we have today.

I think you're confusing theory and belief again. You can make a theory from the smallest amount of evidence. The next step is testing the theory. The very fact that you're testing the theory means that you don't believe it until you get the results of the test!