The Great Faith Debate

[NBVegita]

[SeVeR]

Time for a Nietzsche quote: "All things are subject to interpretation, whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."

 

Tig, to claim that there are true followers of Christ you would have to assert that one particular interpretation of the scripture is true. Given that 95% of Christians may disagree with your interpretation of what makes a true follower, how can you assert that your interpretation is true? Christians will claim their interpretation is true which is why I thought you were a Christian when you mentioned this.

 

This goes back to what we were discussing earlier about how we can't know anything.

[Tigron-X]

No, God is an idea, and he is defined by whatever the current interpretation of the scripture is. Christians define their God, not scripture, because the interpretation of scripture will always change. If most Christians define their God as a spaghetti monster from Mars then they'll find a way to interpret the scripture into saying that. More realistically, the interpretation of scripture is influenced almost entirely by whatever domineering culture holds sway over the religion. In our age of Western equality we are finding the Bible interpreted to meaniing women are allowed to preach and homosexuals are allowed to live normal lives. Christians define God.

 

Time for a Nietzsche quote: "All things are subject to interpretation, whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."

 

Tig, to claim that there are true followers of Christ you would have to assert that one particular interpretation of the scripture is true. Given that 95% of Christians may disagree with your interpretation of what makes a true follower, how can you assert that your interpretation is true? Christians will claim their interpretation is true which is why I thought you were a Christian when you mentioned this.

 

This goes back to what we were discussing earlier about how we can't know anything.

 

 

That is an absolute fallacy!

 

I don't know where you get your expertise on Christianity, but I'm willing to guess it's all based on some sort of hearsay or elementary conjecture as opposed to any actual study of the Bible and it's history. After all, you've already falsely claimed that the Church founders wrote the scriptures.

 

In the end, one's understanding of Bible scripture will change, but the message remains the same and always has. It's you that changes, not scripture. You're still assuming that every individual who has ever come up to you and claimed to be a Christian actually had knowledge of what that means, let alone a belief structure based on actual scripture. All in all, anything a Christian says regarding the message in the Bible has to be unequivocally based on scripture. If it's not, then I'm sure we both can agree that his/her statements or expressed beliefs are nothing more than a fallacy, and maybe even fantasy. Furthermore, any expressed understanding has to be in harmony on a whole of the Bible and not just in part to be truly Christian.

 

If you want the Christian definition of God, then you open up the Bible just as you would open up a law dictionary to find the meaning of a legal term. You don't just walk up to anyone and ask them to define a term for you. You would open up the respective book just like any educated man would.

 

Bottom line is that there is an exact meaning that was written just as there should be an exact meaning that is to be read, unless you want to throw reading comprehension out the window -- which it already looks like you have. Unless you haven't studied the Bible maturely. Because if you actually have, then you would find that there isn't much left up to mere interpretation.

 

 

On another note, you got this idea stuck in your head that God or the belief in God is to be blamed for the hinderance of science. The Church opposed Galileo's idea of heliocentrism because it would show that the Church's teachings were NOT based on true knowledge, let alone true knowledge of scriptural texts, thus creating a social atmosphere where the people under rule of the Church would question the authority of its leaders. And, the way Galileo wrote didn't do him any benefit either because his writing didn't honor the authority of the Church, thus instigating resentment of the Church and its leaders.

 

Your claim that societies have had different interpretations of the Bible is unsubstantiated. The truth of the matter is that the Church suppressed scriptural knowledge and scientific discoveries in order to remain in power over their subjects.

 

There is an exact and specific message/philosophies that the Bible teaches.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Tigron-X

[SeVeR]

Bottom line is that there is an exact meaning that was written just as there should be an exact meaning that is to be read

The most exact meaning of the scripture died with the men who wrote it.

 

On another note, you got this idea stuck in your head that God or the belief in God is to be blamed for the hinderance of science. The Church opposed Galileo's idea of heliocentrism because it would show that the Church's teachings were NOT based on true knowledge, let alone true knowledge of scriptural texts, thus creating a social atmosphere where the people under rule of the Church would question the authority of its leaders. And, the way Galileo wrote didn't do him any benefit either because his writing didn't honor the authority of the Church, thus instigating resentment of the Church and its leaders.

You have identified the perfect example to illustrate my point. The quotes i gave earlier were interpreted by the Church to mean the Earth is flat and the centre of the universe, thus they disapproved of Galileo and Copernicus. Nowadays they interpret the scripture differently and have withdrawn their condemnation of Galileo. This is one example from many of how the interpretation of scripture changes.

 

Your claim that societies have had different interpretations of the Bible is unsubstantiated.

It's utterly proven and if you had studied any religious history at all you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous claim. (and i just gave you an example)

 

After all, you've already falsely claimed that the Church founders wrote the scriptures.

The Church founders selected what books to use in the Bible, and made a great many edits to the original texts, which would be almost unrecognisable from the originals (neglecting language change). So the Church effectively decided what should be used as the basis for their religion and their definition of God. But i forget that you're the historical expert on these matters...

 

In the end, one's understanding of Bible scripture will change, but the message remains the same and always has. It's you that changes, not scripture. You're still assuming that every individual who has ever come up to you and claimed to be a Christian actually had knowledge of what that means

A religion is only the sum of it's parts, and if all it's followers believe their God to be something, then that IS the Christian God. What you call the Christian God is probably not believed by Christians, so it's not the Christian God. If the Church has led people astray then the Church has changed the Christian God. To assert differently would be to assert that God definately exists and is not an idea fuelled only by our belief in him. So, do you believe in God?

 

In the end, one's understanding of Bible scripture will change, but the message remains the same and always has. It's you that changes, not scripture. You're still assuming that every individual who has ever come up to you and claimed to be a Christian actually had knowledge of what that means, let alone a belief structure based on actual scripture.

It doesn't matter if they believe the true Christian God because probably no-one does. The only true Christian was Jesus. Edited March 28, 2009 by SeVeR

[Stibbymicto]

In the end, one's understanding of Bible scripture will change, but the message remains the same and always has. It's you that changes, not scripture. You're still assuming that every individual who has ever come up to you and claimed to be a Christian actually had knowledge of what that means, let alone a belief structure based on actual scripture.

It doesn't matter if they believe the true Christian God because probably no-one does. The only true Christian was Jesus.

I absolutely agree with this statement. Everybody, even preachers for the churches, always have some doubt.

[FMBI]

Your claim that societies have had different interpretations of the Bible is unsubstantiated. The truth of the matter is that the Church suppressed scriptural knowledge and scientific discoveries in order to remain in power over their subjects.

 

There is an exact and specific message/philosophies that the Bible teaches.

 

This is my main beef with your post, though it certainly has other flaws as well.

 

Every single culture on the planet interprets "absolute truth" in completely different ways - stop by Armenia, Ethiopia, Russia, Greece, France, Italy, Norway, South Africa, Senegal, and Brazil if you don't believe me. In fact, you can pretty much take a country (or even a minority within a country) and attach their religion to their name, and get a different breed every time - ie, American Christianity, Libyan Islam, British Sikhism, etc, etc. The only reason people in the US can deny this is because most of them don't even accept different denominations, let alone different church systems, to be valid - hence, the never-ending attempts by evangelicals to rebrand themselves as "born-again Christians," "true believers," "the last real Christians," etc - essentially, trying to damn everyone else so that their "absolute" beliefs never have to stand up to a serious challenge.

 

Also - there is not an exact and specific message/philosophies that the Bible teaches. There are about 500 different messages coming out of the Bible, depending on which section you open up to, and most of them can be logically proven as flawed. Genocide, rape, murder, and incest one day, forgiveness, asceticism and virginity the next - where the heck is this "message," exactly?

 

And that's not even taking into account the fact that the early Church suppressed massive bodies of alternate interpretations of Christian teachings, or that it explicitly lied about the role Jews (and the Pharisees in particular) played during the immediate post-resurrection period, or that several books in the New Testament weren't written by their claimed authors.

 

 

To recap: the Bible is not universal, it is not absolute truth, it is flawed, and it is not even complete.

 

I'll be happy to elaborate on these points later on if anyone cares, but right now it's late and I'm tired.

 

Have a nice day.

[jacob hunter!]

Was jesus real? or is the books and knowledge about him false? Was he a real person who did miracles oe is it all lies zzzzz we will never know! but after taking drugs, i'm pretty sure god is probably fake.... or maybe half real in the sense that the brain tricks you and blocks your sensors out and shit hmmmm w.e owell.

[SeVeR]

Tigron, do you think it's possible for someone to know they know the truth?

[jacob hunter!]

wow did I really post that garbage...... damn I must have been scared of the truth i'm actually about to tell you now.

 

This is my belief and many other people agree with me on this.

 

The sensation you get when you are on a drug say dxm or salvia, and that feeling you get when you know there is more to life in this reality.

 

That my friend, is glimpsing what the tip of the iceberg, and I beleive along with many that this is what jesus did.

[»Lynx]

Jesus was on Salvia?

 

-L

[Stibbymicto]

Tigron, do you think it's possible for someone to know they know the truth?

A better question would be

 

"Tigron, how do you know what you know?"

 

Is it possible for someone to know they know the truth, The answer is no.

Unless that person was specifically there, then they cannot possible know the truth, besides, even being there the person would just take it the way they thought it to be, and that doesn't make it true either.

Basically your screwed either way.

 

Also,

For those of you argueing that the bible is "true"

Allow me to point out that parts of the bible have yet to happen (i.e. apocolypse)

Therefore, since it has not happened yet, it cannot be proven true NOR false.

 

 

EDIT:: jesus did drugs? Rofl.

That's why he looks like a damn hippie without the peace signs.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Stibbymicto

[NBVegita]

I very implicitly posted the absolute mathematical proof of infinity.

 

Ok, if you challenge my response, similar to those who have challenged yours, I give you the condition to prove that my mathematical definition is not absolute. Its basic logic, all you have to do is show me one case where my definition has a false conclusion.

 

 

You never did provide an example where that is false.

 

I ask a third time. If you cannot present me with a false conclusion then I now challenge you to hold up your part of the bargain.

 

Just in case you forgot, here is my definition(s).

 

Spoiler! --Click here to view--

In a basic Asymptote you are assuming if you take the limit of X->inf for F(x)=A that F(x), no matter how large you make the number, or small inversely, can never possibly be equal to the number A.

 

On a basic level if you start counting from 1, you never find a number you cannot count to. Thus the concept of an indefinitely large number, or quantity, or simply infinity.

[Stibbymicto]

Before we answer this question, we must distinguish five questions that are often confused.

 

First, there is the question of whether something exists or not. A thing can exist whether we know it or not.

Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question is answered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.)

Third, there is the question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge. We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons. Many Christians think God's existence is like that.

Fourth, there is the question of whether this reason, if it exists, amounts to a proof. Most reasons do not. Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs. For instance, the building you sit in may collapse in one minute, but the reliability of the contractor and the construction materials is a good reason for thinking that very improbable.

Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof, a proof by the scientific method, i.e., by experiment, observation, and measurement? Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs.

I believe we can answer yes to the first four of these questions about the existence of God but not to the fifth. God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.

 

There are many arguments for God's existence, but most of them have the same logical structure, which is the basic structure of any deductive argument. First, there is a major premise, or general principle. Then, a minor premise states some particular data in our experience that come under that principle. Finally, the conclusion follows from applying the general principle to the particular case.

 

In each case the conclusion is that God exists, but the premises of the different arguments are different. The arguments are like roads, from different starting points, all aiming at the same goal of God.

 

Soruce :: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/gods-existence.htm

 

 

(EDIT: Noone was posting and SOMEONE has to argue the counter-point

Edited April 1, 2009 by Stibbymicto

[NBVegita]

Let me rephrase it for you: I conditionally accept to prove God to you upon you showing the mathematical proof for infinity.

 

Your post above does not prove anything.

 

This author, besides being a radical religious man, which thus makes his philosophical views bias, only provides his belief that philosophically god exists.

 

In basic logic, a statement is false if it is possible to have true premises with a false conclusion. There is no way you can argue that this argument cannot have, under any circumstances, a false conclusion.

 

Second, his entire, paper thin, argument is based wholly on the concept that if you cannot prove that something exists does that mean it doesn't exist? By that very same argument I could philosophically validate the Greek and or roman gods and thus invalidate all of Christianity.

 

I state again, he is stating if you believe something, then it is conditionally philosophically true, which is a complete fallacy. A perfect example of this would be a child stumbling upon a couple having sex. The child does not quite understand the actions and thinks the man is attacking the woman. The child tells authorities that the man was attacking the woman. In reality the man was not attacking the woman, but in her heart, based on her knowledge the child believed that he was. Simply because you believe something does not, scientifically or philosophically, make it true/prove your belief.

[Bak]

Honestly, would the world be any different if God didn't exist? He doesn't do ANYTHING. Is the time you invest going to church or reading the Bible really worth the (nothing) you get out?

[FMBI]

Honestly, would the world be any different if God didn't exist? He doesn't do ANYTHING. Is the time you invest going to church or reading the Bible really worth the (nothing) you get out?

 

 

^ The best argument for deism / atheism ever.

 

Over the millennia, God's steadily lost ground to science, as he will continue to do until the end of the human race circa 2300 A.D. Yes, his theoretical power has expanded over that time - instead of being limited to the Levant, he's now the guy that put together a universe several billion light-years across; but all of that gain has come from scientific research, while all of his former, observable powers have been debunked by the same. He's just gonna keep getting squeezed and squeezed until one day, the balloon finally pops [A helium balloon, perhaps?]

 

It's fine if people still want to believe in some form of God - there are quite a few people I know who can justify a liberal approach to Christianity or Islam. But the old model of "I'll spend 3 hours a day and give up most of my individuality to get to know a nonexistent entity" just hasn't held up well over time.

 

 

(Also, in more direct response, there's Occam's razor - but considering how often evangelicals misunderstand the very nature of that argument, I prefer the time-squeeze one.)

[Bak]

why is the world ending in 2300 again?

[Requiem.]

Lol nbv, stibby is atheist. he;s just posting SOMETHING for someone to argue

 

__

 

I really just don't see how someone who died over 2000 years ago has anything to do with my life now. :\

Edited April 2, 2009 by Requiem.

[»Lynx]

Before we answer this question, we must distinguish five questions that are often confused.

 

First, there is the question of whether something exists or not. A thing can exist whether we know it or not.

Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question is answered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.)

Third, there is the question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge. We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons. Many Christians think God's existence is like that.

Fourth, there is the question of whether this reason, if it exists, amounts to a proof. Most reasons do not. Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs. For instance, the building you sit in may collapse in one minute, but the reliability of the contractor and the construction materials is a good reason for thinking that very improbable.

Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof, a proof by the scientific method, i.e., by experiment, observation, and measurement? Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs.

I believe we can answer yes to the first four of these questions about the existence of God but not to the fifth. God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.

 

There are many arguments for God's existence, but most of them have the same logical structure, which is the basic structure of any deductive argument. First, there is a major premise, or general principle. Then, a minor premise states some particular data in our experience that come under that principle. Finally, the conclusion follows from applying the general principle to the particular case.

 

In each case the conclusion is that God exists, but the premises of the different arguments are different. The arguments are like roads, from different starting points, all aiming at the same goal of God.

 

You look at something which seems impossible, from your point of view and lack of knowledge, then therefore assume that there is an almighty power which created this impossibility. Take the case of even simple happenings when something happens. You'll find that three questions arise - what, how and why. You will get an answer to the first question within a short period of time, as it is physical in nature. You have to spend more time to answer the second question. It is mental in nature. Different persons may give different answers for the third question. But you will never get a true answer for it - it is philosophical in nature. This by no means proves any higher power, unless that is your own comprehension, therefore showing the futility of your question in the first place. (This is something I've written in a previous post).

 

Honestly, would the world be any different if God didn't exist? He doesn't do ANYTHING. Is the time you invest going to church or reading the Bible really worth the (nothing) you get out?

 

The nothing that *you get out, if somebody else feels like they're doing themselves a favour because they're going to church, then good for them. If we get to call them idiots for being deluded and nonsensical, then good for us. As to whether the world would be a different place, I'll answer that after I've proven infinity and had a word with God him/her... Oh wait, can't say that either... It's self?

 

-L

[FMBI]

why is the world ending in 2300 again?

 

Because without a drastic change to the world cultural and economic system, our civilization will be effectively dead past that point. Not to say it would be over for the human race as a whole, but it would really suck for 99% of the population. Global warming, wealth inequality, resource shortages, life-extension drugs, private armies, corporatized space travel, universally available WMDs - not a fun place to live.

[»Lynx]

why is the world ending in 2300 again?

 

Because without a drastic change to the world cultural and economic system, our civilization will be effectively dead past that point. Not to say it would be over for the human race as a whole, but it would really suck for 99% of the population. Global warming, wealth inequality, resource shortages, life-extension drugs, private armies, corporatized space travel, universally available WMDs - not a fun place to live.

 

lol

[Bak]

after I've proven infinity

what do you mean prove infinity? You can't prove a noun.

[Requiem.]

Atheism is an interesting and challenging philosophy that doesn't offer much in the way of comforts that theism does. I know what's going to happen to me when I die, because I've seen what happens to others. I know that I am able to make actions and there will be a catalogue of reactions to it. I don't know a LOAD of other things, so I spend my life looking for provable answers to the problems I face, both in the physical realm and philosophically.

 

I don't believe there is no God or gods because I can't prove it. Similarly I don't know that there is a God or gods because I can't prove that either.

 

 

I would suggest coming to your own conclusion on religion and debating them with people in a way that furthers your understanding of the world, rather than creating aggressive stand offs so that you can entrench yourself further in what you have decided because you feel you have to defend it from others.

 

Defending an idea from others doesn't add to it's validity, but it does make it harder to understand the possibility that you might be wrong. We all might be wrong. We won't know until we find out.

 

 

Either way, as the advert says "There probably isn't a God so you might as well enjoy your life".

[valate]

In the end, one's understanding of Bible scripture will change, but the message remains the same and always has. It's you that changes, not scripture. You're still assuming that every individual who has ever come up to you and claimed to be a Christian actually had knowledge of what that means, let alone a belief structure based on actual scripture.

It doesn't matter if they believe the true Christian God because probably no-one does. The only true Christian was Jesus.

I absolutely agree with this statement. Everybody, even preachers for the churches, always have some doubt.

 

Yea same here.

[Bak]

except for when they changed scripture early on to match the message they wanted to send out