RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective

RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

DomKen -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 7:21:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aviinterra Now let me come to the matter of strength- how strong is this new belief? Having worked with the dead and the dying, I can tell you that 99.9% beg, plead, barter, talk, laugh, etc. with God as their last breath approaches, and that includes all religions and beliefs, along with atheists and agnostics. It is actually quite sad to see those few who remain firm in their non-belief, because to their mourning parents they are gone, just gone, while the next Christian family has the comfort of thinking they will meet somehow somewhere in the future, that this is not the total end. All of this might sound silly and religion is easily debatable while you are safe and healthy. People always find God suddenly when he is needed, when cancer comes about, or other catastrophe. This is better known as "no atheists in foxholes" with a little of Pascal's Wager tossed in. We're all afraid to die. One of the very well known psychological steps in coming to terms with immenent death is negotiation. So is it really surprising that some number of atheists negotiate with a god in their last moments? Does it surprise anyone it is the most prominent god of our culture? Want to bet atheists in muslim culture nation negotiate with Allah in their last moments? It does not however validate any religion or faith in any myth..

Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 7:24:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro God would still have to prove its claim (but what means I don't know, it depends on which god shows up and makes the claim). Better hurry up and define your requirements. If you do not have any, he or she might walk past you on the sidewalk without you being able to recognize him or her. BS... I know exactly what Bud Cort looks like now.

LadyEllen -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 7:27:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro LadyEllen: I don't claim an understanding of your experience of the divine, but I do seem to recall that you claimed to be a follower of a neopagan Ásatrú type faith. As it happens I have an enormous fondness for Norse myth, pageantry, ritual, and philosophy - I really do. But don't you find it at least a little revealing that the subject of your faith is equally the subject of books on mythology, comic books, cartoons, and movies? The fact that something may be aesthetically captivating doesn't lend it a truth value of any kind. It's still just pretty stories with no foundation in reality. The Lord of the Rings was a kind of redaction of northern European myths - does it mean that Tolkien's myth-making is true? Fair enough points. Yes, I've been in Asatru for a long while, albeit well out of the mainstream for most of that time. I'm afraid though that I dont really understand your point about the mythology etc being adapted for entertainment - could you explain please? Sesame Street did not undermine advanced mathematics as I understand it...... which is how I read your question, though more likely I didnt get it. I wont go into what I experienced too much - seems little point to do so. What I will say is that it transcended any and every form of mythology, scripture or other formalisation, and indeed was beyond any accurate or ample description in words such as we might be familiar with. In short, no there was no old man in a white beard present, but "God" (a loaded term I dislike) was. The formalised religions we have, including those which we reject as "mythology" are a problem somewhat, in that they have become ends in themselves when really they are keys to the end. As ends in themselves they are ridiculous and anyone with a thinking brain can grasp that, but as keys to an end they retain enormous value if only we have the will to use them. Once the door is opened, one need not ever use the key again except to pass it on perhaps. The reason I exclude myself from mainstream Asatru indeed, is that too many there have the same problem as many within any other religion; this unwillingness to see beyond that which is written. Yet, as a key, Asatru remains valid and useful. E

atursvcMaam -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 7:31:37 AM)
So what if Your parents were actually santa claus. So what if churches tend to be money makers. i don't know who built the church (religion) but i would certainly like to know the one responsible for sunshine on a warm day (faith) Sure it just happened, and those presents magically appeared under the tree. and certainly that concept came of broadcloth and ashes. Have the best day you have ever had. You can make that happen.

fluffyswitch -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 7:45:07 AM)
fr we all have faith in something, even if that faith is that there is nothing larger than humanity. it's still faith. faith and religion are two radically different concepts. though i'm sure that's already been stated numerous times in this thread.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 7:46:18 AM)
quote: Sorry, I gracefully sidestep that kind of idiocy. Actually, you pretty much step right in the middle of that "idiocy". The factual support for atheism is the same as the factual support for Christianity--there is none. There is zero proof that God does not exist. There is zero proof that God does exist. Both assertions qualify as faith, even by the poetic definition of Hebrews 11:1. Faith is the only way either assertion may be stated with a sense of certainty. Your insistence on accepting a "fact" which is not there except as belief is not the position of the agnostic (who accepts the absense of evidence and allows for uncertainty). The agnostic's "I don't know" invariably morphs into "God may or may not exist."

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 7:53:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 The agnostic's "I don't know" invariably morphs into "God may or may not exist." I thought I said that... [8\|]

atursvcMaam -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 7:58:25 AM)
There is zero proof that God does not exist. There is zero proof that God does exist. With all due respect then, how does this world exist? random chance, or did You just think it up Yourself? or am i just imagining that it is here?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:05:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 The agnostic's "I don't know" invariably morphs into "God may or may not exist." I thought I said that... [8\|] You also stated: quote: There is no grey-bearded man in the sky awaiting you, no paradise of an afterlife, no great reward at the end of your days. Did no one inform you of this obvious fact? These are categorical negations. They are not a statement of agnosticism, but of atheism, and to assert them as "fact" speaks of a deep faith in their truth. You can offer no evidence but your own passion in support of these assertions. quote: Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. These words are as true for you as they are for any Christian.

Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:06:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Sorry, I gracefully sidestep that kind of idiocy. Actually, you pretty much step right in the middle of that "idiocy". The factual support for atheism is the same as the factual support for Christianity--there is none. There is zero proof that God does not exist. There is zero proof that God does exist. Both assertions qualify as faith, even by the poetic definition of Hebrews 11:1. Faith is the only way either assertion may be stated with a sense of certainty. Your insistence on accepting a "fact" which is not there except as belief is not the position of the agnostic (who accepts the absense of evidence and allows for uncertainty). The agnostic's "I don't know" invariably morphs into "God may or may not exist." The agnostic position is that there is nothing proving the existence of God, which is an observation, not an article of faith... Since the opposite position would be requiring proof of a negative (a well known logical fallacy), it cannot carry equal weight in a rational argument.

meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:15:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam There is zero proof that God does not exist. There is zero proof that God does exist. With all due respect then, how does this world exist? random chance, or did You just think it up Yourself? or am i just imagining that it is here? Belief in god is a belief, not a fact. If something as fantasitical as god can exist, I can't see why something as boring as there being no god can also be a fact, probably more so. Who created god? Why doesn't god seem to care if thousands of people are killed in a Tsunami, a volcanic eruption or whatever. Why did god create deseases? Why does he require life to feed on death? The more you are willing not to look through your rose tinted spectacles the more you realize that god doesn't exist or if he does, god has a personality of a psychopathic juvenile. He really does have a personality disorder and if he was human we would put him in a straitjacket. But the bigger question which is really quite small. I don't expect my daughters to adore and praise me. I'm not going to smite them if they tell me a few home truths. Maybe I'm just more mature than god. Maybe god needs to go on Camp America for the summer and learn how to be a little more mature. The problem with god, is that he is an invention of people and has all the same human frailities as people. Hardly someone who created the universe.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:18:21 AM)
quote: With all due respect then, how does this world exist? random chance, or did You just think it up Yourself? or am i just imagining that it is here? Unless you can demonstrate an instance where something exists in contravention of irrefutable and well established laws of physics, random chance as well as intelligent creation are possible--and plausible--answers to the question of how this universe comes to be. To select one possibility and assert it as truth---that requires faith.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:22:20 AM)
quote: The agnostic position is that there is nothing proving the existence of God, which is an observation, not an article of faith... Very true. Note that SugarMyChurro's categorical assertions in the OP preclude his stance as being one of agnosticism. He does not state "there is no proof"--he states "there is...no great reward at the end of your days...." and presents it as "obvious fact." That is well removed from the indeterminate posture that is the hallmark of agnosticism.

LadyEllen -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:29:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: With all due respect then, how does this world exist? random chance, or did You just think it up Yourself? or am i just imagining that it is here? Unless you can demonstrate an instance where something exists in contravention of irrefutable and well established laws of physics, random chance as well as intelligent creation are possible--and plausible--answers to the question of how this universe comes to be. To select one possibility and assert it as truth---that requires faith. I watched the conclusion to a fascinating TV series last night (Atom, BBC). Apparently its now been established that "empty space" is anything but empty. Apparently, its a seething mass of energy and particles which come spontaneously into being - matter and antimatter, and then immediately cancel themselves out. Its happens so quickly and at such a rate that we have little chance of ever seeing it, but who knows, one day? Anyway, one of the theories extended for the universe we see - all the matter and energy, is that its the remnants of all this activity which is going on all the time. They never explained how there could be remnants if the seething soup produces stuff that cancels out, but it was interesting; we and everything else are then just cosmic leftovers! Most interesting though was this idea of spontaneously "created" matter though it sort of gives a problem I'd have thought to the idea of a closed system (not that I'm any expert) from which nothing can be lost...... intuitively a closed system has to be one also in which nothing can be gained? E

atursvcMaam -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:32:07 AM)
Physical laws fall into the category of religion, as they are interpretations of surroundings by an observer. repeatable and predictable, perhaps, but still interpretation. the only thing that i can prove is that i wake up, and there seems to be a world (substitute universe, space or whatever suits) around me. some days it is like yesterday, but some parts come and go with time. the only thing that i can predict is that i have perceived parts of this world (substitute universe, space, or whatever suits).

celticlord2112 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:38:57 AM)
quote: Physical laws fall into the category of religion, as they are interpretations of surroundings by an observer. repeatable and predictable, perhaps, but still interpretation. Semantics quibble alert: Physical laws fall into the category of science.

Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:47:06 AM)
quote: Physical laws fall into the category of religion, as they are interpretations of surroundings by an observer. repeatable and predictable, perhaps, but still interpretation... Physical laws start from observation in common with religion, not as part of it. One significant difference, as you note, is the consistency of interpretations offered up by the former. Another is the usefulness of the results derived at the end of the process. I'll take the theories of gravity and fluid dynamics as applied to flight, over the theory of 'a deity will save me if I have faith and jump off this building', any day.

atursvcMaam -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:47:16 AM)
all right then, i will who created science? not simply the people who noted the predictability and wrote the books to it, but the natural events which are found to be predictable?

atursvcMaam -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:51:18 AM)
I'll take the theories of gravity and fluid dynamics as applied to flight, over the theory of 'a deity will save me if I have faith and jump off this building', any day. probably a wise choice as your faith is in these laws and not in the deity you mentioned. Faith is what the predictions are based on.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 8:51:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam all right then, i will who created science? not simply the people who noted the predictability and wrote the books to it, but the natural events which are found to be predictable? Science is an intellectual discipline, and thus is not "created" per se. Asking who created the natural events scientists observe is a restatement of your initial question "how does this world exist?" Having come full circle, my response to that has not changed.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.0859375