Conquer Club

I have a problem with people who are religious...especially Christians - because they seem to be more likely to use this term.

That term is faith.

I constantly hear people saying "I have faith, I have faith in the lord". Then they go around trying to tell me how God exists and how his is without a doubt watching us. They talk about him as if he is fact.

But, what people don't realize is that you cannot have faith in fact, that is not faith at all. You can't have faith that 4 + 2 = 6. By having faith, you a full-heartily admitting that God may not exist. By having faith, you are saying that there is perhaps a chance that he is not there, that he is not watching us. So, if you have "faith", please do not go around preaching how his is real, because, even by your own reasoning, there is a chance that he doesn't.

Fact = Something that is true.

Faith = Wanting for something to be true because you don't want to deal with reality.

Just what the world needs...another religion thread.

T-minus 8....7......6.....5......4......3.....2......1.....




Teh jezuz iz teh saviour

No wai, liek i cant C Him

Duh! itz called liek faith!

well liek proof it!!

nahh, yiou proof he dunt!

NO WAI!

YA WAI!

Jezuz is teh gaylord

nah, you r teh gaylord.

Sorry, I couldn't find a place for it in another thread and I feel it is a very valid point to be made.

Norse wrote:Just what the world needs...another religion thread.

T-minus 8....7......6.....5......4......3.....2......1.....




Teh jezuz iz teh saviour

No wai, liek i cant C Him

Duh! itz called liek faith!

well liek proof it!!

nahh, yiou proof he dunt!

NO WAI!

YA WAI!

Jezuz is teh gaylord

nah, you r teh gaylord.

ROFL you owe me a new keyboard lol! one without coke on it

ritz627 wrote:I have a problem with people who are religious...especially Christians - because they seem to be more likely to use this term.

That term is faith.

I constantly hear people saying "I have faith, I have faith in the lord". Then they go around trying to tell me how God exists and how his is without a doubt watching us. They talk about him as if he is fact.

But, what people don't realize is that you cannot have faith in fact, that is not faith at all. You can't have faith that 4 + 2 = 6. By having faith, you a full-heartily admitting that God may not exist. By having faith, you are saying that there is perhaps a chance that he is not there, that he is not watching us. So, if you have "faith", please do not go around preaching how his is real, because, even by your own reasoning, there is a chance that he doesn't.

I think that 4+2= 42.

i totally agree with Norse

I agree with 42

A US Marine had just finished his 4 year military service and was taking courses at his local campus. The professor of his course stood up on the front podium and said "If the all powerful God really exists, he will prove it by knocking me off this podium within the next 15 minutes. If I'm still standing within the next 15 minutes, I will have proven that god does not in fact exist".

The time ticked by but nothing happened. Finally, after 10 minutes had gone by, the US space Marine stood up and punched the professor in the jaw, knocking him to the floor. The Professor didn't get up and his jaw was bleeding. The Space Marine said "God was to busy torturing Saddam Hussein in hell to bother with you, so he sent me instead".

dinobot wrote:A US Marine had just finished his 4 year military service and was taking courses at his local campus. The professor of his course stood up on the front podium and said "If the all powerful God really exists, he will prove it by knocking me off this podium within the next 15 minutes. If I'm still standing within the next 15 minutes, I will have proven that god does not in fact exist".

The time ticked by but nothing happened. Finally, after 10 minutes had gone by, the US space Marine stood up and punched the professor in the jaw, knocking him to the floor. The Professor didn't get up and his jaw was bleeding. The Space Marine said "God was to busy torturing Saddam Hussein in hell to bother with you, so he sent me instead".

AWESOME STORY DUDE! YAY FOR GOD TORTURING PEOPLE!

dinobot wrote:A US Marine had just finished his 4 year military service and was taking courses at his local campus. The professor of his course stood up on the front podium and said "If the all powerful God really exists, he will prove it by knocking me off this podium within the next 15 minutes. If I'm still standing within the next 15 minutes, I will have proven that god does not in fact exist".

The time ticked by but nothing happened. Finally, after 10 minutes had gone by, the US space Marine stood up and punched the professor in the jaw, knocking him to the floor. The Professor didn't get up and his jaw was bleeding. The Space Marine said "God was to busy torturing Saddam Hussein in hell to bother with you, so he sent me instead".

If god was so loving he wouldn't torture anyone, Satan would. So did Satan send the space marine?

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason - Benjamin Franklin

dinobot wrote:A US Marine had just finished his 4 year military service and was taking courses at his local campus. The professor of his course stood up on the front podium and said "If the all powerful God really exists, he will prove it by knocking me off this podium within the next 15 minutes. If I'm still standing within the next 15 minutes, I will have proven that god does not in fact exist".

The time ticked by but nothing happened. Finally, after 10 minutes had gone by, the US space Marine stood up and punched the professor in the jaw, knocking him to the floor. The Professor didn't get up and his jaw was bleeding. The Space Marine said "God was to busy torturing Saddam Hussein in hell to bother with you, so he sent me instead".

And what's your point? That neither the professor nor the marine proved anything?

ritz627 wrote:But, what people don't realize is that you cannot have faith in fact, that is not faith at all.

I disagree with you and mandalorian2298.

Faith = belief in something you have no proof of. Wether or not it is fact is a seperate issue.

I believe that you are actually people somewhere and not mere text generated on my computer. I have no proof therefore I believe it and have faith that I'm correct yet it is still fact.

I have never been in New York. I therefore must use a small amount of faith coupled with some trust that I have not been tricked by computer generated images.

I believe that on september 11, 2001 two large airplanes struck the twin towers of the world trade center. I have faith that the images I watched that day on television were not altered, I also having never seen said structures have to use some faith to believe they existed in the first place.

I have read things and seen pictures that help me believe through faith in those events. Do you believe in those events, know them to be fact or niether?

Even if you don't I will continue to talk as if it is fact, because I have faith that it is even if you reason that it can't be because I have to believe in it by faith.

Two dimes makes a good point.

If you invest money in a company through buying stock. That is faith not fact. You may have gathered all the facts you can to help you make the decision, but there is still no way you can tell the future and know how that company will do.

I'd disagree with mandalorian in that a fact is something that can independently be shown to be true. There are plenty of things that many folks hold to be true that are not facts. To truly hold your position you need to discount all opinions.

CrazyAnglican wrote:I'd disagree with mandalorian in that a fact is something that can independently be shown to be true. There are plenty of things that many folks hold to be true that are not facts. To truly hold your position you need to discount all opinions.

I agree with Mandy's concept of "Fact = Something that is true."

Again no one's opinion wether pro or anti makes a difference therefore it's a seperate issue.

ritz627 wrote:I have a problem with people who are religious...especially Christians - because they seem to be more likely to use this term.

That term is faith.

I constantly hear people saying "I have faith, I have faith in the lord". Then they go around trying to tell me how God exists and how his is without a doubt watching us. They talk about him as if he is fact.

But, what people don't realize is that you cannot have faith in fact, that is not faith at all. You can't have faith that 4 + 2 = 6. By having faith, you a full-heartily admitting that God may not exist. By having faith, you are saying that there is perhaps a chance that he is not there, that he is not watching us. So, if you have "faith", please do not go around preaching how his is real, because, even by your own reasoning, there is a chance that he doesn't.

You bring up a very good point. So I'll let you in on a little secret. Faith is accepting God WITHOUT any visual proof. Faith is knowing in your HEART that he exsists. Afterall, that is the TEST for all of humankind. If he showed his face to the world then there would be no such thing as faith. Therefore beleivers would follow God on FACT and not faith. It's easy to beleive in something you CAN see. But to beleive in something you CAN'T see is FAITH.

Inorder to have perfect faith you must first start by recognizing the signs that expose themselves everyday. Then, take the signs you receive from God and apply them to your life. This is considered unseen proof of God and undoubtably leads to FAITH.

MeDeFe wrote:I agree with 42

The answer to everything.

Gregrios wrote:

ritz627 wrote:I have a problem with people who are religious...especially Christians - because they seem to be more likely to use this term.

That term is faith.

I constantly hear people saying "I have faith, I have faith in the lord". Then they go around trying to tell me how God exists and how his is without a doubt watching us. They talk about him as if he is fact.

But, what people don't realize is that you cannot have faith in fact, that is not faith at all. You can't have faith that 4 + 2 = 6. By having faith, you a full-heartily admitting that God may not exist. By having faith, you are saying that there is perhaps a chance that he is not there, that he is not watching us. So, if you have "faith", please do not go around preaching how his is real, because, even by your own reasoning, there is a chance that he doesn't.

You bring up a very good point. So I'll let you in on a little secret. Faith is accepting God WITHOUT any visual proof. Faith is knowing in your HEART that he exsists. Afterall, that is the TEST for all of humankind. If he showed his face to the world then there would be no such thing as faith. Therefore beleivers would follow God on FACT and not faith. It's easy to beleive in something you CAN see. But to beleive in something you CAN'T see is FAITH.

Inorder to have perfect faith you must first start by recognizing the signs that expose themselves everyday. Then, take the signs you receive from God and apply them to your life. This is considered unseen proof of God and undoubtably leads to FAITH.

Faith is not just believing in something you can't see, It's believing in something where there is no proof that it exists, whether visual or not. Because there is no proof, you are admitting that there is a chance, however small that God could not exist. What I am saying here is that people talk about his as if they believe in him based on fact, not faith, and then say they have faith. Even Mother Theresa doubted the existed of God, and the church itself admitted that part of faith is doubt.

Whether you know "in your heart" that God exists or not, you are still, by definition, and possibly without intention, admitting that God may not exist.

But just a question while we are on this subject: why would it be so bad for God to show his faith? How would this be hurtful to religion at all? If anything, the church would get more followers.

mandalorian2298 wrote:Faith = Wanting for something to be true because you don't want to deal with reality.

That only applies to Chicago Cubs fans.

luns101 wrote:

mandalorian2298 wrote:Faith = Wanting for something to be true because you don't want to deal with reality.

That only applies to Chicago Cubs fans.

And people of religions you don't believe in (this applies to everybody)

dinobot wrote:A US Marine had just finished his 4 year military service and was taking courses at his local campus. The professor of his course stood up on the front podium and said "If the all powerful God really exists, he will prove it by knocking me off this podium within the next 15 minutes. If I'm still standing within the next 15 minutes, I will have proven that god does not in fact exist".

The time ticked by but nothing happened. Finally, after 10 minutes had gone by, the US space Marine stood up and punched the professor in the jaw, knocking him to the floor. The Professor didn't get up and his jaw was bleeding. The Space Marine said "God was to busy torturing Saddam Hussein in hell to bother with you, so he sent me instead".

The story that you have heard from the mouth-breathing authority figure in your life (I am guessing your brother) is a very deep and thought-provoking call to punch all those people who are capable of expressing their oppinions through words and logic. On a completly separate note, don't merry a cousin.

CrazyAnglican wrote:Two dimes makes a good point.

If you invest money in a company through buying stock. That is faith not fact. You may have gathered all the facts you can to help you make the decision, but there is still no way you can tell the future and know how that company will do.

1. Yes, brokers are basicaly just a bunch of guys with magic 8 balls. Seriously, have you ever heard of 'evidence' or 'proof'? As in "the difference between having a belief supported by evidence (aka justified belief) and having faith". While it is true that justified belief is not neccesarily correct, the probability of it being true increases in proportion with the amount and quality of evidence supporting it. That is why (sane) people are generaly more inclined to believe that what they see with their own two eyes, than that they have read in one 'holy' book.


2. The second part of your post consists of three, separatly absurd sentences:

a)

CrazyAnglican wrote:I'd disagree with mandalorian in that a fact is something that can independently be shown to be true.

You are not disagreeing with me. You disagreeing with your own language.

Wikipedia wrote:Generally, a fact is defined as something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation

b)

CrazyAnglican wrote:There are plenty of things that many folks hold to be true that are not facts.

Those are called 'delusions'. And people who cling to them after being proven wrong are called 'crazy people'. Isn't it funny how your name starts with 'Crazy' too?

c)

CrazyAnglican wrote:To truly hold your position you need to discount all opinions.

To truly hold that position you need to go on a world tour and ask 6.5 billion people if they agree with you.

luns101 wrote:

mandalorian2298 wrote:Faith = Wanting for something to be true because you don't want to deal with reality.

That only applies to Chicago Cubs fans.

Lol, I know what you mean. I have faith that Dinamo Zagreb will play in the Champion's League next year.

mandalorian2298 wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:Two dimes makes a good point.

If you invest money in a company through buying stock. That is faith not fact. You may have gathered all the facts you can to help you make the decision, but there is still no way you can tell the future and know how that company will do.

1. Yes, brokers are basicaly just a bunch of guys with magic 8 balls. Seriously, have you ever heard of 'evidence' or 'proof'? As in "the difference between having a belief supported by evidence (aka justified belief) and having faith". While it is true that justified belief is not neccesarily correct, the probability of it being true increases in proportion with the amount and quality of evidence supporting it. That is why (sane) people are generaly more inclined to believe that what they see with their own two eyes, than that they have read in one 'holy' book.

Not at all. I have the highest respect for those able to look at trends in the market and make predictions based on the evidence. A person who looks at the evidence, as Gregrios says, and then makes the decision to believe that there is a God is making a justifiable decision based on the evidence before them. You are making the assumption that people who believe in God are doing so based only on what they read in the Bible. That is a false assumption in my case (ie you can't really know what I'm basing my decision on), and I think it's false in the cases of others as well.

mandalorian2298 wrote:2. The second part of your post consists of three, separatly absurd sentences:

a)

CrazyAnglican wrote:I'd disagree with mandalorian in that a fact is something that can independently be shown to be true.

You are not disagreeing with me. You disagreeing with your own language.

Wikipedia wrote:Generally, a fact is defined as something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation

If there is something actually absurd about that statment please show it, your own citation backs up what I've said. It all boils down to knowing the difference between a fact and an opinion. A fact is not arguable as it can be independently proven to be true.

mandalorian2298 wrote:b)

CrazyAnglican wrote:There are plenty of things that many folks hold to be true that are not facts.

Those are called 'delusions'. And people who cling to them after being proven wrong are called 'crazy people'. Isn't it funny how your name starts with 'Crazy' too?

Another absurd statement, I've made?
Okay here we go.

I like ice cream. My favorite color is blue. (are these facts or opinions?)

If they are facts then how can they be proven to "be the case", "actually exist (not applicable here)", or "be verified on an agreed upon standard" to showthat they are true?

If they are opinions and they are true. Then how is my statement absurd?

and yeah, I like the name. Never had anyone take it that seriously though.

mandalorian2298 wrote:c)

CrazyAnglican wrote:To truly hold your position you need to discount all opinions.

To truly hold that position you need to go on a world tour and ask 6.5 billion people if they agree with you.

An excellent attempt at showing that I might be guilty of a fallacy of omniscience. One problem though, I'm not saying that every opinion is false (far from it). I'm stating that by your definitions (as you stated them), and my belief that holding an opinion has a certain degree of faith to it. My statement would be a true one.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

mandalorian2298 wrote:]
b)

CrazyAnglican wrote:There are plenty of things that many folks hold to be true that are not facts.

Those are called 'delusions'. And people who cling to them after being proven wrong are called 'crazy people'. Isn't it funny how your name starts with 'Crazy' too?

Another absurd statement, I've made?
Okay here we go.

(are these facts or opinions?)
I like ice cream. Opinion
My favorite color is blue. Fact

If they are facts then how can they be proven to "be the case", "actually exist (not applicable here)", or "be verified on an agreed upon standard" to showthat they are true? Well the standard for stating your favourite colour is obviously you, that's why it's a fact. It's a fact that's subject to change sure. But the truth is that you do have a favourite colour, and if you give and honest answer to the question, then that's the yardstick against which the truth of statements such as "CA's favourite colour is orange" can be measured.
On the other hand "I like Ice Cream" doesn't express any single 'truth' that it aims to prove (i.e. that Ice Cream is good), as such it isn't a 'fact', because it has no disprovable 'truth' it attempts to convey. We are however quite at liberty to state that "CA likes Ice Cream" based on that statement, which could of course be proven or disproven empirically

If they are opinions and they are true. Then how is my statement absurd? Neither statement is absurd, and Mandy's original statement doesn't criticize statements of their ilk as being absurd. I see what you were trying to do there, but you kind of need to re-work your examples before you prove anything

What Mandy is saying is that people who state "there is a God" have no evidence to back their proposed 'truth' with; and that people who declare the opposite do, therefore making the first group irrational and delusional. While "Is Gods" have an 'opinion', this opinion is an opinion on the factual state of a certain matter, and as such it can be called irrational if they believe this state of facts without having sufficient empirically demonstrable evidence to support it. Essentially, they have opinions which make declarations about states of facts; so these can be quite fairly objectively tested, and labelled irrational if they seem lacking in logical backing. Basically, the distinction between facts and opinions was talking about the two words in a context that wasn't helpful in this exchange (sorry, that sounds rude, but I'm not trying to be), and that's what Mandy appeared to have meant.

There, hope that somewhat dull tirade about logic, facts and opinions clarifies things... sorry if it comes off as abrasive, I don't mean to offend either of you. I'll go back to being quiet again.

Much Love
DM