Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

[OnlyAmbrose]

OK I have one challenge for the faithful

Prove God without using the Bible

Impossible

Alright, I have one for you.

Prove empirical evidence is valid without using your senses.

impossible.

We all have faith in something. You have faith in empirical evidence - I do as well, because I have faith in my senses.

I also have faith in God, because I have faith in the Bible.

[CrazyAnglican]

OK I have one challenge for the faithful

Prove God without using the Bible

Impossible

Whether you believe in God or not. You do so without proof.

[radiojake]

OK I have one challenge for the faithful

Prove God without using the Bible

Impossible

Alright, I have one for you.

Prove empirical evidence is valid without using your senses.

impossible.

We all have faith in something. You have faith in empirical evidence - I do as well, because I have faith in my senses.

I also have faith in God, because I have faith in the Bible.

I don't actually worship science either. Science is a form of another faith, just slightly different. Both are similar in that they both try to explain the origins of the Earth, and I honestly couldn't give a f*ck how the planet started, because as far as I see it now, we should be concentrating on how to save the planet, as i think that's a far more urgent matter.

Science and Faith are so closely related, they're just mere opposition to each other. Just because I denounce any faith in God doesn't mean I look up to scientists.

[OnlyAmbrose]

OK I have one challenge for the faithful

Prove God without using the Bible

Impossible

Alright, I have one for you.

Prove empirical evidence is valid without using your senses.

impossible.

We all have faith in something. You have faith in empirical evidence - I do as well, because I have faith in my senses.

I also have faith in God, because I have faith in the Bible.

I don't actually worship science either. Science is a form of another faith, just slightly different. Both are similar in that they both try to explain the origins of the Earth, and I honestly couldn't give a f*ck how the planet started, because as far as I see it now, we should be concentrating on how to save the planet, as i think that's a far more urgent matter.

Science and Faith are so closely related, they're just mere opposition to each other. Just because I denounce any faith in God doesn't mean I look up to scientists.

So you don't buy into empirical evidence OR religion?

What on earth are you trying to prove then? That we don't KNOW anything?

I'll certainly concede that point. I believe that we all have FAITH in one or more fundamental principles. Mine happen to involve science and religion. Some people's may be simple science, others, simply religion, but if you have faith in NOTHING... well, I've never argued with a nihilist before (why would a nihilist even argue, nothing matters anyway )

[got tonkaed]

really the whole divide between faith and science is a bit of a modern anomoly. A lot of religious thinkers for a long time viewed part of their role as God's creation (depending on your god) as caretakers for the planet and embraced learning more about how it worked as such. Really its not until the rise of modern capitalism that we find the steward mentality seem to lend to largescale exploitation. But even guys like Hegel after much of the industrial revolution believed that a lot of science and faith could work together to create a better planet.

Science and faith dont necesarily have to be so divided, they just appear to be increasingly working toward that in most quarters.

[got tonkaed]

OK I have one challenge for the faithful

Prove God without using the Bible

Impossible

Alright, I have one for you.

Prove empirical evidence is valid without using your senses.

impossible.

We all have faith in something. You have faith in empirical evidence - I do as well, because I have faith in my senses.

I also have faith in God, because I have faith in the Bible.

I don't actually worship science either. Science is a form of another faith, just slightly different. Both are similar in that they both try to explain the origins of the Earth, and I honestly couldn't give a f*ck how the planet started, because as far as I see it now, we should be concentrating on how to save the planet, as i think that's a far more urgent matter.

Science and Faith are so closely related, they're just mere opposition to each other. Just because I denounce any faith in God doesn't mean I look up to scientists.

So you don't buy into empirical evidence OR religion?

What on earth are you trying to prove then? That we don't KNOW anything?

I'll certainly concede that point. I believe that we all have FAITH in one or more fundamental principles. Mine happen to involve science and religion. Some people's may be simple science, others, simply religion, but if you have faith in NOTHING... well, I've never argued with a nihilist before (why would a nihilist even argue, nothing matters anyway )

you could certainly run into a bit of a evangelical nihilist, there have been worse contradictions of mind allowed in teh past...why not room for one who wants to spend their lives claiming nothing matters.

Though radio is a bit of a conservationist, so he clearly doesnt fall into that camp.

[radiojake]

Whether you believe in God or not. You do so without proof.

In that case, why don't you believe in this guy??? >>>http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

There's no proof he doesn't exist, so by your theory, he's just a legit as God is.

[CrazyAnglican]

Science and faith dont necesarily have to be so divided, they just appear to be increasingly working toward that in most quarters.

For many Christians, at least most of the ones I've observed and spoken to, there is little divide between science and faith. They are merely different ways to experience and look at the world, both are useful in different ways.

I wouldn't conduct a study or consult a journal on a matter of personal moral choice, but I wouldn't open the Bible to find out how many rings are around Saturn.

[OnlyAmbrose]

jake, what do YOU believe? And why?

I can guarantee you that in the end, whatever it is will boil down to fundamental faith in SOMETHING (again, unless you're a nihilist, in which case I don't see why you'd even care).

Anywho, I can't prove my faith in God, just like you can't prove empiricism.

[got tonkaed]

Science and faith dont necesarily have to be so divided, they just appear to be increasingly working toward that in most quarters.

For many Christians, at least most of the ones I've observed and spoken to, there is little divide between science and faith. They are merely different ways to experience and look at the world, both are useful in different ways.

I wouldn't conduct a study or consult a journal on a matter of personal moral choice, but I wouldn't open the Bible to find out how many rings are around Saturn.

thats true, i may in many cases be overemphasing the general attitude (as well as that can be determined). In more political circles it is simply discussed as more combative lately, which doesnt have to reflect the yeoman perspective.

[radiojake]

What on earth are you trying to prove then? That we don't KNOW anything?

Actually, that's pretty much what I had been thinking.

it doesn't matter if god (buddha, ganesh, santa, mazda, allah, tiamat, bruce almighty, easter bunny, moses, joseph smith, galactic master xenu) loves you or not, because the very-tangible-and-not-open-for-debate earth is currently dying for (y)our sins. the only thing making (yo)us(e) not act upon this conclusion is a lethal cocktail of hope, mythology and fear. doesn't matter if you believe in any of these superheroes of the sky or not, its still true (and generally is a product of six-thousand years of thinking that we are to have dominion over every beast and fowl and that we are in fact seperate and insensate to this natural world and that it doesn't matter what we do or who we exploit, because -deity A- is going to save us and lift us from this illusion).

The above is quoted from another message board I frequent, and written by one of my good friends. I think it sums up my take on this debate. I don't really give a shit if people have faith (I have christian friends) - but I hate the higher moral ground that Christian's seem to think they have because they believe in a God, when really one's faith has no bearing on their good (or bad) character at all.

[CrazyAnglican]

Whether you believe in God or not. You do so without proof.

In that case, why don't you believe in this guy??? >>>http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

There's no proof he doesn't exist, so by your theory, he's just a legit as God is.

It isn't a theory; it's a statement of fact. There is no proof for or against the existence of God. To believe one way or another is to do so without proof.

You, no doubt, chose what to believe by looking at the evidence and making a choice. I did the same. I'm no more likely to change my belief than you are. The choice I've made makes sense to me when looking at the evidence available.

The above is quoted from another message board I frequent, and written by one of my good friends. I think it sums up my take on this debate. I don't really give a shit if people have faith (I have christian friends) - but I hate the higher moral ground that Christian's seem to think they have because they believe in a God, when really one's faith has no bearing on their good (or bad) character at all.

I'll agree that some people take their choices as a sign that hey are somehow better than others, and that it's in our best interest to care for the environment. I don't think that arrogance or wastefulness are uniquely Christian traits though. Many humans possess them.

[OnlyAmbrose]

What on earth are you trying to prove then? That we don't KNOW anything?

Actually, that's pretty much what I had been thinking.

it doesn't matter if god (buddha, ganesh, santa, mazda, allah, tiamat, bruce almighty, easter bunny, moses, joseph smith, galactic master xenu) loves you or not, because the very-tangible-and-not-open-for-debate earth is currently dying for (y)our sins. the only thing making (yo)us(e) not act upon this conclusion is a lethal cocktail of hope, mythology and fear. doesn't matter if you believe in any of these superheroes of the sky or not, its still true (and generally is a product of six-thousand years of thinking that we are to have dominion over every beast and fowl and that we are in fact seperate and insensate to this natural world and that it doesn't matter what we do or who we exploit, because -deity A- is going to save us and lift us from this illusion).

The above is quoted from another message board I frequent, and written by one of my good friends. I think it sums up my take on this debate. I don't really give a shit if people have faith (I have christian friends) - but I hate the higher moral ground that Christian's seem to think they have because they believe in a God, when really one's faith has no bearing on their good (or bad) character at all.

Alright then jake, if you hate our moral high ground, then what makes your moral stance any better? A sociopath would say that it's ok to kill people. Who are you to tell him that's wrong?

[radiojake]

The choice I've made makes sense to me when looking at the evidence available.

Fair enough

[radiojake]

Alright then jake, if you hate our moral high ground, then what makes your moral stance any better? A sociopath would say that it's ok to kill people. Who are you to tell him that's wrong?

I don't have morals, I have ethics. Moral's are derived from biblical teachings and what God says is right and wrong. Ethics are a simple idea of treating your fellow human and non-human beings with respect and equality, and endeavour to make sure one's actions does not directly or indirectly negatively impact other individuals. Some people say homosexuality is immoral because God says so. I think that it is irrelevant what two men or women do in their own bed, it doesn't affect me. I'm vegetarian because I think that the meat industry is horrible and doesn't treat cows/chickens/pigs with any form of respect or decency (as opposed to the natural world where we would hunt wild animals, which would be fine)

A sociopath who murders people obviously wouldn't fit into my definition of what is ethical, and i really hope you weren't trying to imply that I'm along the same line as a sociopath because I dislike the christian higher moral ground stance.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I wasn't implying that you are a sociopath or even comparable to a sociopath.

I am asking a very simple question.

Who are you to say that it is wrong to kill someone?

If I were a sociopath, I would strongly dislike your "ethical high ground".

So what makes you right and the sociopath wrong?

[radiojake]

I wasn't implying that you are a sociopath or even comparable to a sociopath.

I am asking a very simple question.

Who are you to say that it is wrong to kill someone?

If I were a sociopath, I would strongly dislike your "ethical high ground".

So what makes you right and the sociopath wrong?

There's a difference between right and wrong and ethical and unethical. Right and wrong are really only useful when it comes to questions with one answer (ie, math).

Whether or not it is right or wrong to kill someone really comes down to the circumstance. Firstly, are they killing someone based on need? (ie Food). Secondly, are they killing someone based on self defence? With human and non-human interaction there are a whole lot of other things that come into consideration, as there is rarely black and white on such issues.

In many indigenous cultures (which could be argued were more advanced than western civilisation) children were often killed depending on the circumstance at the time. If the population was too big, or if the child had a disability or another impairment that would've made it difficult to survive as a fully grown adult. In Western Culture killing children is considered one of the worst attrocities that can be committed. Everyone's perception of right and wrong is different depending on what they consider important

[Jehan]

your absolutely right when you say a persons faith doesn't make them good or bad, that's all i would say on this, most of your other arguments don't make sense though, i know we say we don't need proof because its faith, but we still have evidence, like the countless times my family and friends have been blessed after prayer, and the feeling of pure fulfilment that I've only ever obtained through Christ, that's evidence, but as far as a proof goes, in the strict logic sense, we don't have any, though not many things do have that kind of proof.

[satanspaladin]

I have been looking at he issue of faith and religion verses science's fact's that is going on in this thread.

I may be very much of target in what i am seeing but to me it looks like as science's try s out many
different paths and tests to come to a conclusion for its answers to everything .

And that religions make one look inside ones self for the same answers .

I feel a combination of both is needed in this world, for with out sciences the world would be a hard place for us to live in as man has used science to improve this lot .
And with out religions how would we face the challenge of all that is not comprehensible to us,what would challenge the spirit of mankind .

[Jehan]

the only things ive come across in science which have ever felt like they even came close to answering the same questions as religion were usually interpretations of heavily mathematical theories which couldn't be proven, such as the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory, or the membrane theory in string theory. I've never had a problem applying science in an attempt to see God's creation in all its detail, I think they coexist perfectly, afterall the Bible does tell us to seek.

[heavycola]

I have been looking at he issue of faith and religion verses science's fact's that is going on in this thread.

I may be very much of target in what i am seeing but to me it looks like as science's try s out many
different paths and tests to come to a conclusion for its answers to everything .

And that religions make one look inside ones self for the same answers .

I feel a combination of both is needed in this world, for with out sciences the world would be a hard place for us to live in as man has used science to improve this lot .
And with out religions how would we face the challenge of all that is not comprehensible to us,what would challenge the spirit of mankind .

nice post. My wife is an (atheist) RE teacher and she would agree with you completely.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I wasn't implying that you are a sociopath or even comparable to a sociopath.

I am asking a very simple question.

Who are you to say that it is wrong to kill someone?

If I were a sociopath, I would strongly dislike your "ethical high ground".

So what makes you right and the sociopath wrong?

There's a difference between right and wrong and ethical and unethical. Right and wrong are really only useful when it comes to questions with one answer (ie, math).

Whether or not it is right or wrong to kill someone really comes down to the circumstance. Firstly, are they killing someone based on need? (ie Food). Secondly, are they killing someone based on self defence? With human and non-human interaction there are a whole lot of other things that come into consideration, as there is rarely black and white on such issues.

In many indigenous cultures (which could be argued were more advanced than western civilisation) children were often killed depending on the circumstance at the time. If the population was too big, or if the child had a disability or another impairment that would've made it difficult to survive as a fully grown adult. In Western Culture killing children is considered one of the worst attrocities that can be committed. Everyone's perception of right and wrong is different depending on what they consider important

jake, you're missing my point.

Who are YOU to say what circumstances make it ok to kill? Who are YOU to say it's ok to kill in self-defense? Who are YOU to say it's ok to kill for food?

When you get down to it, you have the same moral high ground as a religious person, you just attribute it to something other than God.

So again I ask the question which you haven't answered:

Why are you "ethically correct" and the sociopath "ethically not correct", if you want to play with the semantics of the matter.

[radiojake]

jake, you're missing my point.

Who are YOU to say what circumstances make it ok to kill? Who are YOU to say it's ok to kill in self-defense? Who are YOU to say it's ok to kill for food?

When you get down to it, you have the same moral high ground as a religious person, you just attribute it to something other than God.

So again I ask the question which you haven't answered:

Why are you "ethically correct" and the sociopath "ethically not correct", if you want to play with the semantics of the matter.

I like you, ambrose, I've always considered you pretty intelligent from what I've read in your posts.

Asserting my 'ethical correctness' ahead of that of what a sociopath's would be can't be done without using the same kind of logic as to why a person of faith believes in a Deity. I gather that's the point your trying to make?

I can't say what's ethical without referring to what my own conception of 'good' or 'bad' -- 'wrong' or 'right' etc --

I get what your trying to say, and it's a good point (I like how you've gone about taking my original question (prove God without a bible) and turned it back on me) - I guess I've kinda known that myself (without realising) as recently I've found myself leaning more towards 'militant agnostic' (I don't know and neither do you! Ha!), if you'd call it that, and away more from straight out 'atheist' -

I don't know. I'm actually quite high now and just got home from work pretty tired, so i've now sat here and typed/backspaced/re-typed about a thousand different things so far, so right now isn't the greatest time to be thinking about this shit I don't think.

Speaking of which:

...like the countless times my family and friends have been blessed after prayer, and the feeling of pure fulfilment that I've only ever obtained through Christ, that's evidence

I read somewhere that apparently the same parts of the brain light up when in prayer and when someone is high on drugs

Pretty interesting

[Backglass]

When you get down to it, you have the same moral high ground as a religious person, you just attribute it to something other than God.

So you agree that gods are not necessary to lead a moral life then?

[unriggable]

I wasn't implying that you are a sociopath or even comparable to a sociopath.

I am asking a very simple question.

Who are you to say that it is wrong to kill someone?

If I were a sociopath, I would strongly dislike your "ethical high ground".

So what makes you right and the sociopath wrong?

Actually a sociopath just doesn't know right from wrong. They don't love violence or anything of the like. They just have no regrets (it seems)