I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
What I'm saying is that when one examines those beliefs in a logical manner, they can't achieve any fulfillment because that exemplifies a complete lack of understanding towards the believers point of veiw, and serves no purpose towards furthering either party's understanding of the other.
The point of view of the believer is that it seems real to them, either because of a feeling they have, some other subjective experience or it was drilled into them from an early age. Further more the believer will compartmentalize their beliefs allowing for them to hold contradictory views. Overall it's like playing make believe accept you think it's real instead of knowing it's all in your head.
I'd actually love to see these examples, not that I doubt they exist or anything. But I'm sure it will reach the same problem any other religious argument reaches:
both my parrents are christians. i do understand how they think it is real. i know how to see and speak whit "god" (it's kinda like having a imaginary friend.) but this doesn't mean that i can't look at what the bible says in a logic way.
Again, I'm not focused the religion or the religious texts, but the believers themselves.
but the bible is the word of god. we can proof the word of god wrong in many ways whit the use of logical thinking. (not interested to give examples here. plz. don't ask. they often enoufg pass by on this forum)
Like I already said, I'm not talking about God in terms of the religious texts. Someone doesn't have to find truth Bible to believe in God.
The point of view of the believer is that it seems real to them, either because of a feeling they have, some other subjective experience or it was drilled into them from an early age. Further more the believer will compartmentalize their beliefs allowing for them to hold contradictory views. Overall it's like playing make believe accept you think it's real instead of knowing it's all in your head.
At this point you're only re-enforcing that you don't understand where a believer is coming from, and neither do you understand the faith of the believer.
Again, faith is being mistaken for gullibility. You seem to be holding on to the meaning of faith rather tightly, but faith doesn't even necessarily mean belief without proof. You could just as easily say faith to God is the same as faith to a significant other. To use the Merriam-Webster definitions:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
I'm sure each one could easily be argued for as the real definition of faith. It's irrelevant. No matter what way you look at it, faith is required to understand religion, much in the same way that it's difficult to comprehend high-energy particle physics without any knowledge of physics. You can generalize and gather ideas, but you don't truly understand it.
The ones being gullible don't usually don't see it as such.
They've been duped by religious dogma, so yes we can define gullibility here.
Nevertheless, there is no duping or cheating involved there. They are not converted by a bible, nor a priest, nor any form of dogma, but accept it as what they believe saved them on their own terms.
We can disprove specific Gods based on how they are defined. So in some (possible many) cases we can disprove god.
You can disprove the dogma of some gods, but belief in God does not require belief in the dogma, nor is God (or gods) necessarily based on or the origin of the dogma.
Basically, what I'm saying is God and faith in Him can be independent of dogma, and because of that, no matter the fallacies in the dogma, He cannot be proven or disproven.
At this point you're only re-enforcing that you don't understand where a believer is coming from, and neither do you understand the faith of the believer.
How is that enforcing a lack of understanding? It seems like you saying I have to accept there claims at face value in order to understand them, that's complete bull.
Again, faith is being mistaken for gullibility. You seem to be holding on to the meaning of faith rather tightly, but faith doesn't even necessarily mean belief without proof. You could just as easily say faith to God is the same as faith to a significant other. To use the Merriam-Webster definitions:
Yes there are different definitions of faith. However as long as you don't have hard evidence it is just believing without proof. Yes you can trust in a God (have faith), but if your putting that trust in something that doesn't exist that's going to fail. I'm not even concerned about the trust type.
No matter what way you look at it, faith is required to understand religion
This is like saying you can't understand a child's fantasy without having that fantasy yourself.
Nevertheless, there is no duping or cheating involved there. They are not converted by a bible, nor a priest, nor any form of dogma, but accept it as what they believe saved them on their own terms.
Where else would they have gotten the concept in the first place if it wasn't previously something they had heard about? Sure it might not have been directly from the Bible or it might not have been a priest they heard it from, but they would had to have heard it from somewhere before connecting the two. Or they could be duping themselves with something they completely made up on there own.
Basically, what I'm saying is God and faith in Him can be independent of dogma, and because of that, no matter the fallacies in the dogma, He cannot be proven or disproven.
This applies to anything we would regard as definitively not real. In regards to God and religion they aren't really separable as it's the established belief of that religion.
However doing as you say leaves God as so ambiguous tot he point we are left with not real context in which to work from. This actually gives a strong indication of the whole concept being made up.
Go read the links on Mage's profile. Either that, or shut up.
Who in their right mind would want to read all that crap. I'm not wasting an hour of my life clicking on links. Prove it your self and stop hiding behind your retarded sites. Either that or shut.
Who in their right mind would want to read all that crap. I'm not wasting an hour of my life clicking on links. Prove it your self and stop hiding behind your retarded sites. Either that or shut.
Em. Dude. Evolution is not something you look on during five minutes and then you know what it is about. You need to read about the basic processes that make it possible, then read about all the theory, the facts, the research done.
And how dare you call those sites crap if you didn't even read them? If you didn't take the time to learn about what you are criticizing, how can I ever take you seriously? Why should I have to present you pre-chewed, nice looking tidbits on a silver plate, that you couldn't even understand since you lack the basic knowledge?
But anyway, know that we have direct evidence by observation. Bacteries for example have a short enough generation time, and high enough reproduction rate as well as mutation rate to allow direct observation of evolution. Secondly, evolution bases on a few basic and real processes: replication, mutation, heritability of changes, fitness/differences in fitness from individual to individual, natural selection/selective pressure. I may have forgotten one, but I think that's pretty much all it needs.
Third, regardless from the fact that we don't even need fossils to back up evolution, we do have fossils that back up evolution.
Lastly, here's something you can chew on (I hope you at least don't dislike wikipedia): Endosymbiotic Theory
Right here, no need to go through all links on my profile here are a good hand full for you to work from. Though it might not make much sense if you don't even bother to learn the basics. If you don't want to even do that much than shut up.
Prove it your self and stop hiding behind your retarded sites. Either that or shut.
The point of an argument is for people to learn. If you can't put in the effort to prove yourself wrong (or attempt to) then I can safely say you don't belong here. Also, stop with the aggression or implication of aggression (via choice of words), it's not constructive to the debate.
Heh. The beginning and end were funny. The middle was... >:/ it has a good point that evolution has plenty of evidence for it and that you can't just ignore it. You have to accept it.
No problem, just copy and paste what the person said, highlight it the same way you would if you wanted to Copy / Paste and click the quote button.
Ok thx fire
Right here, no need to go through all links on my profile here are a good hand full for you to work from. Though it might not make much sense if you don't even bother to learn the basics.
I have learned about the basics bout it in school and those links were intersteing and yes they might be evidence but its not hard proof.
