<< Look at cold fusion. Everyone jumped on that bandwagon in a hurry. >>
Who was everyone? Back then, all the magazines I read were against it because no one else could replicate the results.
<< Look at cold fusion. Everyone jumped on that bandwagon in a hurry. >>
Who was everyone? Back then, all the magazines I read were against it because no one else could replicate the results.
Elledan:
Whether you agree with Thorn or not, the biblical emphasis on "Word" is profound. While the Old Testament also emphasizes this point, the Bible could hardly get more emphatic than it does in John 1:
<< In the beginning was the Word . . . through him all things were made. Without him was nothing made that has been made." >>
The Gospel of John is not a dime store novellette easily changed to fit our own perspectives. It is perhaps the best attested book of the New Testament. Fragments exist from it as early as 130 A.D., and the book itself can be reconstructed in its virtual entirety simply by quotes and references to it by the earliest Christians.
Certainly, from any reasonable scientific standard, the Gospel of John was settled in its current form by at least 200 A.D., and I am being liberal in my dating of the text. There is no evidence that it has been modified.
Since "Word" equals "Logic", (Greek: logos) presupposing Logic as universal and objective establishes the legitimacy of scientific inquiry in the first place. Without presupposing the value of logic, science can never come up with any theory of origins since such things can never be empirically tested.
So, is it blind faith to presuppose the universality of Logos?
EDIT - typos :/
Whether you agree with Thorn or not, the biblical emphasis on "Word" is profound. While the Old Testament also emphasizes this point, the Bible could hardly get more emphatic than it does in John 1:
<< In the beginning was the Word . . . through him all things were made. Without him was nothing made that has been made." >>
The Gospel of John is not a dime store novellette easily changed to fit our own perspectives. It is perhaps the best attested book of the New Testament. Fragments exist from it as early as 130 A.D., and the book itself can be reconstructed in its virtual entirety simply by quotes and references to it by the earliest Christians.
Certainly, from any reasonable scientific standard, the Gospel of John was settled in its current form by at least 200 A.D., and I am being liberal in my dating of the text. There is no evidence that it has been modified.
Since "Word" equals "Logic", (Greek: logos) presupposing Logic as universal and objective establishes the legitimacy of scientific inquiry in the first place. Without presupposing the value of logic, science can never come up with any theory of origins since such things can never be empirically tested.
So, is it blind faith to presuppose the universality of Logos?
EDIT - typos :/
true anthansius true. there might be "some" blind believers, but they really should research their beliefs, like you seem to have done.
<< Thorn, although that may sound like a huge resemblance, I don't think that a book like the bible contains a blue-print of the Universe. >>
Some might think so, but the similarities are far too obvious to be easily discounted. Why would the author of the old testament use speech (sound) as the trigger for creation? We would have to mark this down as a coincidence of previously unknown proportions for us to discount the order of events that brought the universe into creation (by our own scientific deduction) and the events as they are relayed in the Bible.
<< With some effort you can even change a less-than-5 bucks novelette into a source which excellently complies with the current scientific views. >>
That's my next point, this line of reasoning takes no effort, it's just written in black and white (no twisting required). And it comes from a book that's 1000s of years old compiled by people who had no concept of modern science. Oh, and did I mention that it's the most widely circulated/published book in human history? Another coincidence?
The reason why religious people are not questioning their faith is simple.
Religion + Questioning = Doubt
Religion doesn't want doubters. Religion wants believers. Blind faith is an excuse to avoid answering questions.
Look at it this way: The religion known as Christianity has roughly 22% of the worlds population as followers (or CLAIM to be followers). This percentage is slowly decreasing. There are 78% of the worlds people that are either:
a)non believers
b)being misled by other religions
c)wrong
...according to Xian dogma. I think it is egotistical and selfish to think that you are correct and the rest are wrong.
Religion + Questioning = Doubt
Religion doesn't want doubters. Religion wants believers. Blind faith is an excuse to avoid answering questions.
Look at it this way: The religion known as Christianity has roughly 22% of the worlds population as followers (or CLAIM to be followers). This percentage is slowly decreasing. There are 78% of the worlds people that are either:
a)non believers
b)being misled by other religions
c)wrong
...according to Xian dogma. I think it is egotistical and selfish to think that you are correct and the rest are wrong.
Athanasius, I'm very sorry, but I just can't bring myself to put faith in any book or text.
Only a well-thought reasoning (using true facts and/or a demonstration can contain true logic and proof. No text can contain logic or any kind of proof, unless it's a well-thought reasoning or the facts stated in it can be proven in any way without any room for errors.
Only a well-thought reasoning (using true facts and/or a demonstration can contain true logic and proof. No text can contain logic or any kind of proof, unless it's a well-thought reasoning or the facts stated in it can be proven in any way without any room for errors.
I have questioned. I found answers. I came to conclusions. I have no doubts.
And why in every post about religion do you state that Christianity is dying? People have been claiming that for 2000 years - it didn't happen before, it isn't happening no, it won't happen in the future.
If no one person knows and believes in the truth, the truth is not neegated. If but one person believes, the truth is known.
And why in every post about religion do you state that Christianity is dying? People have been claiming that for 2000 years - it didn't happen before, it isn't happening no, it won't happen in the future.
If no one person knows and believes in the truth, the truth is not neegated. If but one person believes, the truth is known.
And why in every post about religion do you state that Christianity is dying?
B/C I can, so
I did not say, and I don't say anymore, that Xianity is dying. The numbers are just decreasing.
B/C I can, so
I did not say, and I don't say anymore, that Xianity is dying. The numbers are just decreasing.
blind faith
Alot of wars were fought and are still going over those with blind faith leading the way
Alot of wars were fought and are still going over those with blind faith leading the way
I like to see the world through the eyes of a child. Thus, I am constantly asking "why" No blind faith here.
I find that with religion, when it comes down to facts, they are horrible. Questions about how the universe was created, where dinosaur bones came from, etc., are all better off answered by science because it is through peer scrutiny and the scientific method that the truth about these matters can filter through. Religions plays a vital role in "explaining" that which cannot be explained by science - explained is in quotations because that which is being "explained" does not have a specific explanation but can have many. Religion is useful in tying together all the details that science does a wonderful job of unveiling - in creating the big picture.
In my opinion, people who stick solely to science are "penny wise, pound foolish" and people who blindly follow religion are the exact opposite.
-GL
No blind faith here.I find that with religion, when it comes down to facts, they are horrible. Questions about how the universe was created, where dinosaur bones came from, etc., are all better off answered by science because it is through peer scrutiny and the scientific method that the truth about these matters can filter through. Religions plays a vital role in "explaining" that which cannot be explained by science - explained is in quotations because that which is being "explained" does not have a specific explanation but can have many. Religion is useful in tying together all the details that science does a wonderful job of unveiling - in creating the big picture.
In my opinion, people who stick solely to science are "penny wise, pound foolish" and people who blindly follow religion are the exact opposite.
-GL
<< If no one person knows and believes in the truth, the truth is not neegated. If but one person believes, the truth is known. >>
What does that mean, exactly? I agree w/ the first premise, in that there exists truth whether we're ignorant to it or not, but what about the second? Does the simple belief in an idea constitute truth? Then again, what is truth anyway? Truth could simple mean a widely accepted fallacy. Since the belief is consistent, it must be true, yah? No.
There is no one truth in the context of human understanding, only ubiquitous opinions.
Interesting thread, I hope it doesn't turn into the same ol' religion bashing. For some odd reason, it seems like a lot people that are not religious have a very hard time accepting that others are religious and have beliefs. They just can't accept it, and feel the need to try and belittle or somehow tear down the religion..... a sad commentary on their own insecurity.
As to the topic of the thread, you seem to forget that many religions have (as part of their teachings) that followers are NOT supposed to question the religion, they are simply to accept things for what they 'are'. I'm too skeptical of a person to do that, but I can understand how some can.
<< I think it is egotistical and selfish to think that you are correct and the rest are wrong>>
Hmmm... Any idea how stupid that statement is?? I'm glad Columbus thought differently than you did... and I'm glad Einstein, Copernicus, Newton etc and all the people that went contrary to popularly held beliefs all thought differently than you did. Just because a mass of people believe or don't believe something does not mean it's correct. Thus, it's not "selfish" or "egotistical" to believe that you are correct and others are wrong. Perhaps they ARE wrong, and perhaps you are wrong, and perhaps you are both wrong, or perhaps you are both right. Noone knows that for certain, except the creator Himself.
As to the topic of the thread, you seem to forget that many religions have (as part of their teachings) that followers are NOT supposed to question the religion, they are simply to accept things for what they 'are'. I'm too skeptical of a person to do that, but I can understand how some can.
<< I think it is egotistical and selfish to think that you are correct and the rest are wrong>>
Hmmm... Any idea how stupid that statement is?? I'm glad Columbus thought differently than you did... and I'm glad Einstein, Copernicus, Newton etc and all the people that went contrary to popularly held beliefs all thought differently than you did. Just because a mass of people believe or don't believe something does not mean it's correct. Thus, it's not "selfish" or "egotistical" to believe that you are correct and others are wrong. Perhaps they ARE wrong, and perhaps you are wrong, and perhaps you are both wrong, or perhaps you are both right. Noone knows that for certain, except the creator Himself.
tagej: You attacking his statement is unwarranted.
Einstein was not a bigot, as many religious zealots tend to be. Einstein didn't reject any and all thought that contradicted his own w/o question. Try questioning a Christian zealot, and you'll find that many won't even consider anything that doesn't conform to their own beliefs.
I've never had a truth seeker tell me they refused to speak to me because I felt different than they did. I have had, on many occasions, Christians distance themselves from me simply because I didn't put a superficial label on my beliefs.
Einstein was not a bigot, as many religious zealots tend to be. Einstein didn't reject any and all thought that contradicted his own w/o question. Try questioning a Christian zealot, and you'll find that many won't even consider anything that doesn't conform to their own beliefs.
I've never had a truth seeker tell me they refused to speak to me because I felt different than they did. I have had, on many occasions, Christians distance themselves from me simply because I didn't put a superficial label on my beliefs.
My faith is the mortar between my bricks of logic. Yes, question everything. How can you not? Some people find "blind faith" quite easy to come by, others like me simply can't do that. I consider it an advantage, they feel it's a flaw. Bottom line: you can find god with just about any ratio of faith to logic. But everyone is different.
Yes, question everything. How can you not? Some people find "blind faith" quite easy to come by, others like me simply can't do that. I consider it an advantage, they feel it's a flaw. Bottom line: you can find god with just about any ratio of faith to logic. But everyone is different.Elladan:
I don't think it is the heart of Christianity to put your faith in the Bible or any other text. The heart of Christianity is to put your faith in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth.
Many people doubt, reject, or question various parts of the Bible but still choose to trust in Jesus of Nazareth.
The point I was trying to make is that the Bible is unique in its statements of origins. Furthermore, contrary to widespread opinion, many of the individual books of the Bible have significant textual evidence to show that they exist in the same essential form that they had 2000 years ago (or longer for much of the Old Testament).
Since the Bible is unique in its account of origins, it seems that true scientific curiosity would explore the Bible's presuppositions. Certainly not as scientific theory (since that isn't what the physical sciences are about). But perhaps on a personal level?
Dedpuhl quote:
<< I think it is egotistical and selfish to think that you are correct and the rest are wrong. >>
No well thought out Christian makes such black and white, universal statements. Paul quoted pagan philisophers and pointed out the truths he found there. Christians aren't 100% right and everyone else 100% wrong. (Well, maybe the hyper-fundamentalists think that way, but that isn't a fair assessment of Christianity as a whole). The difference comes down to what someone believes about Jesus Christ. Biblical Christians do believe that they are right in that area. However, as tagej pointed out, no one believes anything unless they think it is right. That isn't arrogance, that's common sense. But the moral codes and insights of the world's religions often have a lot of common ground. For example, from a purely moral perspective, probably no major world religion objects to the four tenets of Buddhism or the eightfold path contained in the fourth tenet.
I don't think it is the heart of Christianity to put your faith in the Bible or any other text. The heart of Christianity is to put your faith in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth.
Many people doubt, reject, or question various parts of the Bible but still choose to trust in Jesus of Nazareth.
The point I was trying to make is that the Bible is unique in its statements of origins. Furthermore, contrary to widespread opinion, many of the individual books of the Bible have significant textual evidence to show that they exist in the same essential form that they had 2000 years ago (or longer for much of the Old Testament).
Since the Bible is unique in its account of origins, it seems that true scientific curiosity would explore the Bible's presuppositions. Certainly not as scientific theory (since that isn't what the physical sciences are about). But perhaps on a personal level?
Dedpuhl quote:
<< I think it is egotistical and selfish to think that you are correct and the rest are wrong. >>
No well thought out Christian makes such black and white, universal statements. Paul quoted pagan philisophers and pointed out the truths he found there. Christians aren't 100% right and everyone else 100% wrong. (Well, maybe the hyper-fundamentalists think that way, but that isn't a fair assessment of Christianity as a whole). The difference comes down to what someone believes about Jesus Christ. Biblical Christians do believe that they are right in that area. However, as tagej pointed out, no one believes anything unless they think it is right. That isn't arrogance, that's common sense. But the moral codes and insights of the world's religions often have a lot of common ground. For example, from a purely moral perspective, probably no major world religion objects to the four tenets of Buddhism or the eightfold path contained in the fourth tenet.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
No blind faith in anything here. As for me, I believe in what I see, I believe in what I hear, and I believe that how I'm feeling changes how the world appears. For perspective on where I'm coming from though, I may as well admit to being somewhere between Agnosticism and Buddhism right now, maybe I'll call it "Zenmervoltism". Anyway, I think that blind faith in anything is especially dangerous as it short circuits the reasoning capacity that is given to human beings. Would god give you something he didn't want you to use?
Zenmervolt
Zenmervolt
Zemmervolt: No, I don't think God would give you something He didn't want you to use. He only gives you something to see if you'll take it, then chastises you for it. Repent, you sinner, for doing only what you know, or you will experience that fiery hell in eternal damnation.
In the words of Al Pacino from Devil's Advocate:
"Look, but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, but don't swallow."
I'll say it again. How can we truly punish those who are ignorant?
"Kindness through wisdom, evil through ignorance"
In the words of Al Pacino from Devil's Advocate:
"Look, but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, but don't swallow."
I'll say it again. How can we truly punish those who are ignorant?
"Kindness through wisdom, evil through ignorance"
Frost....
Thanks... I am an atheist and I know that there is no god.... I believe human potential...
I have always associated faith with religion... I guess that is wrong of me...
Thanks... I am an atheist and I know that there is no god.... I believe human potential...
I have always associated faith with religion... I guess that is wrong of me...
<< Zemmervolt: No, I don't think God would give you something He didn't want you to use. He only gives you something to see if you'll take it, then chastises you for it. Repent, you sinner, for doing only what you know, or you will experience that fiery hell in eternal damnation.
In the words of Al Pacino from Devil's Advocate:
"Look, but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, but don't swallow."
I'll say it again. How can we truly punish those who are ignorant?
"Kindness through wisdom, evil through ignorance" >>
But that's not Christianity, that's fundamentalism. Christianity is the belief in what Jesus taught, a love for him, and the hope of salvation through his sacrifice. You've just been hanging with the wrong Christians.
/me plugs both ears
"lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you I'm not listening lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala"
"lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you I'm not listening lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala"
<< I am an atheist and I know that there is no god >>
But, in order for you to know something like that, you put yourself in God's position or a higher position than His. You're biting your own tail.
/me puts on flame suit
/me runs like hell
What we all need to realize is that it is truly impossible to KNOW anything beyond our own perception.
Anything beyond the percieved is known only through faith. Thus, the inner workings of the universe are not knowable fact, but we can PERCEIVE how things work. So when you say you KNOW a deity exists or not, you are simply being closed-minded. You only perceive or reason that a deity does/does not exist. Hence, faith.
Of course, I don't believe in truth, so the above fits nicely into my belief system
Anything beyond the percieved is known only through faith. Thus, the inner workings of the universe are not knowable fact, but we can PERCEIVE how things work. So when you say you KNOW a deity exists or not, you are simply being closed-minded. You only perceive or reason that a deity does/does not exist. Hence, faith.
Of course, I don't believe in truth, so the above fits nicely into my belief system
Poop..I really don't get what you mean entirely, but I think that real faith is blind.
Truth is that everyone has faith. We step out the door, not really knowing what will be on the other side. Many times we take risks, not knowing what they will produce.
The question is what do we have faith in. I for one know that in myself is a limited capacity ...so I do choose to look to God for answers. Now in saying that I also know that He has drawn me, as He loves me and wants me to walk in faith.
The bible says "faith is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen" (New Living Translation)
The King James says "it is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
We all just put our faith in different things. I choose God.
Neos
Truth is that everyone has faith. We step out the door, not really knowing what will be on the other side. Many times we take risks, not knowing what they will produce.
The question is what do we have faith in. I for one know that in myself is a limited capacity ...so I do choose to look to God for answers. Now in saying that I also know that He has drawn me, as He loves me and wants me to walk in faith.
The bible says "faith is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen" (New Living Translation)
The King James says "it is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
We all just put our faith in different things. I choose God.
Neos
Atheists take responsibility for their own actions. They don't have anyone else to blame. (ie, the devil)
What the ? Christians believe that they (themselves) are responsible for there actions, we know better than to do wrong... We believe that after we die God will be our judge, not a man. We are not suppost to judge others... We do not blame the devil the way you stated that, we beleive the Devil does cause evil in the world, he is a deciever. But the devil does not take control of our bodies and make us do something wrong or whatever....
What the ? Christians believe that they (themselves) are responsible for there actions, we know better than to do wrong... We believe that after we die God will be our judge, not a man. We are not suppost to judge others... We do not blame the devil the way you stated that, we beleive the Devil does cause evil in the world, he is a deciever. But the devil does not take control of our bodies and make us do something wrong or whatever....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter