You have approximation of fact, but you will never have concretes unless you trust, believe, and have faith in the facts presented to you.

That's just silly but it is what I'd expect from you.

And it is silly because...?

(Wow, we're both on a roll!)

(May 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm)Watson Wrote: And it is silly because...?

(Wow, we're both on a roll!)

1+1 = 2. That is a fact. There is no approximation.


"Jesus is god because a silly old book said so" is not even an approximation of a fact.


It's just religious horseshit.


See the difference?




(Probably not.)

Religious faith is what we're talking about. I do not possess it. I understand what it is, but I fail to understand how it is not self-delusion and willful ignorance.

Let's bring it all down to the basic point. You claim that a god exists. I say that I do not believe that and ask if you can provide any evidence to support that claim. You cannot. I still do not believe your claim.

However, if you ask me why I do not believe, I can give you plenty of logical, rational, reasons that I do not. I can point to thousands of years of scientific inquiry into the nature of life, the universe, and everything, that has turned up a mountain of evidence that god is one of (if not the) least likely things to exist. The evidence actually suggests that a god is not even necessary. Keeping those things in mind, believing in god anyway is just silly and childish superstition if not downright delusional.

(May 3, 2010 at 3:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(May 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm)Watson Wrote: And it is silly because...?

(Wow, we're both on a roll!)

1+1 = 2. That is a fact. There is no approximation.

The Party says 1+1 = 5. Prove the Party wrong.

Quote:"Jesus is god because a silly old book said so" is not even an approximation of a fact.

It's just religious horseshit.

See the difference?

(Probably not.)

"Jesus is the prodigal Son of God" would be more accurate. And no, it's not a fact or an approximation of a fact, I know. It's a belief, which is my point.

Belief is not fact. That is why we call it belief. Probably because saying it is horseshit gets boring after awhile, requiring a whole new word to describe something that is unprovable.

[/quote]

(May 3, 2010 at 11:57 am)Watson Wrote: I believe without evidence, but through experience, that the sun will rise the next morning when I wake up.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that when I come home I will not find it burned down to the ground when I get there.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that if I make a mistake in my relationship it will still be possible to reconcile with the person I love.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that having hope through bad times is no more false hope than having hope through good times.

And all these things are the result of reasonable faith based upon experience. This is far different from BLIND faith in a deity which is based on nothing.

Quote:In the case of God, experience is the most reliable form evidence takes. Trust, faith, and belief are required for the experience to be taken as such, however.

And what "experience" do you have that provides "evidence" for this deity?

(May 3, 2010 at 11:02 am)Paul the Human Wrote: Heheh! Okay, fr0d0. That's a fancy way of saying that religion (or god) is beyond the reach of evidence. Or maybe it doesn't. It doesn't matter.

No I think that's the reality of it... it's not a get out... it got out and went before the question was asked

(May 3, 2010 at 11:02 am)Paul the Human Wrote: My question to you was, why do you believe that god exists when his existence is a prerequisite to holding that belief? It seems rather nonsensical to me and I hoped you could explain.

If God exists he exists whether you believe he does or not right? So then belief in his existence is the acknowledgement of his existence, and not something I just made up. My believing in him happens to enable me to be more than I've ever been before. And I've elected not to believe for a fair few years once, and initially believed as an adult... no childish perceptions here.

How'd I do... how'd I do??

(May 3, 2010 at 11:57 am)Watson Wrote: I believe without evidence, but through experience, that the sun will rise the next morning when I wake up.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that when I come home I will not find it burned down to the ground when I get there.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that if I make a mistake in my relationship it will still be possible to reconcile with the person I love.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that having hope through bad times is no more false hope than having hope through good times.

That is not belief - that is a rational expectation. Like turning on a light bulb in a room and finding it is out. The difference lies in that it isn't a paradigm shift when you discover the light bulb is out and no matter what you want to say or think, the damn bulb is still kaput.