|
Views beyond Atheism
|
 RE: Views beyond Atheism
May 14, 2009 at 11:10 am
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2009 at 11:12 am by g-mark.)
WTF. We should call this the EvF vs Frodo forum. You guys should just open your own forum. I get sick of reading the same old BS. Why don't you open your own debate thread?
 (May 14, 2009 at 11:10 am)g-mark Wrote: WTF. We should call this the EvF vs Frodo forum. You guys should just open your own forum. I get sick of reading the same old BS. Why don't you open your own debate thread? Or we could just call it the "Oh no, not another of G-Mark's interminably long and pointless videos" forum? I'm certainly bored of those bloody things. Maybe YOU should go and open your own forum, at least Frodo and Ev are on topic. Kyu Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings! Come over to the dark side, we have cookies! Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator  
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe (May 14, 2009 at 4:04 am)Giff Wrote:(May 13, 2009 at 7:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Fuk! Because EvF repeated again the point I was trying very hard to put an end to. Seems the evidence/ reasoning/ Non Empirical evidence thing will last till infinity. Fuk! = frustration LMAO  = but it's ok coz I think it's ok & funny
Hehe. Seriously though if you have any valid reasons to believe God exists...OR you have any valid reasons to HAVE FAITH that God actually exists then if those reasons WERE indeed VALID - they would count as evidence towards his existence SO....it wouldn't be faith! (because faith is without evidence).
So how can you have faith and be rational? And how can you have rational reasons for faith and it still be faith if IF those rational reasons were valid they would count as evidence (so it wouldn't be faith *sighs*). SO how can you "have faith" and still be rational then? EvF
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
The faith bit is always a leap. Reasoning puts you in a place where the leap makes sense. Does that help?
So you make the leap of faith FIRST and then reason it afterwards?....Well...are these reasons afterwards valid in and of themselves? In which case they would be evidence and therefore you wouldn't need faith?
And if they're not valid then it's just empty...it's just faith...believing without any evidence (and therefore without any valid reasons to believe God actually exists)... So whether the faith comes first or after...if there's valid reasons then it's evidence and you don't need faith...if there ISN'T then it's just irrational. EvF
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
You said that before. How can the leap justify the reason to leap?!? Like you rightly summise, that's crazy. Of course it only works the other way around.
You see the branch as you fall down the cliff; you grab it. Reasoning it'll save you. Without reason you don't look for possibilities.
I've said it before because it's still relevant.
How can the leap justify the reason leap? You're right it can't. You need reasons - and you have your OWN reasons. But if these reasons are at all valid in and of themselves, then they'd count as evidence so you COULDN'T HAVE the 'LEAP' of "Faith" because if you've got evidence it's not faith. If your reasons TO HAVE Faith in God are valid then they must give reasons to believe God exists - in which case you have evidence so there can be no 'Leap of Faith' (because faith is without evidence). EvF
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
Ok. ok :p I see your point!
 You're trying to discount my second level evidence as impossible because I've said faith cannot have evidence. (1st level = evidence or proof; 2nd level = non empirical evidence or evidence not based on proof) For that to work you need evidence to equal non empirical evidence (Richard Dawkins inspired definition BTW) in the area of proof. What separates the two definitions is proof.
I see....so now we ARE on to empirical evidence again
 Like you have said a WHILE back...that there CAN be evidence of God just not EMPIRICAL evidence.... However, since then you have been acting as if there can be no evidence AT ALL. NOW you seem to be back on to NON-empirical evidence being possible again (*sigh*)... Ok....where is and(/or) what is the non-empirical evidence for "God"? It may not be PROVEN according to you because it's NON-empirical evidence. But evidence is evidence; so where/what is it? EvF |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
