A Book?

[fr0d0]

I don't agree that reasoning equates to evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

So you have no reasons whatsoever to believe that God actually exists OR to have faith THAT God actually exists? (because if those reasons were valid they would count as evidence (because they would be reasons to believe that God actually exists IOW: Evidence) and hence cancel out the faith).

EvF

[fr0d0]

No. What I am saying is that I can have reasoning but that does not equate to evidence. For like you rightly say, that would be impossible.

[Edwardo Piet]

So then it can't be reasons to believe that God actually exists then (because that in other words: WOULD equate to evidence) - so you are believing in God entirely irrationally without any reason to believe he is even REMOTELY probable. Because you are believing in God with no reason to believe he actually exists (IOW: Without evidence).

EvF

[fr0d0]

Damn you good at twistin them words Evie LOL Ever considered a career in Law?

I believe in God through faith. This means I cannot have proof or I wouldn't need faith. I have reason to believe he exists, because that does not equal proof.

then we have the whole experience to examine AFTER you accept God exists though faith.

[Edwardo Piet]

Damn you good at twistin them words Evie LOL Ever considered a career in Law?

Twisting? Or is it simply that you can't provide an adequate counter argument?

I believe in God through faith.

Without reason to believe he exists therefore because that would equate to evidence hence canceling out your "Faith" in him.

This means I cannot have proof or I wouldn't need faith.

And it means you cannot even have EVIDENCE either. As we both have agreed faith=belief without EVIDENCE not just without proof.

I have reason to believe he exists, because that does not equal proof.

It would equate to EVIDENCE though...if you have VALID reason to believe he actually exists then that would in other words equate to evidence - but it would hence completely cancel out your "faith" in him.

EvF

[fr0d0]

No 'Twisting' because you're trying every was possible to make the words say what you want them to say. You can't face facts for some reason.

[lilphil1989]

Fr0d0, let me try to understand your position a little better. Are you saying that the bible itself has always been the absolute truth, and that it's man's interpretation that has been wrong?

e.g. the joshua verse I referred to. You're saying that that was always meant metaphorically, and if in the past it was interpreted literally, that's a fault of the interpreter?



As for your reasoning, perhaps we have a semantics issue?
When I say "rational reasoning", I mean thinking, and coming to a conclusion based on the available evidence.
What exactly do you mean by it? Because you've used the phrase, despite admitting there is no evidence.
I don't want to think you mean one thing, and argue against it, if you actually mean something else.

A better chance of living for the moment and not being distracted by irrelevant shit. Being aware of stuff that's detrimental to that.

Personally, I'd say a god for which there is no evidence is an irrelevant distraction

[Edwardo Piet]

No 'Twisting' because you're trying every was possible to make the words say what you want them to say. You can't face facts for some reason.

Why do you think they're twisted?

Belief in something WITH evidence is rational - to believe ANYWAY without and giving special treatment with no more evidence is IRRATIONAL. Faith IS believing without evidence and as far as I know anyway that means it's bloody irrational! How COULD that be rational?

To rationally believe in the existence of something you need evidence. Rational reasons to believe in the existence of something IF AT ALL RATIONAL would have to equate to evidence otherwise those reasons wouldn't be rational.

I provide an argument. You make no counter argument and say it's twisting.

I will assume that because you are confused by my logic and cannot provide a counter argument to it.

If you can actually explain WHY my logic is twisted and provide a counter argument then perhaps I wouldn't just think you merely cannot counter what I said because I've demonstrated that:

Faith= irrational because belief without evidence=irrational because it's irrational to believe in something WITHOUT valid reasons and valid reasons TO believe would=evidence therefore there can be no faith if you believe with valid reasons because they would equate to evidence and you cannot have faith if you have evidence.

EvF

[Minimalist]

Maybe one day there will be followers of prominent atheist thinkers known collectively.

Perhaps when Dawkins dies I will figure out a way to worship him? Maybe we can turn tea and crumpets into his body and blood?

Any Brit should appreciate that gesture.