Reading Kyu's posts there seems to be no content there to reply to. Apologies Kyu if I missed something.
Adrian mentioned he think's the following statement in my first post of this thread is proof that I'm stupid: "Belief in God requires faith, doubt and questioning." Reason being ...As was pointed out, faith is the opposite of doubt/questioning.
I have covered why I think this follows, but obviously not clearly enough, so I'll try harder.
Let's agree on a definition of faith as it applies to religion, Christianity in particular. Faith is the acceptance of something we cannot know. To quote answers.com: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I think you as non theists could accept that?
I don't doubt/ question that I'm sat here in front of a computer, I know it's true, so I don't need faith. If I didn't know it was here in front of me, If I doubt/ question that it exists, then I would need faith to think it did. You see how doubt/ questioning is on the same side as faith in those statements. Not the opposing side.
Don't doubt / don't need faith. Doubt / would need faith
I see nowhere on this thread a successful refutation of this idea. If someone does, please point it out to me because I'd love to explore it.
Just a point here.. I should say I have no interest in winning some point between Christians and non Christians. I'm just interested in exploring this idea.
Many people have come in like a steamroller baited by an admittedly provocative thread title. Obviously I'm saying the opposite. I think there can be no empirical proof that the Christian God exists, and that this is a logical assertion given the above.
The anti theist mantra "give me proof" is not rendered impotent by this logic. We can possibly be more accurate in our discussions.
Adrian mentioned he think's the following statement in my first post of this thread is proof that I'm stupid: "Belief in God requires faith, doubt and questioning." Reason being ...As was pointed out, faith is the opposite of doubt/questioning.
I have covered why I think this follows, but obviously not clearly enough, so I'll try harder.
Let's agree on a definition of faith as it applies to religion, Christianity in particular. Faith is the acceptance of something we cannot know. To quote answers.com: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I think you as non theists could accept that?
I don't doubt/ question that I'm sat here in front of a computer, I know it's true, so I don't need faith. If I didn't know it was here in front of me, If I doubt/ question that it exists, then I would need faith to think it did. You see how doubt/ questioning is on the same side as faith in those statements. Not the opposing side.
Don't doubt / don't need faith. Doubt / would need faith
I see nowhere on this thread a successful refutation of this idea. If someone does, please point it out to me because I'd love to explore it.
Just a point here.. I should say I have no interest in winning some point between Christians and non Christians. I'm just interested in exploring this idea.
Many people have come in like a steamroller baited by an admittedly provocative thread title. Obviously I'm saying the opposite. I think there can be no empirical proof that the Christian God exists, and that this is a logical assertion given the above.
The anti theist mantra "give me proof" is not rendered impotent by this logic. We can possibly be more accurate in our discussions.
