(November 26, 2008 at 5:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I have good reason to lack "faith" in the UK legal system (and my understanding is the US one is broadly similar) ... partly because I have been a juror twice (and Jeremy Clarkson was right when he wrote about the jury's being scarier than the criminals) and my experience of the law from "the other side" has been rather negative and I finally realise that the law is about anything but truth, it's simply about winning.
That is human nature. That is a big part of what religious (or human) 'thinking' is all about. People want to cut corners and from a perspective of wanting to win: "I'm a good guy, I'm on the right side." sort of attitude justifies the means. You can't expect to see that diminish in law enforcement, sports, politics or religion but often that is a sort of unrealistic expectation.
(November 26, 2008 at 5:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: That isn't faith though, it's intuition (if you like) based on (presumably) a great deal of experience, it's no different in principle that me making an intelligent guess about what might be wrong with a computer system based on minimal evidence (to many computer novices what I do apparently can seem like magic, I would imagine that to be true of science and scientists too, indeed anyone with expertise in a given field.
Yeah, that is my point, though. Experience in Bible study which inspires faith. Not blind faith in something I know nothing of. I don't really like the term intuition because it implies - at least to me - a superstitious prediction of the future with no conscious reasoning.
(November 26, 2008 at 5:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: And again that is not hard evidence although I would agree it would certainly have made him a strong suspect. Legal evidence requirements (at least in the UK) are not as strong as those required for science.
No. It wasn't hard evidence and I knew that, but there is that importance of faith or trust. Faith has become a generic term for those who believe in God and Trust his word through the Bible with the implication that there is no reasoning behind it. When that is applied to me on a personal level by atheists and I disagree with it I come off as being arrogant; I point out that there has been a great deal more conscious thought and reasoning on my part than they themselves have given. That is why in my upcoming Observations On Atheism the political, social and emotional aspects of what I see as Atheism are much more important to them than God or the Bible.
(November 26, 2008 at 5:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Good for you but it ain't science.
Science is often used in a similar generic term without the acknowledgement of the potential abuse being there the same as it is with any human endeavor. Much the same as we addressed with the legal system above. I am very well aware that there is a gross example of that in religion but see that most Atheists have a really difficult time acknowledging that possibility in 'Science!'
(November 26, 2008 at 5:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I'm sure you could ... despite the lack of evidence for a soul and the contra-indicative evidence that in fact the soul is not the seat of whatever it's supposed to be ('spose you're gonna have to clarify what you mean by soul here, I'm going on standard Rat Catcher claims).
You just proved my point. The Bible says the soul is the mortal life of any breathing human or animal. The blood. That is what the Bible says and pagan influenced Xianity says it is something else.
You can say that science has no evidence for the pagan Xian soul but science has no problem at all with what God's word the Bible says about it. Ignorant of what it says you judge the God you don't believe in on those who misrepresent him and are irritated at a more accurate correction in the guise of 'science' and 'reason' and all while assuming that I have no reasoning ability because I know the Bible and believe in God.
You see what I am saying?
(November 26, 2008 at 5:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: An awful lot of atheists have read the bible, cover to cover ... I admit I haven't but I have one (2 actually and that's not counting the one my wife has, I have 2 Koran's as well) so can look up what I want and it is on my list of things to do.
It is an admiral thing for an atheist to read the Bible and I encourage it, but I don't think that an Atheist or a Believer for that matter has to read the Bible in order to form an opinion one way or the other on God. Some people on both sides choose to believe or not believe without being informed in accurate knowledge. That is their choice and - you know? I respect that. It is a personal responsibility much like anything else. I make the distinction between that and those who criticize in ignorance, and those that make an uninformed statement without criticism. Or in the case of believers who represent God in ignorance as well. The point is that one is free of course to believe (or not believe) as they will without knowledge but to criticize or represent requires a more active responsibility. Accurate knowledge and study.
