What is "FAITH"

[Bad Writer]

...you pulled those quotes out of two different posts, the second one came before the first one above.

Are you going to dictate to me as to what I can and can't use as evidence against your weak defense?

Look, you got caught red-handed. Just say that you're sorry instead of whining that I'm not playing fair.

The proof I have is between myself and God it was never intended for you, unless you decide to listen to God. Is this clear enough.

Hey, god, I'm listening. [crickets]

Saying you have proof is not the same as presenting it. It's actually kind of funny because you have no proof of your proof, which makes it...well...not proof.

Proof is something that can be verified by someone else. I could say that I know Spinach Lasagna is the best food ever because it tasted the best in my mouth. Me saying that is not proof of anything except that I have an opinion.

With this line of reasoning, your personal "evidence" is merely an opinion of yours. Once you accept that, then you can finally stop telling people that you have proof of anything.

Something I believe we would be more accepting of is if you said, "My opinion is that God is real because of my personal experiences." Anytime you say you have proof, a skeptic will ask for it, so avoid that if you can.

Does it make sense now why it wasn't getting through my "thick skull"? You were simply mislabling your reason for conviction. D'oh!

Sadly, it's also not real evidence. So...it looks like most here don't know that you say you don't have proof, because you're still claiming proof. Faith is not proof; it's just faith. It's also a dishonest feeling.

You can't prove that statement, it's trash.

I just did. See above. I call 'em as I see 'em. Please move on from this.

I never mentioned prayer to you,

But your Bible does, and that's the thing you want me to read and study. [facepalm]

I said read and study.

I'm hearing a broken record. You can get this track back in line by answering my follow up question of "Can you prove that I don't?"

Listen, Buster, you're the one arguing with me when I ask you simple questions. Or perhaps these questions are too hard for you. Let me know, and I'll be sure to dumb them down.

I'm here to promote rational thought processes and discussion. If there's any argument, then it's all coming about because of resistance from you. Can you tell me why you resist answering questions straight on?

Let me pose a question to you. Why do you think that I and other people here are asking you for proof? I will reply only to your honest answer of this.

Because you just want something to argue about, you couldn't care less about what I write, but I do care enough to try, believe this or not it's all up to you.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and trust that you honestly think that. As I mentioned above, proof is asked for when there is a claim to it.

Obviously, we can't ask for proof if you say that your proof is in fact merely an opinion based on your personal experiences.

There is another part to the problem though: the claim. You say that you know God exists. Excluding past references to your "personal evidence", we'll say that you know he exists because of opinion, because that's what it really comes down to. At that point, there is a claim with no real proof still, which is why people are still asking for it from you.

You can't give the proof, and that's the problem. There comes a point when a man has to realize having an opinion doesn't make something true. Imagine if someone came up to you and told you that you were guilty of stealing 20 bucks from him. Logically, the response should be a request for evidence to the claim. When he replies back that he merely feels like you were the one that stole the 20 bucks, his whole argument falls apart.

That, in simple, easy-to-understand terms, is why the argument for god falls apart every time.

I did not ask you to prove there's no God, I already know you can't do that. I ask you to prove I can't believe, this is a simple request, but apparently you're finding it to difficult a task.

And I said I don't find it necessary to do either. You know why I'm not going to try and prove that you can't believe? It's because I never claimed that you couldn't.

Remember when I made the ridiculous claim that I was Batman? That is an excellent example of a claim that needs to be disproved. In fact, it was an open invitation for disproving because I made the claim.

But...THIS? "Prove I can't believe". Because I never claimed that you couldn't, then I WILL NOT DISPROVE IT. MOTHER. FUCKING. PERIOD.

FYI, that is me getting out of an argument that you tried to instigate.

You've showed me no proof that you know squat about the scriptures, you're content to argue circle instead of asking questions about scripture.
There's no burden on me I know much about scripture and learn more every time I open the Bible, God is good about that, even though many times it's about how far I can get away from His will. I can take delight in that even though I see where I err, God says He disciplines those he loves.

And you're going to hear the same things if I don't set you straight real quick.

Your Claim: You don't read and study the scriptures
My reply: Prove that I don't.

Instead of coming up with specific, testable examples that would prove that I don't, you instead try to put the Burden of Proof on me. It doesn't work that way with claims. Would it fly in a court of law if a Prosecution tried to prove guilt without evidence?

I've made no claims that I either know or do not know the scripture. The burden of proof, by right of claim, is all on you.

If I were to say, "You don't learn Jack Squat when you read the Bible," then at that point is the Burden of Proof all on me to demonstrably show how you do not.

Actually, come to think of it, you claimed that you learn more each time you read the Bible. Am I supposed to take you at your word, or shall we, again, ask you to prove it?

For example, did you know about the two separate Creation Accounts at the beginning of Genesis? On my last read through the Bible, I saw that (though I had noticed it before, I never really thought about it till this time). The order of creation is different in the first than it is from the second.

If you learn more about the Bible everytime you read it, surely you saw something like that...maybe not in Genesis, but in other parts of the "Good Book".

C'mon! Here's your chance to really put forth something demonstrable! This is an easy one for you!

Look at it this way: if my neighbor tells me he was abducted by aliens, and his story is corroborated by dozens of other abductees with details in their stories that match his, should I believe him in his outrageous claim, or should I remain skeptical?

Here we go again wanting to assume things, let's deal with the real, real life, is that possible for you.

Your very own Jesus Christ used allegories when he taught his disciples! Must you hem and haw when I do the same to prove a point? That would make you a hypocrite, and I'm sure you try hard not to get labled a such.

FYI, Alien Abduction stories are no less real than people's personal tellings of Spiritual Experiences.

Well I'm not asking you to believe in God you were the one who asked for proof.

Oh, you don't want me to believe in God? Why the fuck are you telling me all about him then? Why are you telling me that he's real?

Also, are you a magician? You try misdirection an awful lot. Try answering a question or two before attempting to sidestep it, and you'll find a lot of progress in these discussions.

Like so:

The same is with god and believers of this god. Now tell me...how is believing in invisible unicorns at all rational if the proof is simply your own?

Well in the end the truth of all this will be proven.

As can be seen, you did not answer the question. Try again.

---

To you God is unknown, for me I know God well, I have no doubts of His existence or who He is. You see I'm so sure of what I know there is no other option for me and if there was I would not choose another option.

You know because you know because you know.

Amazing answer, after all I've written that's it, that's all you've understood about what I've stated, well I can see that you are not and probably will never be serious, so I guess were at an end to all this.

You really are a magician then. You think you can make an end to your own circular reasoning. Oh, yes, that's what my reply was in regards to. I don't blame you for not understanding my quip, as it was at your expense. I'll try not to be so cryptic next time.

Seriously, with as much blaspheming as I do here, I should have been struck by lightning ten times over. Or was that Zeus...heh, it's easy to get these Heavenly Father archtypes so mixed up since they borrow heavily from each other in the first place.

So now you're an expert on how God deals with people, never considered God loves you enough to be patient with you, now did you. Oh thanks, thanks for proving you do not know anything about scripture, see I did not have to investigate, you gave up the answer.

Leave it to GC to not see the difference between a straight argument and a jest at the expense of a cross-religion blunder. Also, this remark has nothing to do with scripture itself, but of the Roman Catholic Church's borrowing of the image of Zeus for its many portrayals of Heavenly Father in many of its works throughout history. If anything, I've proven that I know Christian history.

BTW, you still claim I don't know anything, but you haven't proven it (and since I defended against your point, you still have yet to come up with a real reason as to how I don't know scripture). Go on, defend your claim.

---

The above (GodsChild) is another exercise in "teach the controversy" nonsense (well, unless you're okay with that as a universal principle?) and seeming to claim that one can simply go ahead and choose what they believe. How... cute.

Your baby sitter dropped you on your head didn't she, thought that was it. I guess because of that I'll overlook your nonsense.

You stay classy, GC.