Faith?

[Eilonnwy]

Prayer, faith healing, so called "miracles" just for starters.

FAIL

None can ever be scientifically evidenced.

Try again.

And you prove my point. Thanks.

---

Eilonnwy:

But Im not trying to say the deist god is real which seems to be the one your describing. Im talking about the Christian God who act in time. I don't need you to disprove the deist god, if you can is disprove the Christian God then I give up. Such as prove the claims to be illogical, contradicing, etc. I know you will claim that has been done, but I have never seen anything that can't be explained.

There are a lot of things, to be perfectly honest. If you are honestly interested in getting this question answered, I recommend two books to you: God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger and God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

I pick these two books because one deals with the scientific aspect of believing in God and how science shows there most certainly is not a God with respect to the Abrahamic God. The second book deals with religion and society and how harmful it is. Two very important aspects to the religion debate.

But to be fair and not just throw books at you, I'll briefly explain some things that changed my mind about God. Please note, these aren't all my reasons, just a brief overview of some.

First, the magnitude of religions that claim they got it just right and if you don't subscribe to their brand of religion you're damned, and we're talking even withing different Christian denominations.

Then there's the fact that millions of people suffer daily, some Christian, some not, and it's obvious their so called "prayers" go unanswered when their children die of hunger in front of them. I can't believe an omni-benevolent God exists and just watches, meanwhile basketball players will thank God for taking them to the championship game. To me, this simple problem shows me the world works just as you expect it would work without a God.

The Bible, look closely and it's full of holes and contradictions. Once I started to see all the problems with the Bible and learned how messed up the Gospels of Jesus are, that house of cards fell.

Free will versus "everything happens for a reason". This idea that you're in control, but not. All the good things in life are God, all the bad things are your own failings or God is "testing" you.

Afterlife, there's no evidence for it. Everything that makes us "us" is attributed to the brain. The science on this is astounding, and I've only skimmed the surface myself. There's absolutely no evidence for a soul.

Humans. When I started to study skepticism and how easy it is to believe things that aren't true, to accept someone's testimony uncritically, I realized how easy it is to found a religion. (Just look at Scientology) I fell into these traps myself, I believed the 9/11 Truther bullshit. This is why I try very hard to build my beliefs around science and skepticism, because I care about whether my beliefs are true or not because beliefs determine your actions. So I do the best I can to believe what is most likely to be true versus what is most likely to be false.

[Violet]

All of our knowledge is but the assumption that we are right... all of our evidence based upon chance circumstance... all of our logic presupposed by our justifications... all of our confidence a mere hope of the truth.

Simply... our knowledge? Faith in 'correctness'. Our evidence? Faith in it happening this time (and possibly times foreseen and gone by). Logic? Just faith that we have rationalized a situation correctly. Confidence IS faith... But confidence without logic, evidence, or knowledge: cannot be reasonably justified.

Faith... I have it in assuming there is no burglar raiding my house right now... but I could also have it in assuming that there was a burglar raiding my house right now. Understand that being confident does not make one right... and you will understand why confidence is such a cop-out.

[Rhizomorph13]

/facepalm

[Violet]

You /facepalm doubt and skepticism? Interesting new angle for atheists

[Rhizomorph13]

No just you and your crusade to make everything conform to what is obviously isn't. Knife allergies, air addictions, and faith in evidence. I already responded to a post in another thread and then found this post which is almost a carbon copy of the same nonsense you are pitching all over the forums.

Thanks snowflake,
Rhizo

[Violet]

You seriously, and honestly, believe that you are not allergic to knives?! Alrighty then... i suppose the you would not be apposed to me stabbing you...? And in the event of stabbing you: your body would not react in any negative way...?

If you are not addicted to air: Kick the habit. Go on. And while you are at it: stop eating, stop drinking: hook yourself up to an IV and enjoy your withdrawals

You specifically target that I bend existing definitions and rules to make them more conclusive? So i must make exceptions to imperfect rules, Rhizo? You say 'obviously', and I ask "why?" By what justification is it obvious?

You declare that I pitch nonsense... but I wonder how your faithful interpretation of things is more valid than doubt. In /facepalming my statements, you are only /facepalming doubt and skepticism.

I actually agree with the snowflake statement, simply because they are stereotypically unique. It's a silly stereotype... but I appreciate being called unique

[Rhizomorph13]

Look Snowflake,

My "interpretations" of words are "justified" by a dictionary. Knowledge isn't so based on fiat interpretation and certainly YOUR interpretation fails to alter the agreed upon definition of words.

By your knife argument I could prove that you were alergic to bacon by sharpening up a particularly crisp piece and jabbing it into your eye.

"The food of your choice, will end your life tonight." - Sean Cullens

Rhizo

[Violet]

---

addicted |əˈdiktid|
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects : she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills.
• enthusiastically devoted to a particular thing or activity : he's addicted to computers.

---

Mine are too, funny that

---

addiction |əˈdik sh ən|
noun
the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity : he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction | an addiction to gambling.

---

---

allergy |ˈalərjē|
noun ( pl. -gies)
a damaging immune response by the body to a substance, esp. pollen, fur, a particular food, or dust, to which it has become hypersensitive.
• informal an antipathy : their allergy to free enterprise.

---

Allergy seems inconclusive to me (It specifically notes a list, which I believe incomplete according to the rest of the definition). You will notice however, that it does not disagree (esp.), it simply notes those most prevalent allergies.

You could indeed prove that I am allergic to bacon Like with other words (Slavery for instance): some people assume that their definition applies only in certain situations... but the definition applies in all situations where the defined occurs... a specific situation might have an exclusive description, which allergy does not have.

finally:

---

immune response
noun
the reaction of the cells and fluids of the body to the presence of a substance that is not recognized as a constituent of the body itself.

---

Essentially you are suggesting that your body will not react to a knife embedded within you?

[leo-rcc]

Sorry, allergy is certainly wrong, as it specifically mentions hypersensitivity, and dying from being stabbed is not from being more sensitive than others.

[Rhizomorph13]

Ok, I'm wrong. I'm allergic to knives! Congratulations! you single-handedly redefined the word "allergic" by your narrow understanding of how to define a word.

Thanks for that, I'm going to get a doctor's note so I don't have to go to work because there are sharp things there.

And /facepalm!

Rhizo