Pull up a chair

[KichigaiNeko]

Which is WHY discy isn't worth the time of day in my humble opinion

[Alex K]

Which is WHY discy isn't worth the time of day in my humble opinion

I agree completely, but I was replying on my phone while lying in bed, half asleep, so no big waste there

[fr0d0]

No, dishonesty is equivocating between our trust in, and usage of, scientific and logical processes which have been proved through repeated use and testing to reliably correlate to reality, with faith in unproved, untested and unfalsifiable religious ideals. Dishonesty is trying to make the thing that I can use and show you the effectiveness of repeatedly, right now, with the thing that refuses to be tested in the same way and seems to work differently for every person who even attempts to use it.

We have plenty of evidence of the efficacy of science, reason and logic. We have none for god. And no amount of stupid, bullshit "could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?" presuppositional nonsense will change that.

This entire thread is Disc attempting to drag down real, proven ideas to the level of his irrational assertions, and you're complicit in that. I hope you're proud of yourself, for denigrating the very idea of knowledge outside of useless absolutes.

Blah blah fucking blah :S

Just address the subject already would you!

---

Which is WHY discy isn't worth the time of day in my humble opinion

Then

[Marsellus Wallace]

Which is WHY discy isn't worth the time of day in my humble opinion

Then

Dude , thats fucked up . Even if you don't agree with her, don't say that . Have some respect .

[Neo-Scholastic]

But wouldn't you first have to have faith in faith in order to have faith in confirmation. Likewise, there can be no faith in gods unless you first have faith in faith. Suffice to say you can throw your faith in any direction you like .. unless you favor those that get confirmed. I wonder how hard it is to keep tossing your faith in god's direction without any confirmation.

Who says that no believers get confirmation? I have.

[max-greece]

But wouldn't you first have to have faith in faith in order to have faith in confirmation. Likewise, there can be no faith in gods unless you first have faith in faith. Suffice to say you can throw your faith in any direction you like .. unless you favor those that get confirmed. I wonder how hard it is to keep tossing your faith in god's direction without any confirmation.

Who says that no believers get confirmation? I have.

But can you trust it?

Why?

How can you be sure?

Essentially we can all disappear down the rabbit hole of continuous why's?

The difference between your confirmation and those that science provides is that the latter are confirmations that can be shared and equally appreciated, understood and accepted.

---

Just to raise one more point. There isn't really a competitor to science - even if you think its faith based.

Religions, on the other hand, are ten a penny.

[shep]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y1f9G4Bk_c

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Everything you said about your wife being faithful, I can say about God being faithful to me, hence I trust Him.

IOW, I have no good reason not to trust Him. In a sense, you even exercise faith in believing she exists. Why? Because once again, you are trusting in and relying on your cognitive faculties and five senses to present you with an accurate rendition of what reality is despite NOT being able to prove said faculties are reliable.

The means by which you engage in your relationship with your wife, and the means by which I engage in my relationship with God are thus quite similar!hock:

You're bastardizing logic and you know it with the above word salad.

You're attempting to form an equivalence between the unknowable of an imagined deity (a god, whatever that is) and using the pretence of nobody being 100% sure that your sense of self and others is real to mean that not seeing god is exactly the same as seeing your [insert 'thing'].

You've created an experiment where there is no out aside "god is as imaginary as your wife, and because your wife is real then so is my god!", when actually it's just you shoehorning a deity into a twisted logic that ignores the EVIDENCE of a reality in which your god thing has absolutely no testable or verifiable data for it's existence. all that good ol' false equivalence prepositionalism again.

And besides, even if reality as we know it turns out to be an illusion, how does that make your version of whatever god it is you worship more real?

[Tonus]

What is faith?

Paul defines faith as the "assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1, ASV). This is often used to denote belief with no evidence, but that does not seem to be right meaning of the word. We often use the word "faith" as a synonym for "trust." We differentiate between faith and "blind faith." Therefore, faith should involve something we know for certain, unlike blind faith.

This fits the Biblical narrative. Paul himself came to know the truth when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. If this was true, then Paul's faith in any of Jesus' promises was based on his belief that Jesus was real, which was based on his direct experience with Jesus.

Jesus chided Thomas for doubting that he had been resurrected, telling him "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29). And despite this, he did allow Thomas to see him and to put his fingers through the wounds in his hands and side. Judging by his reaction, this experience strengthened Thomas' faith.

Some Christians will tell us that if god were to reveal himself today, that this would deny us free will because we would have no choice to believe. But there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that this is a problem. Paul states that creation is such clear proof of god's existence that to deny him is inexcusable. (Romans 1:18-21) God's intervention in human affairs was common in the OT and NT, yet this is not cause for alarm.

Knowing that god exists, if he makes it plain, would certainly not require faith. Believing that he would do what he proposed would require faith as defined by Paul-- a conviction of things not seen (since they are promises of future action). But believing in god should not be a matter of faith; if he was able to make himself known directly and physically to people for thousands of years, he can do so now without issue. That he does not do so is not a matter of faith, and I don't think we should have faith in his existence without such a clear and obvious demonstration.

Do atheists display faith? As defined above, yes, I do. I trust in some people to live up to their word if they have shown a habit of being trustworthy. So if a particular person says he is going to the movies on Saturday and will pick me up at noon, I have faith that this will happen. If a less trustworthy person offers the same, my faith may not be as strong in his promise. If a fictional character makes general promises to everyone (or to no one in particular) I am unlikely to have any faith in him at all.

[Whateverist]

But wouldn't you first have to have faith in faith in order to have faith in confirmation. Likewise, there can be no faith in gods unless you first have faith in faith. Suffice to say you can throw your faith in any direction you like .. unless you favor those that get confirmed. I wonder how hard it is to keep tossing your faith in god's direction without any confirmation.

Who says that no believers get confirmation? I have.

I don't deny it. But as I see it, that gives you confirmation of something on a par with my faith in the love of my loved ones and my faith in humanity. It doesn't give you access to anything on the order of science or reason. Through faiith, you can confirm that your god loves you, but not that any thing in the bible is true.