An argument against Adam and Eve

[Emanuel]

Faith is the belief in something not in evidence.

http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html

[orogenicman]

Faith is the belief in something not in evidence.

http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html

Really? Your counter argument is a cartoon? Really?

Sorry, chap, I know a lot of religious types have real issues with academia, but you don't get to make up your own definitions to words,and then expect people to understand what you are saying, much less take you seriously.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith


1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

If you had evidence or proof, you wouldn't need to have faith.

[Tiberius]

Not to mention, the entire video doesn't actually deal with what any of us have said here, but rather what Mark Twain once said.

If people saw the empty tomb, saw Jesus resurrected, etc, then they would be basing their beliefs on evidence, and not faith. However, you have not seen the empty tomb, nor have you seen Jesus resurrected; you've only read about these in a book which contains multiple contradictions and historical inaccuracies. This is why your beliefs are based on faith and not evidence; all the "evidence" you've seen is merely hearsay.

[Anymouse]

My God has a great love for me, I see it in my life, experience it every day. He loves you too Cinjin whether you like it or not, your thoughts and disbelief about God changes nothing about his nature and it is His nature to love all of mankind.
As far as adding nothing new don't need to when it's the truth, truth can and does stand on it's own.

You are right; truth does normally stand on its own, except when it is suppressed. Propaganda works well that way.

Other than a book which its own adherents admit has been -ah- "mistranslated," you have no more proof the things you see in your life are the works of your God, chance, random individuals, my own gods, or anything else.

I could base a religion on any number of clearly fictional novels (wait, that's already been done, for example Robert A Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land"). That doesn't make the claims of those religious "proof" because they have a book (and Heinlein disavowed those folk at Green Egg anyway).

The one thing that many Christians desire to show is "they have proof." Of course, Thomas was rebuked for requiring it. Since, regardless of the particular flavour of Christianity, the basis of the Faithful is the Bible, the proof must be there. Not that it is a book (it is), nor that it is old (it is that too), but that it details facts.

There is no proof for that. There can never be proof for that. And in the moment someone were to demonstrate that all, or at least a substantial part, of the Bible were factual, it would cease in that instant being faith and religious belief, and become science.

The whole point of faith is believing without proof. No one alive to-day was around during Eden, or the Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or the life and times of Jesus; and not a shred of evidence exists for any of these events. Or ten thousand other events in the Old and New Testaments. What exists is summed up in the rebuke to Thomas: John 20:24-29.

Scepticism and proof are to be eschewed: blessed are those who believe without seeing, without proof. Trying to present "proof" on such a forum as this, or anyplace else, is a slap in the face to Jesus's lesson to Thomas.

There is a small problem with that, aside from the religious aspects: someone who will believe without proof, if not very careful, can be led to believe anything, couched in the right language and citing the right authority. For once you accept a single logical fallacy (knowledge without evidence), other logical fallacies (appeal to authority, non-sequituers, &c.) become that much easier, and your "God-given reason" becomes nothing more than the thing you trust least.

And, my understanding according to Christian doctrine, is that God created mankind. That would include mankind's reason. Nowhere in Genesis (or anywhere else) does it mention God's enemy having anything to do with the creation of humankind.

To deny your reason and logic is to deny the very gifts you claim come from your God. Would that not be the same as denying God himself?

(Of course, that is not an unpardonable sin, only denying the Holy Spirit, according to the NT, but that comes dangerously close.)

If you truly believe that humanity is meant to glorify God, why would trying to understand that creation of his through the tools he gave not do him that glory? I have never understood that part of Christianity, and I doubt I will ever have it satisfactorily explained.

James

[The Grand Nudger]

Intellectual surrender seems a strange gift to offer the creator of the human mind, I agree.

[Killman]

(3rd August 2011 08:16)Godschild Wrote:  My God has a great love for me, I see it in my life, experience it every day. He loves you too Cinjin whether you like it or not, your thoughts and disbelief about God changes nothing about his nature and it is His nature to love all of mankind.As far as adding nothing new don't need to when it's the truth, truth can and does stand on it's own.

According to the bible, your god hates: Homosexuals, people belonging to different religions (About %70 of the worlds population), witches, bastards, and many other people.

And after they did just one wrong, Adam and Eve. Your gods a mean guy.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Your god's a mean guy.

Is that British understatement for 'complete cunt' ?

[Anymouse]

Your god's a mean guy.

Is that British understatement for 'complete cunt' ?

No need to insult female genitalia. That should be worshiped. And it used to be, until Astarte's worshipers' were forcibly -ah- "re-educated" (slaughtered).

[KichigaiNeko]

Astarte??? Ishtar?? My favourite of all the goddesses we have dreamed up.

'You can be riding high on that sow's back until suddenly you find yourself in the mud alongside her.'

[DeistPaladin]

No need to insult female genitalia. That should be worshiped. And it used to be, until Astarte's worshipers' were forcibly -ah- "re-educated" (slaughtered).
[/font]

There's so much in our swears and expletives that indicate such a sexually repressed culture. One would think "fucked up" would be a good thing.