RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective

RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

maryluv779 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 9:58:05 AM)
I am looking for someone who not only shares some of the same likes that I do, but also brings with him new things for us to share together. Fitness is an important part of my world, and I hope that you would share that same importance. I am looking for that special man who not only wants to share his world, but also his heart. I would like for him to not only enjoy being openly affectionate, but to also not mind that I am that way.

atursvcMaam -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 10:01:36 AM)
[;)] exactly.

RCdc -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 10:02:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Presumably, though, you subscribe to certain morals dictated by a belief in god? Have to say, nope. Now whether that is because my faith comes from me and not some indoctrinated occurance when I was younger, or the fact that I don't believe that morality is based on belief on any god, but based on peoples interpretations and own 'yuck' code - the jury is still out on that. I don't get people who follow some moral code or doctrine just because that is what your supposed to do. I have faith - I tend to identify as a disciple rather than 'christian' - and one thing that people tend to skip over is that doesn't matter how many hail marys you speak, and how morally grand you might be, if you don't feel them in your heart, it's a waste of time. the.dark.

RCdc -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 10:05:00 AM)
Have your read 'Jesus and the Goddess' fluffy? the.dark.

Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 10:05:37 AM)
quote: but then i'm stuck in a series of dichotomies anyway. Well, that is the whole point, isn't it? What do they say about the mind that cannot entertain two opposing points of view? Or the label for thinkers who cannot deal with paradox? Following the scientific method does not neccessarily rule out having spiritual faith regarding that not yet explained by science, particularly in an each to their own manner, but it is often the case that the blind faith demanded of religion insists that everyone else including science, must be wrong. That's why my first post in this thread was to comment on the use of fallacious tactics by both sides. Hardly neccessary if one is 'twuly' right...[:D]

NorthernGent -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 10:07:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Presumably, though, you subscribe to certain morals dictated by a belief in god? Have to say, nope. Now whether that is because my faith comes from me and not some indoctrinated occurance when I was younger, or the fact that I don't believe that morality is based on belief on any god, but based on peoples interpretations and own 'yuck' code - the jury is still out on that. I don't get people who follow some moral code or doctrine just because that is what your supposed to do. I have faith - I tend to identify as a disciple rather than 'christian' - and one thing that people tend to skip over is that doesn't matter how many hail marys you speak, and how morally grand you might be, if you don't feel them in your heart, it's a waste of time. the.dark. Fair enough. I stand corrected. I offer my purse full of silver as a consequence of this minor disagreement.

fluffyswitch -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 10:08:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Following the scientific method does not neccessarily rule out having spiritual faith regarding that not yet explained by science, particularly in an each to their own manner, but it is often the case that the blind faith demanded of religion insists that everyone else including science, must be wrong. no but it does make it a lot harder--for a lot of the reasons that people have stated on this thread. as a scientist, even a 'soft' science like sociology, you're not supposed to believe in anything you can't measure or observe. how do you observe the goddess? how do you 'find' the spark of divinity i believe we all carry? but then i take it all with a grain of salt anyway so it doesn't really matter what that stupid scientific method tells me, i'm not a soc student 24/7.

RCdc -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 10:11:38 AM)
[:)] the.dark.

fluffyswitch -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 10:11:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Have your read 'Jesus and the Goddess' fluffy? the.dark. nope but i think it's on the list. i have a 47 page long wishlist on half.com right now lol.

joanus -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 10:17:07 AM)
First of Churro your taking a big chance there. Weather or not the jewdaoh-christion-muslim God exists is an unprovable fact, therefor plasable. Now as for those of other religions (and yes every one is religionsis). Weather there is or isn't a all-knowing-all-powerfully entity the likly hood of some controling the balance in the universe is quite an old topic one that I plan to tackle to day. First of all agnostics & atheists believe there is no higher power for one of serverall reasons. 1 the most come are the " Im atheist because I say I am" these are generally kids for the most part just looking for attetion, pay them no mind. 2 The "There is no God because my life is in shambles" atheist believes there is not higher power because they refuse to take responsoblity for their own choices which lend them into this horrible state. 3 The "I control my own destiny"atheist (my favorite kind) Are the ones with big egos that try to think that they are the hotest shot that ever walked. (most end up killing them selves after becomeing "There is no God because my life is in shambles" atheists.) Elevotionists are simply robots that believe what ever is told to them. Yes there is plenty of evidince to sugest that we evolved from animals plus the fossil record. But the is mush to disprove that as well, for example places where the fossil record is completely out of whack. Also humans are chemicly closer related to pigs than apes, and even closer related to Chickens that pigs. In fact in germany some sciencists feralized a human eybreo with chicken sperm, all experaments with monkey and pig jism failed. Another unprovable probablity. Funny how human beings delude and fool themselves so they cannot see just how deep the shit is that they are in. Now other various religions like Paganism and Wicca are simply kids looking for either an excuse for how they live their lives or exeptance , usually to a gourp of similar misfits. Now the big question, Do I believe in a God? No not the Breaded guy in the white robe kind. nor really and homnin type figure. Because humans are flawed and so are the Gods they create(see any history book). But I do believe there is something maybe not a sentient being but there is some cosmic fulcrum that keep our world in balance.

Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 10:24:11 AM)
quote: as a scientist, even a 'soft' science like sociology, you're not supposed to believe in anything you can't measure or observe. That goes back to the label for a thinker who cannot deal with paradox... Kierkegaard calls them 'professors'... but the scientists I know almost all believe in something unexplainable by science or unsupported by logic...be it love, or the divinity of Jerry Garcia, or the Democratic party platform.[;)]

fluffyswitch -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 10:25:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado .. Kierkegaard calls them 'professors'... but the scientists I know almost all believe in something unexplainable by science or unsupported by logic...be it love, or the divinity of Jerry Garcia, or the Democratic party platform.[;)] LOL

MadRabbit -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 11:08:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado That goes back to the label for a thinker who cannot deal with paradox... Kierkegaard calls them 'professors'... but the scientists I know almost all believe in something unexplainable by science or unsupported by logic...be it love, or the divinity of Jerry Garcia, or the Democratic party platform.[;)] I tend to agree with Alumbrado's viewpoints and its a perfect explanation for why I have an axe to grind against the concept of faith. There is nothing wrong with forming spiritual beliefs in the absence of evidence, but the statement "Faith requires no proof" tends to carry with it a large dark side. The dark side being that any proof or question or challenge that might prove the belief wrong is met with ignorance, resistance, offense, and in many cases, violence. The extreme of "absolute true, can't be wrong" faith has created a genre of people who have been kicking and screaming with their fingers in their ears as science and free thinkers have been dragging them forward into new understandings and advancements. The fates of Galileo or Thomas Paine can attest to that.

SubbieOnWheels -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 11:32:07 AM)
I haven't read this whole thread, but I just want to say this: I believe in God because things have happened in my life for which only the existence of a Higher Power make sense to me.I choose to call this Higher Power God, and I pray to Her regularly. I also attend organized worship services in order to enjoy the fellowship of others who believe as I do. I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ because they make sense to me. After all, a guy who walked on water, healed the sick, and raised the dead has to have something going for him. And I'm not going to argue about whether he did those things, or whether he even existed, because that has no bearing on the way I live my life. Who's going to get the big surprise after they die? I don't know, and as far as I've heard, neither does anyone else. I don't live as I do because I'm afraid of what will (or won't) happen after death; I live my life to bless everyone I can because that's the way to treat other human beings. Faith and religion are two different and (sadly) separate things.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 11:33:34 AM)
Belief in the absence of any evidence, for or against == Faith. Belief in the face of contradicting evidence == Delusion

DomKen -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 1:52:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joanus snip poorly spelled drivel So now you're an expert on atheists? and apprently evolutionary biology and fertility. I'm a 41 year old atheist. I've lived as an atheist quite happily since the age of 9. As to your claims on evolution, refs please. I'm so utterly confident that you're lieing that I'll right now predict that you won't provide a single verifiable source of any kind.

joanus -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 2:57:26 PM)
There are so many holes in the evolutional theroy. But ok fine here is one hole in evolution. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html I would recomend you the Proverb of "It is better to keep you mouth shut and let people think you are and idiot, rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." If you used the internet like most people do you could look up this info for yourself. PS I didn't list all of the holes because it would take forever. PPS Church of Atheism founded in Texas (1980-1999 I think) was a crock. If you look it up who will find that the O'Hair woman who founded it was taking the donations (somewhere up in the millions) and putting them in a Swiss Bank acount and was planning to run off along with her Daughter and son-in-law (?) but where murdered before they could skip town. Irony or divine retrobution?

Wildfleurs -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 3:01:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro I tried thinking of an analogy that would perfectly explain how agnostics or atheists perceive people of faith. While it is admittedly ethnocentric, the best likeness with which I could come up was the belief in Santa Claus. Do you remember how when you were really young your parents had you believing in Santa Claus? Every Xmas you would scurry off to bed early on Xmas eve worried that if you didn't get to sleep quickly enough Santa might pass you by. For some reason it was the case that Santa always had to perform his acts of generosity unobserved. This Santa situation continued in just that way for a few years probably. Then came the day that an older sibling or friend sprang the truth upon you: Santa Claus didn't exist! You denied this obvious falsehood - they couldn't fool you. Of course, Santa existed. He left gifts, right? He ate the cookies you left for him, right? Didn't you hear him performing his tasks late on Xmas eve? There had to be an explanation. So one day you stayed up and waited for Santa - to see him at last. Maybe you dozed for a while that Xmas eve. But the minute you heard those Santa noises you woke with a start and crept out of your room and down the hall to see who was there for real. And didn't you see your Mom and Dad wrapping and arranging gifts? Gifts seem to be coming out of everywhere - cupboards, closets, from under the sofa, dad was even rolling a bicycle in from the garage outside. But no Santa. Santa seemed to have no part in this. You made sure to check what sorts of things were being placed under the tree so you wouldn't forget the next morning. Maybe there would be something new there - proof of Santa's visit to your house. And the next day, your worst fears were confirmed for you. You opened your gifts happily enough. But there was nothing that was not there the night before - purposefully placed there by your parents. Deceitfully placed there, you now knew. Maybe some days afterward you mentioned to your mom that you no longer believed in Santa Claus. In this manner you let your parents know that they had been made. The jig was up! No more Santa for you. For most of us non-believers - we agnostics and atheists - the rest of you "believers" seem exactly like children that still believe in Santa Claus. Sadly, you don't get the joke that's been played on you. There is no grey-bearded man in the sky awaiting you, no paradise of an afterlife, no great reward at the end of your days. Did no one inform you of this obvious fact? You still maintain that this hilarious illusion is true? Did you never notice that god never showed up for any of his supposed miracles, it was only ever just the people around you - or maybe just the local preacher of a nun? That the grape juice never really did turn into wine? That the bread was bread and not made into flesh? Well, that's how I see it anyway. Belief is wonderfully entertaining, comforting, and inspiring while it lasts. And then you grow up to the truths about life. Many of us do at any rate. I've never understood why agnostics and athiests have to be so insulting towards people that have spiritual or religious beliefs. It seems horribly obnoxious and short sighted (not to mention ironically intolerant). C~

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 3:01:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 He does not state "there is no proof"--he states "there is...no great reward at the end of your days...." and presents it as "obvious fact." That is well removed from the indeterminate posture that is the hallmark of agnosticism. Fair enough. But like my Santa Claus analogy no one has stepped up and shown me their god; so while I can't prove the negative, the positive proof for the existence of God is also absent. Like Dawkins, I also see a kind of continuum of philosophical positions between agnosticism and atheism. Certainly there is more of a connection between these two idea than between agnosticism and faith. The connection is simply this: in the absence of any evidence in support of a specific idea of god there is no reason to believe in god. Am I therefore slipping away from agnosticism? Not really, as I am still open to proof about god. At the same time, there is no reason to ignore the pragmatic uses of empirical knowledge and the various successes of science. In fact, an open mind and a healthy skepticism are also earmarks of the scientific process. So, to be perfectly fair, I am an agnostic with atheistic leanings. As to the question of whether god exists, I simply say: show me. That seems fair to me too. ----- BTW, Rule claims to have some kind of non-empirical method to show spiritual truths, but nothing has been offered as of yet. I'm really not discounting experiences like his or that of LadyEllen, I am just acknowledging - as they also must acknowledge - that there is no way to communicate this knowledge such that it will be believed by anyone else because of the obvious lack of empirical evidence. That such experiences are probably biochemical occurrences in the brain or body is something that I think science is very close to showing is exactly the case, from a theoretical perspective. I once saw a TV program in which they mapped brain activities during religious experiences and found it very helpful. So I joke about this stuff, but I do respect that people are having some kind of meaningful experience - at least to them. If people share a feel good religious experience, it doesn't provide any truth value their to their shared beliefs, it is simply proof of a shared feel good experience - the thing itself, only the thing itself, and not also something else.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/5/2008 3:11:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NotAnExit2 I believe that God is the universe, and complex interactions of matter and energy such as ourselves are nodes of God's consciousness, the thoughts and dreams of God. That's very like some ideas I've read about in connection to zen buddhism. Although I have also read a good description of a holographic universe of which we are all parts containing an image of the whole while the whole also contains an image of all its constituent parts. Beautiful ideas even if there is no real data either way.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875