There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.
To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.
Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”
LOL! You talk so silly. Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these: 1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened; 2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened; 3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not. In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it. Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth. You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.  1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened 2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did 3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not  This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them. Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do. So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily. If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things. You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god. God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist. You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual. Thanks for more or less agreeing with me. After all, the evidence for the existence of God, is so extremely greater in numbers of magnitudes than evidence for the non-existence of God, that if God doesn't exist, then with an absolute certainty no-God can't exist under any circumstance. Religious health is part of what proves the existence of God.  Same can be applied for the big bang. For example: Let's say that nobody knew anything about trees. Then people started to scientifically investigate things about trees. Atom by atom, molecule by molecule, we started to unravel what a tree is, how it works, why it exists, and everything else we could find out about a tree and trees in general. Regarding Big Bang, all the farther we are in examining it is the idea that it exists. We haven't started to examine the first "atom" or "molecule" so to speak, to see what it is about. We certainly haven't started to apply the things we know about the earth and life to it in any definitive way. We can guess that scientific operations of the earth and life have something to do with BB, but we don't have a scientific clue what the connection might be, or how it would or could work. Same with God, from the scientific standpoint. The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else. Scientists have all kinds of ideas. But there is no scientific knowledge or understanding, at all, about the connection between BB and the earth and life. All science has regarding BB is some math that suggests that it happened... if there isn't something else that messes the math up in some way not yet understood. Nice start for science. But after all, we have to start somewhere, right? The point? If BB is the cause behind the universe (something that science is only guessing at), then BB is God. Let's go to the religious revelations that God gives us about Himself, so that we can bypass a bunch of the laborious scientific examinations, which might take hundreds or thousands of years, and start to really find something out about God. Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical. ''The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else'' So you admit there is no scientific proof for god, ok. ''Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.'' What is religion? Why is religion the key to health or knowledge? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years? |
|
|
|
Oh another ''new'' user with yet another thread about spam, how original...
I don't understand.  New to this, yeah, new to forums, no. I've been active on Quora, Steam forums, Overwatch forums for a super long time now, and as iasenko said, this one is very different to the rest, with heaps of income opportunities. And yet you are about to manage an ICO? give me a break. And why are you so negative about it? The guy is new to this forum. And basically, he does not know about the originality of other threads. Do you have time to read all the threads just to post your idea? If you are here to discourage new members, then get out of this section. And please, stop with your "Oh another user". Not that he has done something wrong. He is not new to the forum and he is definitely not new to bitcoin, don't be dumb. He is new and in a few hours knows there is spam, knows that signature campaigns need escrow, knows about ann threads and is already going to manage an ICO. He is certainly not new here, 99% chance that's an alt account just trying to farm his merits. At least he uses good english but don't lie to me about being new. |
|
|
|
Mostly you said it right when you said that science evolved. Science evolved into the self-recognition that it is way too weak to find out much of anything about God. So it evolved some foolishness that said that the earth and life evolved. This earth is way too complex for science to ever find out how it came into being. And, it is way too marvelous to suggest that it could come into being by accident. The only answer that makes sense is God. ''This earth is way too complex for science to ever find out how it came into being. And, it is way too marvelous to suggest that it could come into being by accident.'' So instead you just going to invent god heh |
|
|
|
Oh another ''new'' user with yet another thread about spam, how original...
I don't understand. New to this, yeah, new to forums, no. I've been active on Quora, Steam forums, Overwatch forums for a super long time now, and as iasenko said, this one is very different to the rest, with heaps of income opportunities. And yet you are about to manage an ICO? give me a break. |
|
|
|
|
Oh another ''new'' user with yet another thread about spam, how original...
|
|
|
|
There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.
To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.
Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”
LOL! You talk so silly. Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these: 1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened; 2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened; 3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not. In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it. Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth. You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual. 1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened 2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did 3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them. Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do. So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily. If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things. You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god. God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist. You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual. Thanks for more or less agreeing with me. After all, the evidence for the existence of God, is so extremely greater in numbers of magnitudes than evidence for the non-existence of God, that if God doesn't exist, then with an absolute certainty no-God can't exist under any circumstance. Religious health is part of what proves the existence of God. Same can be applied for the big bang. |
|
|
|
 . Seems like you are loosing it |
|
|
|
So what are the discoveries? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years?
Religion discovered truth and science " Even we knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by the thousand-year-old faith, the Christian faith which was also Plato's faith, that God is truth; that truth is divine". ~ Friedrich Nietzsche ''Religion discovered truth and science '' Did it really, did god specifically told people in the bible about the scientific method? ''When we had little understanding of our world, we needed something to hold on to, to explain the phenomenons we couldn't understand, so we made up a lot of believe systems, some of which evolved into what we now call religion. This was long before man had any understanding of how to to explain these phenomenons by investigating, experimenting and proving what one thinks. All religion when it was conceived was meant to be peaceful and make people aware of their responsibilities towards one another. Sadly people misused it all the time for all kind of reasons, e.g. to obtain control over the population, power, greed etc. Historically speaking the clergy sadly have often condoned this, or even were active in promoting this misuse of religion. Usually religion requires it's followers to adhere to unproven dogma's, which is OK with me since belief is something that can't be proven, and if it gives you strength and guidance, by all means, follow it. What I object to is the insistance of some to convert the so called non believers, sometimes by coercion or by force. Because of this religion has often in the past stood in the way of scientific advancement, because what scientists found didn't fit the dogma. Just think of Galileo Galilei, who was threatened with a ban when he proposed the view that earth was not the centre of the universe. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal... Everything we have archieved what makes our lives better, more enjoyable and easier has not come to us through religion, like Jon Davis and William Jackson wrote, but through science e.g. technology, economic development, healthcare. Fundamentalistic religion has even made life less enjoyable for it's followers, as enjoying life would be a sin!'' https://www.quora.com/Does-religion-slow-down-human-advancement-in-science-and-technology |
|
|
|
There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.
To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.
Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”
LOL! You talk so silly. Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these: 1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened; 2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened; 3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not. In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it. Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth. You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual. 1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened 2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did 3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them. Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do. So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily. If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things. You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god. God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist. You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual. |
|
|
|
It is true that scientists take certain things on faith. It is also true that religious narratives might speak to human needs that scientific theories can’t hope to satisfy.
And yet, scientific practices—observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life.
Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.
What are you even going on about? If religion hadn't produced results, people would have forgotten about it long ago. One of the most warmongering religions of today - Islam, https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx - has wonderful peace truths in it. These peace truths aren't things that work by accident. They are used because they have been tested out and work. When you consider the Bible, one of the most peaceful of religions, its strength is very great. How do we know? Because the nation of Israel has been around for something like 3,500 years, and is one of the smallest, yet one of the strongest nations today. Do you think such happens by accident? The science of the Bible may not be the same as the science of modern science, but Bible science is stronger. Israel and America and Western Europe are examples of this. Religion is stronger than science, and produces better results, both direct and indirect. The Internet shows this all over the place. The libraries are full of books that show this all over the place. As usual, you are kinda backwards in your thinking. So what are the discoveries? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years? As my previous post that you quoted indicates, all the time-proven remedies for health and wise living are found in religious writings. Why are they found in religion? Because that is where people recorded them when they found that they worked. Religion is the backbone of health... not science. Nature is too complex for modern medicine to build much of any health. Someday maybe. But religious records from the ancient past still work. Even scientists of today are using info found in these records to enhance their capabilities. ''all the time-proven remedies for health and wise living are found in religious writings'' I don't follow your logic, even if indeed those remedies that you have provided no evidence for, work, what do they have to do with religion? Those are things that people took at the time to try to heal themselves, it has nothing to do with religion, did god tell them about the remedies or whats your argument here? ''Nature is too complex for modern medicine to build much of any health.'' I don't get this part either, you are saying our medicine today is not far far far better than it was 2000 years ago? ''Even scientists of today are using info found in these records to enhance their capabilities'' Like what? |
|
|
|
There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.
To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.
Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”
LOL! You talk so silly. Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these: 1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened; 2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened; 3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not. In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it. Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth. You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual. 1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened 2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did 3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not |
|
|
|
It is true that scientists take certain things on faith. It is also true that religious narratives might speak to human needs that scientific theories can’t hope to satisfy.
And yet, scientific practices—observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life.
Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.
What are you even going on about? If religion hadn't produced results, people would have forgotten about it long ago. One of the most warmongering religions of today - Islam, https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx - has wonderful peace truths in it. These peace truths aren't things that work by accident. They are used because they have been tested out and work. When you consider the Bible, one of the most peaceful of religions, its strength is very great. How do we know? Because the nation of Israel has been around for something like 3,500 years, and is one of the smallest, yet one of the strongest nations today. Do you think such happens by accident? The science of the Bible may not be the same as the science of modern science, but Bible science is stronger. Israel and America and Western Europe are examples of this. Religion is stronger than science, and produces better results, both direct and indirect. The Internet shows this all over the place. The libraries are full of books that show this all over the place. As usual, you are kinda backwards in your thinking. So what are the discoveries? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years? |
|
|
|
Wake up sheep, all those planets and "stars" are just holograms, We are living in a dome like the simpsons movie.
 Still waiting for your expertise on why there is a dome or holograms at all. |
|
|
|
Awkward... you can see the curvature in that video lol. |
|
|
|
It is true that scientists take certain things on faith. It is also true that religious narratives might speak to human needs that scientific theories can’t hope to satisfy. And yet, scientific practices—observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life. Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths. There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way. To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth. Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.” It’s better to get a cancer diagnosis from a radiologist than from a Ouija Board.https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/why-scientific-faith-isnt-the-same-as-religious-faith/417357/ |
|
|
|
I think the theory of flat earth is not about proof of truth, but about the engagement of authority. both government authorities and scientific institutions
Usually it's people that have accomplished nothing in their lives and they want to feel special, that's why the claim the earth is flat. |
|
|
|
if you ask the scientific evidence about the existence of god then you already know the answer, for example like yourself, try to think, you are so smart and great, logically there must be other intelligence that created you and that is proof that god exist.
Which god? |
|
|
|
''I agree that rules should follow logic. However, just because we cannot always follow the logic does not mean that the logic is not there. '' It also doesn't mean that there is, why take it for granted? Even if God is real, why follow him if his rules aren't good? If a true benevolent god exists then you wouldn't need to believe in him in order to be saved, in fact atheists that are good people should be valued more than religious people that are good because religious people are good because they know they will go to heaven and they fear hell, however atheists that are good, are good because they want to.
I question the idea that there are any "good people". We grade ourselves on a curve, but the existence of others who are worse then us does not make us good. If we honestly compare ourselves to a true and perfect good each and every one of us would fall horribly short in comparison. The belief in God gives us an ideal to strive towards. With God at least we can define good and from that definition comes a reason to improve ourselves and a goal to strive towards. It gives us an ideal that can never be achieved only approximated. Humans clearly do not deserve an afterlife of any kind. We have not earned one, nor are we in any way fit to inhabit one in our current state. If an afterlife is on offer it could only be through an act of extreme generosity the ultimate charity case. There are certainly atheist's who behave well by relative human standards and there certainly are religious fanatics and hypocrites who behave very badly. Take away the curve and apply an objective standard of good and evil and I am not at all confident where humanity falls on the scale. You argue "If a true benevolent God exists then you wouldn't need to believe in him in order to be saved" This line of thought fails to consider the possibility that the very act of believing in God is transformative. It is possible that it is the act of belief that allows one to be saved not so much via external intervention but from the changes in our essence our souls if you will that become possible once we define our first principles and ground our existence in them. Then I would argue that the act of believing in something is not something I can choose to do. For instance I can't force myself to believe in ghosts and the more videos of ghosts I try to watch the less I believe in them because I see how ridiculous it is. Faith is not a good pathway to the truth, all the other religious people claim to have faith in their own gods and yet they would still get punished if it turns out that the real god is the one described in the bible, what did they do wrong? You always live in faith. Why? Because you don't know with absolute certainty what is going to happen in the next second. So, you live in faith that you will be able to go on successfully. An example of living in faith is someone who gets on a plane. Then the plane crashes, and he finds that his faith was in something that wasn't actual and real. Or consider the person who gets into his car and has faith that he will reach his desired destination. Then he dies in a car crash. Or consider a person who buys a lottery ticket. He never won a thing in his life before. The reason he buys the ticket is that he has a tiny bit of hope, but no faith. The he wins a $million. Most of these people don't realize they are living in faith, but just like you, they are. If you want to know what you did wrong, compare what the Bible says with your life. Yes, it may take a bit of study to get most of it. So you agree that faith is not a good pathway to truth then, just like me. Yes just because someone has faith that a plane wont crash, it doesn't mean it wont and that's exactly my point, just because people have faith in different gods, doesn't mean they exist. Faith is essentially the only way to the truth. Will the plane crash or not? We have faith one way or the other. But whatever our faith is, it leads to the truth. Why? Because the plane crashes or it doesn't. And we see the truth, even if it is only for a moment before we die in the crash. Is faith a good pathway? Look at the things that Coincube has been saying. Coincube has been saying that people are not good, or at least, probably not good I question the idea that there are any "good people". We grade ourselves on a curve, but the existence of others who are worse then us does not make us good. Re-read the rest of it and consider. Who or what is it that has faith? It's people who have faith. So, why would faith be good since it exists in not-good people? Yet because of our weakness in being able to know the future or much of anything, we all live by faith one way or another. I am not like you because my faith is based in God. And in that other thread, I have been showing you how we scientifically know that God exists, through knowledge, not based on faith/believing. While science is not truth (the word is broadly used), it is possibly the second best way that we find truth... provided we make no mistakes in the examination of science. So, what is the best way to find truth? Revelation from God. What is the most assured way to find truth? Live out your faith. And that is what we are all doing, living out our faith, at the same time we are attempting to have faith in the truth rather than in falsehoods and lies. As we live, our faith gradually takes us through experience where we learn the truth. If we are wise, we mostly gain good experience because we follow nature in ways that work. And according to some parts of the definition of "religion," we are living out our personal religion as we go through our life of faith. Wisdom in our religious faith life provides greater health, and ultimately salvation, if we find the best wisdom. Religion and health go hand in hand, but they both work in us by faith. ''Faith is essentially the only way to the truth. Will the plane crash or not? We have faith one way or the other. But whatever our faith is, it leads to the truth. Why? Because the plane crashes or it doesn't. And we see the truth, even if it is only for a moment before we die in the crash.'' What? Even if you had no faith one way or the other the plane would still crash or not, you find out because you are there, you don't need faith to find it if the plane is going to crash lol, faith is meaningless, I have faith it wont crash but it does, meaning that having faith in something doesn't mean that something is going to happen. |
|
|
|
Even if we are able to choose what to believe, how can you know if it's the right thing then? ''Our current situation allows us to freely choose God or reject God.'' Our current situation allows us to freely choose between a few hundred Gods, pick one and reject all the others, again I don't see how can I know which one is real.
I was a strong believer when I was younger and certainly even when a lot of evidence was presented against my belief, I still wanted to believe in God, who wouldnt? Eventually I just couldn't believe anymore because of how much evidence I kept finding and how the bible made less and less sense to me, I prayed to god many many times to give me a clue, some proof of his existence, guess what, nothing happened...
Had you been given that direct proof it would have been at the cost of your freedom to choose and define who you are. You would no longer be a free and autonomous agent but a passive one your beliefs compelled your will largely suppressed by something greater then yourself. The situation is more subtle then simply picking one religion and rejecting the rest as false. Accepting for a moment the reality of the infinite it follows logically that all human conceptions of God and consequentially all religions must be "wrong" in that they are at best distorted reflections of underlying Truth. At most they are akin to an explanation of quantum mechanics given to 4 year old and even this example understates the vast chasm between reality and our understanding. The choice then is not choosing which religion is right but choosing which religion represents the least distorted simplification. The purpose of the Bible as I understand it is to be a functional and transformative document. It must "work" for both illiterate tribal societies who lived in conditions we cannot imagine, for modern educated man, and for a future humanity vastly more sophisticated then we are. The broad range of conditions sharply reduces the way knowledge can be conceptualized in the book. There are many aspect of the Bible that appear designed to be easily grasped by a simplistic and primitive man. These can be less persuasive to modern sensibilities. However, there is also a massive depth to both the concept of God and to the Bible itself. Its like a fractal and the deeper the examination the more one realizes how subtle and complex the overall structure is. The Bible series by Jordan Peterson does a nice job of highlighting this complexity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2wHere is a question for you to ponder: In a world shaped and and ultimately defined at all levels by consciousness when does a Truth that cannot now or ever be falsified become your reality? ''Had you been given that direct proof it would have been at the cost of your freedom to choose and define who you are.'' Absolutely wrong, that's like saying if someone gives me direct proof that the earth is round he is taking my freedom away to choose between a flat earth or a round earth. Also many religious people claim that god himself appeared to them so, wouldn't that take their freedom away by your logic? I'm not sure I understand your last question, english is not my first language (it's my third and I'm still learning) and philosophical talk is hard for me to understand. At the end of the day I can make all sorts of claims that cannot be falsified, right now at least. Like there is life outside our galaxy. I personally think that there is no point in believing any of the claims, specially big ones if they can't be falsified or proven for that matter. |
|
|
|
Earth is flat. Ok. What about the moon and other planets?
Lights in the sky, images projected off of a mirrored dome. The Sun, Moon, stars and planets are all holograms. And they are holograms to do what exactly, what is the purpose of having all of those things then? Why are those things projected and why are they projected in a way that would seem like they circle around earth, is it to deceive us into believing the earth is round? Can you really not understand why there's a light show and not just a formless void? Without the Jews cramming the globe down your throat 24/7 since birth nobody in their right mind would believe we're on a spinning ball; the globe has to be forced by twisting the facts and manufacturing evidence. No, explain it to me, please. Why is there light but only in some places instead of just light and no light everywhere? Why make it like that, if you are going to somehow project a sun for some reason, why do it in a way that would indicate the earth is round? Why not light up the whole earth at once? You didnt' answer any question by the way. You still haven't answered the questions or the easy experiment with 3 holes to prove the earth isn't flat and the sun is actually far away, dishonest as usual. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
