.

[nimda]

Faith is belief without evidence or proof. Belief is the acceptance of what you understand. Belief is not necessarily truth.
Scientists have faith that dark matter exists. Galaxies are held in place by mass they can't see. The so called mass holding galaxies in place is not necessarily dark matter.

Interestingly, however, we have a large amount of evidence suggesting the existence of dark matter. We can't see it, but it fits in with the theories and has perceivable effects on the universe. Think "magnet in a box:" you can't see the magnet inside, but you can certainly see that iron filings are attracted to the box. The magnetic field it creates leads you to assume that there is a magnet inside the box. This is wildly different than most religious beliefs.

[1714008692]

1714008692

[1714008692]

1714008692

[1714008692]

1714008692

[1714008692]

1714008692

[1714008692]

1714008692

[myrkul]

Faith is belief without evidence or proof. Belief is the acceptance of what you understand. Belief is not necessarily truth.
Scientists have faith that dark matter exists. Galaxies are held in place by mass they can't see. The so called mass holding galaxies in place is not necessarily dark matter.

Interestingly, however, we have a large amount of evidence suggesting the existence of dark matter. We can't see it, but it fits in with the theories and has perceivable effects on the universe. Think "magnet in a box:" you can't see the magnet inside, but you can certainly see that iron filings are attracted to the box. The magnetic field it creates leads you to assume that there is a magnet inside the box. This is wildly different than most religious beliefs.

But maybe.... just maybe... "dark matter" is just God's will that the universe has the shape it does.

[nimda]

And maybe there is no magnet in a box; God just attracts iron filings to the box in the exact manner that a magnet would. For practical purposes, it's better to "believe" that there's a magnet there though, especially when it behaves like a magnet in every way that you test it.

[JoelKatz]

And if you want to bring good or evil into this good luck that a whole another debate in it self. For an atheist that only believes in what he sees there is no such thing as good or bad -- its just what is there. lol

Are you even reading what I'm writing? Seriously.

Just because suicide bombers had a religious belief doesn't mean that all religious people are evil,

Yes, it does, and I explained why. You can either address my argument or not, but please don't pretend to address it when you haven't. There is no rational way to decide what to believe in without evidence. If you endorse believing only some things without evidence, that's not even coherent.

just as if all those suicide bombers would have yelled "In the name of NO GOD I KILL YOU ALL" then blow up the place... would be equally as bad.

So the fact that you can come up with something just as evil as faith means ... what? Nothing at all.

Faith has nothing to do with actions, your actions have to do with actions.

No, that is simply not true. The people who hijacked airliners filled with people and flew them into buildings did so because of their faith. The faith was a cause of their actions and led directly to them. If you support their faith, you either have to endorse hyprocrisy (you shouldn't do what you believe is right) or you have to support their actions.

True reality in your perspective says "We are just what science proves to be", with this kind of thinking in mind, I suicide bombers would even have a better excuse to kill people.... "WE ARE JUST ATOMS HERE IS THE PROOF!!!" -- BOOOM.

Look, I can make any argument, call it X. You can respond, "Some crazy person can say 'X therefore I will kill you all'". But that misses the point. While any view can be distorted to support suicide bombing, some views actually in fact endorse suicide bombing. Suicide bombing is the logical consequence of some beliefs, such as the belief that if you think (without any rational evidence) that god wants you to do something, you should do it. We should condemn the latter, not the former.

I'm asking you joelkatz whats the difference between faith and action or no-faith and action?

The difference is that one is an evil attributable to faith. Faith is the evil that caused the former. If we got rid of faith, would other evils still cause evil actions? Of course. This argument is kind of like "why put murderers in jail, child molesters will still abuse children".

Do you know any suicide bombers that surely believe in a faith that asks them to blow them selves up and they actually did it or is all your information on faith and suicide bombers based on what you read or hear about in the news or a friend? In my perspective, if you've never actually experienced the whole thing go down you are basing your "Scientific reality" on the faith of another person accuracy of reporting accurate news and concluding that those with faith are comparable to suicide bombers, if you've never experienced it your self then you are believing with your faith that what you are reading about suicide bombers are all true and accurate.

I don't think I will ever fix your crazy misconceptions. When you read or hear something, you are reading it with your own eyes and hearing it with your own ears. You are actually experiencing things. There aren't different types of experience -- it's all sensation and it's all (in principle) equally direct and equally indirect.

[Xenland]

Well I can agree to disagree, but i think we can all agree we high-jacked this thread.

[nimda]

Religion was mentioned on the internet. What did you expect?

[Xenland]

Religion was mentioned on the internet. What did you expect?

Yeah its alot eaiser to discuss with out the restricted perception of text this is a weird form of discussion if you ask me haha

[RodeoX]

Why would you think it's fake? It's just a guy on the street who doesn't know anything about his religion. I would not be surprised if 25% of Christians got this answer wrong.Ii mean he's not asking a priest or a history professor.

look at this: http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/260-most-american-christians-do-not-believe-that-satan-or-the-holy-spirit-exis

[finkleshnorts]

Been following this thread, but just now got around to watching the first video.

I don't think it's a staged video. However, I don't know any Christian (Catholic or otherwise) who thinks of Mohammed has a prophet.

This guy is Islam's Ray Comfort. It's disheartening to see somebody be this easily and wilfully manipulated. I have little tolerance for these kinds of underhanded evangelistic tactics. Semantic tricks and appeals to pathos.

Disclosure: Raised Church of Christ, now atheist. Surprised to see so many atheists here. I know like 2 IRL

[RodeoX]

Disclosure: Raised Church of Christ, now atheist. Surprised to see so many atheists here. I know like 2 IRL

You may know more than you think. Since we are not looking for converts it may just not come up in conversation.

[amencon]

Xenland you seem to fall for the surprisingly commonly held fallacy that if we don't know something %100 then all possibilities are equally likely.

I don't see how we could ever know anything %100.  Anything, ever.

The best we can ever do is pick the most likely answer based on evidence.  The realization that this answer may change based on further evidence makes it a stronger "conclusion" rather than a weaker one.  %100 belief in something almost certainly wrong is much "worse" than high % belief in something most likely to be right.

Some things are so overwhelmingly likely it is no longer productive to continue questioning it, these are what we call "truths" or "facts".  When I say I know the sun will rise tomorrow (or even better that it actually exists at all), technically what a I mean is that the probability that the sun won't rise tomorrow (or doesn't exist) is so remote that it would be absurd to acknowledge it as a possibility and introduce it to an argument or conversation.

I think most atheists don't really believe they know for certain that god(s) doesn't exist, since that is something that can't be known, just that based on all evidence we do have, it's not a worthy possibility for consideration.  One thing I find insulting about religious people is their claim to KNOW something that CAN'T be known, how freaking arrogant is that.

A lot of the draw of religion lies in the comfort people take in living in a Black and White world when it's really all Grays.  People don't want to admit to themselves they don't know anything for certain so they choose to believe they know instead.

Sorry for the bit of ramble, all things being equal why wouldn't you believe in what appears to be most likely after accepting that we can't know anything for absolute certain.  What reasoning or logic leads you to believe in things so bizarre and improbable?  Why choose to give fanciful ridiculous beliefs equal footing with beliefs at least partially backed by and consistent with observations?  Thanks.

[JoelKatz]

The best we can ever do is pick the most likely answer based on evidence.

We can actually do a bit better than that. Rather than picking the most likely answer, we can simply accept that we have a variety of possible answers with varying likelihoods. While we may have to pick one course of action, we never have to pick one explanation. We can pick the single likely best course of action without accepting that the explanation that justifies that action is necessarily correct.

The realization that this answer may change based on further evidence makes it a stronger "conclusion" rather than a weaker one.  %100 belief in something almost certainly wrong is much "worse" than high % belief in something most likely to be right.

Right. And, ideally, we always keep our conclusions tied to the facts that justified accepting them and the extent to which we accepted them. That way, if we discover new information or discover our old information was in error, we can correct our beliefs appropriately.

Sorry for the bit of ramble, all things being equal why wouldn't you believe in what appears to be most likely after accepting that we can't know anything for absolute certain.

You needn't do that. You can believe everything true to the extent the evidence justifies that belief. You can even believe that conflicting possibilities each have significant chances of being true.

That reasoning or logic leads you to believe in things so bizarre and improbable?  Why choose to give fanciful ridiculous beliefs equal footing with beliefs at least partially backed by and consistent with observations?  Thanks.

Well that's the question, isn't it? "Nobody can perfectly prove anything so I can believe and do whatever I want" isn't rational.

[amencon]

The best we can ever do is pick the most likely answer based on evidence.

We can actually do a bit better than that. Rather than picking the most likely answer, we can simply accept that we have a variety of possible answers with varying likelihoods. While we may have to pick one course of action, we never have to pick one explanation. We can pick the single likely best course of action without accepting that the explanation that justifies that action is necessarily correct.

The realization that this answer may change based on further evidence makes it a stronger "conclusion" rather than a weaker one.  %100 belief in something almost certainly wrong is much "worse" than high % belief in something most likely to be right.

Right. And, ideally, we always keep our conclusions tied to the facts that justified accepting them and the extent to which we accepted them. That way, if we discover new information or discover our old information was in error, we can correct our beliefs appropriately.

Sorry for the bit of ramble, all things being equal why wouldn't you believe in what appears to be most likely after accepting that we can't know anything for absolute certain.

You needn't do that. You can believe everything true to the extent the evidence justifies that belief. You can even believe that conflicting possibilities each have significant chances of being true.

That reasoning or logic leads you to believe in things so bizarre and improbable?  Why choose to give fanciful ridiculous beliefs equal footing with beliefs at least partially backed by and consistent with observations?  Thanks.

Well that's the question, isn't it? "Nobody can perfectly prove anything so I can believe and do whatever I want" isn't rational.

Good points, reading back over it not sure why I formed my position on the premise of only having a singular belief when in fact it would be more accurate to look at it reversed where I actually believe everything to varying degrees.

[nimda]

come on Christians  , dont let the atheists take over the thread, do you think the videos are fake/ambush/manipulative ?

http://youtu.be/tI3BQJ-E9jA , i want christian opinion of this video

You've been answered. They weren't "real Christians." That's the answer. Cut away all the atheist talk and that's your consistent answer.

[JoelKatz]

You've been answered. They weren't "real Christians." That's the answer. Cut away all the atheist talk and that's your consistent answer.

Also, the guy was tricked by dishonest manipulation. If such videos don't exist where Muslims are converted to Christians, one could just as well conclude that Christians aren't as willing to use deception to gain converts as Muslims are. (Though it doesn't matter. That guy will probably be a Jew next month and a Scientologist three months later.)

[rjk]

come on Christians  , dont let the atheists take over the thread, do you think the videos are fake/ambush/manipulative ?

http://youtu.be/tI3BQJ-E9jA , i want christian opinion of this video

You've been answered. They weren't "real Christians." That's the answer. Cut away all the atheist talk and that's your consistent answer.

you only looked at 1 or 2 video , I actually want to discuss/talk with Christians and look at many other videos , but thanks  for your participation

You will find very few Christians here, and those that are don't want to discuss religion with a hardcore muslim. No offense intended.

[finkleshnorts]

Disclosure: Raised Church of Christ, now atheist. Surprised to see so many atheists here. I know like 2 IRL

You may know more than you think. Since we are not looking for converts it may just not come up in conversation.

I hope so!

[removed]

[nimda]

Disclosure: Raised Church of Christ, now atheist. Surprised to see so many atheists here. I know like 2 IRL

You may know more than you think. Since we are not looking for converts it may just not come up in conversation.

I hope so!

But, I live in a very strange and homogeneous town that only exists because of the die-hard christians who flock here. If you ever lived in central Arkansas, you probably know exactly which town I am talking about

Lol
Did you know that nearly half of all Americans don't "believe" in evolution? (I quote "believe" because it's not a belief; it's a scientific theory [don't get me started on how the word "theory"] which can be disproven)

[RodeoX]

Remember when the world was flat because we all "believed" it? 

By the way, this is not a Muslim thing. I think he is copying this from a Christian show I have seen on TV. It's by some washed-up child actor who goes around "converting" people on the street. He asks a dimwit some leading questions that prove you are really a Christian. 

[RodeoX]

Remember when the world was flat because we all "believed" it? 

By the way, this is not a Muslim thing. I think he is copying this from a Christian show I have seen on TV. It's by some washed-up child actor who goes around "converting" people on the street. He asks a dimwit some leading questions that prove you are really a Christian. 

i'd like to see that, if you could post some links please, thanks

Found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6F-8tzjAu8

The actor is Kirk Cameron