Why Agnosticism is the right choice.

[Jimmy_Jam]

Here is the entire definition from the link above.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Since it is now obvious that the real chain of events is that you and ima are the ones that are ignoring the dictionary I expect you will pretend to have the high ground and insist I am lying.

Thank you for providing all senses.

I don't see a single one of them that contradicts the second sense in any meaningful way. I don't think you are a liar, because I fully have "faith" that you believe what you say, or ascribe to a different version of faith than most people. "Faith" is pretty synonymous with trust in that which is not supported by material evidence. You're not really denying that, are you?

No, you just don't understand English.

So bag, Christians don't believe without proof? Turn to page 1 of the bible, what's your proof that the world was made in 6 days?

Are you replying to me or Quantum? You do realize that I am in agreement with your premise on the meaning of faith, yes?

 

[The Irish Ram]

I can think of one good reason not to be an agnostic:
1. “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” Revelation 3:16 ...

Instead of admitting, "I have no knowledge", wouldn't you be better off obtaining some knowledge?
The Greeks would have labeled your handicap "profound" on a Binet Scale.


2 Tim 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I can think of one good reason not to be an agnostic:
1. “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” Revelation 3:16 ...

Instead of admitting, "I have no knowledge", wouldn't you be better off obtaining some knowledge?
The Greeks would have labeled your handicap "profound" on a Binet Scale.


2 Tim 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

This is not intended to prove anything, just to offer my opinion on the Book of Revelations as similar to what the great Thomas Jefferson said about it in 1825 when he called it "merely the ravings of a maniac no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

Other than that, then yes, if one considers the Bible the word of our Creator, then agnosticism would not be a good thing to be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ya, because all the dictionaries in the world are wrong and you're right. Ok Einstein.

So Christians don't believe without proof? Turn to page 1 of the bible, what's your proof that the world was made in 6 days?

Here is the entire definition from the link above.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Since it is now obvious that the real chain of events is that you and ima are the ones that are ignoring the dictionary I expect you will pretend to have the high ground and insist I am lying.

Thank you for providing all senses.

I don't see a single one of them that contradicts the second sense in any meaningful way. I don't think you are a liar, because I fully have "faith" that you believe what you say, or ascribe to a different version of faith than most people. "Faith" is pretty synonymous with trust in that which is not supported by material evidence. You're not really denying that, are you?

Of course you don't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here is the entire definition from the link above.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Since it is now obvious that the real chain of events is that you and ima are the ones that are ignoring the dictionary I expect you will pretend to have the high ground and insist I am lying.

Thank you for providing all senses.

I don't see a single one of them that contradicts the second sense in any meaningful way. I don't think you are a liar, because I fully have "faith" that you believe what you say, or ascribe to a different version of faith than most people. "Faith" is pretty synonymous with trust in that which is not supported by material evidence. You're not really denying that, are you?

No, you just don't understand English.

So bag, Christians don't believe without proof? Turn to page 1 of the bible, what's your proof that the world was made in 6 days?

What's your proof that I believe that?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Here is the entire definition from the link above.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Since it is now obvious that the real chain of events is that you and ima are the ones that are ignoring the dictionary I expect you will pretend to have the high ground and insist I am lying.

Thank you for providing all senses.

I don't see a single one of them that contradicts the second sense in any meaningful way. I don't think you are a liar, because I fully have "faith" that you believe what you say, or ascribe to a different version of faith than most people. "Faith" is pretty synonymous with trust in that which is not supported by material evidence. You're not really denying that, are you?

Of course you don't.

So, then, you're not going to answer my question?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thank you for providing all senses.

I don't see a single one of them that contradicts the second sense in any meaningful way. I don't think you are a liar, because I fully have "faith" that you believe what you say, or ascribe to a different version of faith than most people. "Faith" is pretty synonymous with trust in that which is not supported by material evidence. You're not really denying that, are you?

Of course you don't.

So, then, you're not going to answer my question?

Why should I answer your question when it is based on an erroneous assumption? Even the guy you jumped in with says you don't understand English.

 

[ima]

Thank you for providing all senses.

I don't see a single one of them that contradicts the second sense in any meaningful way. I don't think you are a liar, because I fully have "faith" that you believe what you say, or ascribe to a different version of faith than most people. "Faith" is pretty synonymous with trust in that which is not supported by material evidence. You're not really denying that, are you?

No, you just don't understand English.

So bag, Christians don't believe without proof? Turn to page 1 of the bible, what's your proof that the world was made in 6 days?

What's your proof that I believe that?

I didn't say that you did. You said that Christians don't believe something without proof, so what's the proof that the world was made in 6 days?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Of course you don't.

So, then, you're not going to answer my question?

Why should I answer your question when it is based on an erroneous assumption? Even the guy you jumped in with says you don't understand English.

Oh great. There is nothing wrong with my use of language. I think I was simply misunderstood by ima and that is unfortunate. Besides, if I made an erroneous assumption, that has nothing to do with my use of language. They are separate issues.

So, you're not going to answer then. Okay.

Faith is, at it's very core, a belief that is not reliant on material evidence. This is rudimentary, sir. You are foolish to refute it.

There is a fundamental reason why this is true. Faith is one of the few things in life that can actually exist in a vacuum. If you incorporate material evidence and logical proofs into your beliefs, then great, I encourage that, but faith is independent of them. You can have faith regardless of proofs. This is how we know that faith is not based on material evidence, simply because it is independent of them.

So, are you going to explain to me how that is an erroneous assumption, or can we move on? I don't begrudge you your faith, but let's not get hung up on meaningless semantics. You know damn well that when it comes to faith, especially spiritual faith, that it does not rely on material proof. If it did, then then the Disciples would never have believed that the man that appeared to them was Jesus risen. Read your gospels, man.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, you just don't understand English.

So bag, Christians don't believe without proof? Turn to page 1 of the bible, what's your proof that the world was made in 6 days?

What's your proof that I believe that?

I didn't say that you did. You said that Christians don't believe something without proof, so what's the proof that the world was made in 6 days?

Again, where is your proof I believe that?

 

[The Irish Ram]

I can think of one good reason not to be an agnostic:
1. “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” Revelation 3:16 ...

Instead of admitting, "I have no knowledge", wouldn't you be better off obtaining some knowledge?
The Greeks would have labeled your handicap "profound" on a Binet Scale.


2 Tim 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

This is not intended to prove anything, just to offer my opinion on the Book of Revelations as similar to what the great Thomas Jefferson said about it in 1825 when he called it "merely the ravings of a maniac no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

Other than that, then yes, if one considers the Bible the word of our Creator, then agnosticism would not be a good thing to be.

Happily, God is much smarter than Jefferson was. If only Jefferson was alive to day to see the prophesy of Revelation come to pass.
Can you tell me something about Israel 2000 years from now?
Neither could Jefferson, a creation of the Creator.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, then, you're not going to answer my question?

Why should I answer your question when it is based on an erroneous assumption? Even the guy you jumped in with says you don't understand English.

Oh great. There is nothing wrong with my use of language. I think I was simply misunderstood by ima and that is unfortunate. Besides, if I made an erroneous assumption, that has nothing to do with my use of language. They are separate issues.

So, you're not going to answer then. Okay.

Faith is, at it's very core, a belief that is not reliant on material evidence. This is rudimentary, sir. You are foolish to refute it.

There is a fundamental reason why this is true. Faith is one of the few things in life that can actually exist in a vacuum. If you incorporate material evidence and logical proofs into your beliefs, then great, I encourage that, but faith is independent of them. You can have faith regardless of proofs. This is how we know that faith is not based on material evidence, simply because it is independent of them.

So, are you going to explain to me how that is an erroneous assumption, or can we move on? I don't begrudge you your faith, but let's not get hung up on meaningless semantics. You know damn well that when it comes to faith, especially spiritual faith, that it does not rely on material proof. If it did, then then the Disciples would never have believed that the man that appeared to them was Jesus risen. Read your gospels, man.

You claim you are not misusing the language, and then proceed to misuse the language. I have no idea what you think material evidence means, but any evidence that is relevant to a discussion is material. If we are discussing religion the existence of the Qur'an or the Upanishads are material,your grocery list isn't. On the other hand, if we are discussing your eating habits the evidence that is material is reversed.

Since you have just demonstrated that you are misusing language I am 100% safe in asserting that you are misusing it, and, once again, point out that you are wrong about faith.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I can think of one good reason not to be an agnostic:
1. “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” Revelation 3:16 ...

Instead of admitting, "I have no knowledge", wouldn't you be better off obtaining some knowledge?
The Greeks would have labeled your handicap "profound" on a Binet Scale.


2 Tim 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

This is not intended to prove anything, just to offer my opinion on the Book of Revelations as similar to what the great Thomas Jefferson said about it in 1825 when he called it "merely the ravings of a maniac no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

Other than that, then yes, if one considers the Bible the word of our Creator, then agnosticism would not be a good thing to be.

Happily, God is much smarter than Jefferson was. If only Jefferson was alive to day to see the prophesy of Revelation come to pass.
Can you tell me something about Israel 2000 years from now?
Neither could Jefferson, a creation of the Creator.

I was a Christian 30 years ago and I kept hearing the "any day now" crap then as well. So when is this going to happen? Personally I think the Christian churches have been trying their best to bring about their self-fulfilling prophesy because of this ridiculous Apocalyptic interpretation of a book that was most likely nothing more than symbolic anti-Roman observations of the time.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Why should I answer your question when it is based on an erroneous assumption? Even the guy you jumped in with says you don't understand English.

Oh great. There is nothing wrong with my use of language. I think I was simply misunderstood by ima and that is unfortunate. Besides, if I made an erroneous assumption, that has nothing to do with my use of language. They are separate issues.

So, you're not going to answer then. Okay.

Faith is, at it's very core, a belief that is not reliant on material evidence. This is rudimentary, sir. You are foolish to refute it.

There is a fundamental reason why this is true. Faith is one of the few things in life that can actually exist in a vacuum. If you incorporate material evidence and logical proofs into your beliefs, then great, I encourage that, but faith is independent of them. You can have faith regardless of proofs. This is how we know that faith is not based on material evidence, simply because it is independent of them.

So, are you going to explain to me how that is an erroneous assumption, or can we move on? I don't begrudge you your faith, but let's not get hung up on meaningless semantics. You know damn well that when it comes to faith, especially spiritual faith, that it does not rely on material proof. If it did, then then the Disciples would never have believed that the man that appeared to them was Jesus risen. Read your gospels, man.

You claim you are not misusing the language, and then proceed to misuse the language. I have no idea what you think material evidence means, but any evidence that is relevant to a discussion is material. If we are discussing religion the existence of the Qur'an or the Upanishads are material,your grocery list isn't. On the other hand, if we are discussing your eating habits the evidence that is material is reversed.

Since you have just demonstrated that you are misusing language I am 100% safe in asserting that you are misusing it, and, once again, point out that you are wrong about faith.

Oh my. Okay, so are we getting into law definitions now? Is this what the discussion has come to?

Okay, so, if you want to know what I think material evidence is, it is evidence which conduces to the proof or disproof of a hypothesis. No, I am not talking about strictly "physical" evidence, although that is what most commonly fits the bill, at least in a legal sense.

That said, faith is still perfectly possible independent of material evidence. If I hold to a belief in a thing, be it a God, idea, UFOs, ghosts, etc. in the presence of material evidence that contradicts it, I am operating on faith. You cannot possibly be so thick as to continue to refuse to acknowledge this, can you?

If you want to continue to see me as an enemy, that is your business. In my opinion, you are so blinded by fighting me over semantics that you probably assume I am an atheist or agnostic, even though I have never indicated at any time my beliefs, other than not being a Christian. You are so blinded by trying to prove me wrong that you will take me to task on anything, including the simple concept of what faith is. I'm not criticizing that you have faith, nor trying to dissuade you from it. You are the first person I have run into in over 40 years of life that has ever refused to acknowledge that basic idea of faith. So, in that respect, hats off I guess for being original.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh great. There is nothing wrong with my use of language. I think I was simply misunderstood by ima and that is unfortunate. Besides, if I made an erroneous assumption, that has nothing to do with my use of language. They are separate issues.

So, you're not going to answer then. Okay.

Faith is, at it's very core, a belief that is not reliant on material evidence. This is rudimentary, sir. You are foolish to refute it.

There is a fundamental reason why this is true. Faith is one of the few things in life that can actually exist in a vacuum. If you incorporate material evidence and logical proofs into your beliefs, then great, I encourage that, but faith is independent of them. You can have faith regardless of proofs. This is how we know that faith is not based on material evidence, simply because it is independent of them.

So, are you going to explain to me how that is an erroneous assumption, or can we move on? I don't begrudge you your faith, but let's not get hung up on meaningless semantics. You know damn well that when it comes to faith, especially spiritual faith, that it does not rely on material proof. If it did, then then the Disciples would never have believed that the man that appeared to them was Jesus risen. Read your gospels, man.

You claim you are not misusing the language, and then proceed to misuse the language. I have no idea what you think material evidence means, but any evidence that is relevant to a discussion is material. If we are discussing religion the existence of the Qur'an or the Upanishads are material,your grocery list isn't. On the other hand, if we are discussing your eating habits the evidence that is material is reversed.

Since you have just demonstrated that you are misusing language I am 100% safe in asserting that you are misusing it, and, once again, point out that you are wrong about faith.

Oh my. Okay, so are we getting into law definitions now? Is this what the discussion has come to?

Okay, so, if you want to know what I think material evidence is, it is evidence which conduces to the proof or disproof of a hypothesis. No, I am not talking about strictly "physical" evidence, although that is what most commonly fits the bill, at least in a legal sense.

That said, faith is still perfectly possible independent of material evidence. If I hold to a belief in a thing, be it a God, idea, UFOs, ghosts, etc. in the presence of material evidence that contradicts it, I am operating on faith. You cannot possibly be so thick as to continue to refuse to acknowledge this, can you?

If you want to continue to see me as an enemy, that is your business. In my opinion, you are so blinded by fighting me over semantics that you probably assume I am an atheist or agnostic, even though I have never indicated at any time my beliefs, other than not being a Christian. You are so blinded by trying to prove me wrong that you will take me to task on anything, including the simple concept of what faith is. I'm not criticizing that you have faith, nor trying to dissuade you from it. You are the first person I have run into in over 40 years of life that has ever refused to acknowledge that basic idea of faith. So, in that respect, hats off I guess for being original.

You used a term, why shouldn't I apply the proper definition to it? By the way, legally, material evidence is any evidence at all, including testimony, not just physical evidence. That means you are still using it wrong.

Since material evidence can go either to prove, or disprove, something, how can you possibly say there is no material evidence in a discussion about religion? If you believe in something despite the existence of evidence to disprove it you are not operating on faith, you are delusional. Faith is not delusion.

I don't see you as an enemy, I am not trying to prove you wrong in your beliefs, just your insistence that faith is not based on facts despite the evidence I provided that directly contradicts your belief. I see you as a fool who is operating on the delusion that your interpretation of reality supersedes the history of the human race.

The Bible actually tells me to be ready to give a reason for my faith. I can't do that if my faith is not based on reason, so your insistence on using the wrong definition of faith just proves you do not understand faith. The fact that I am the first person you have run into in 40 years that understands that does not make me wrong, it just means you haven't run into anyone that understands it.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You claim you are not misusing the language, and then proceed to misuse the language. I have no idea what you think material evidence means, but any evidence that is relevant to a discussion is material. If we are discussing religion the existence of the Qur'an or the Upanishads are material,your grocery list isn't. On the other hand, if we are discussing your eating habits the evidence that is material is reversed.

Since you have just demonstrated that you are misusing language I am 100% safe in asserting that you are misusing it, and, once again, point out that you are wrong about faith.

Oh my. Okay, so are we getting into law definitions now? Is this what the discussion has come to?

Okay, so, if you want to know what I think material evidence is, it is evidence which conduces to the proof or disproof of a hypothesis. No, I am not talking about strictly "physical" evidence, although that is what most commonly fits the bill, at least in a legal sense.

That said, faith is still perfectly possible independent of material evidence. If I hold to a belief in a thing, be it a God, idea, UFOs, ghosts, etc. in the presence of material evidence that contradicts it, I am operating on faith. You cannot possibly be so thick as to continue to refuse to acknowledge this, can you?

If you want to continue to see me as an enemy, that is your business. In my opinion, you are so blinded by fighting me over semantics that you probably assume I am an atheist or agnostic, even though I have never indicated at any time my beliefs, other than not being a Christian. You are so blinded by trying to prove me wrong that you will take me to task on anything, including the simple concept of what faith is. I'm not criticizing that you have faith, nor trying to dissuade you from it. You are the first person I have run into in over 40 years of life that has ever refused to acknowledge that basic idea of faith. So, in that respect, hats off I guess for being original.

You used a term, why shouldn't I apply the proper definition to it? By the way, legally, material evidence is any evidence at all, including testimony, not just physical evidence. That means you are still using it wrong.

Since material evidence can go either to prove, or disprove, something, how can you possibly say there is no material evidence in a discussion about religion? If you believe in something despite the existence of evidence to disprove it you are not operating on faith, you are delusional. Faith is not delusion.

I don't see you as an enemy, I am not trying to prove you wrong in your beliefs, just your insistence that faith is not based on facts despite the evidence I provided that directly contradicts your belief. I see you as a fool who is operating on the delusion that your interpretation of reality supersedes the history of the human race.

The Bible actually tells me to be ready to give a reason for my faith. I can't do that if my faith is not based on reason, so your insistence on using the wrong definition of faith just proves you do not understand faith. The fact that I am the first person you have run into in 40 years that understands that does not make me wrong, it just means you haven't run into anyone that understands it.

At least we're finally getting somewhere. I gotta get going in a few minutes for the day. Let me say this. If you re-read my post, I said that material evidence is not strictly physical. Please, please, please do me the favor of representing what I actually said. I'm trying to show you the same respect, and if I get it wrong, I expect you to correct me on it. However, physical evidence makes up the bulk of material evidence in most cases.

And again, at no point did I call faith "delusion." You're being defensive and assuming that's what I mean. I think we may have run the course of this diversion, but I still can't see how you can continue to refute that faith is independent of material evidence or logical proof. After all, it IS one of the primary senses of the word, is it not? I don't think that can be ignored. And, yes, faith CAN be delusional, it simply is not a given. Regardless, faith is perfectly possible without any material or logical justification. I think we would both agree that it is pretty blind faith, but blind faith is faith too.

Whatever branding you want to place on faith, I wish you well. I simply cannot accompany you.

 

[ima]

You used a term, why shouldn't I apply the proper definition to it? By the way, legally, material evidence is any evidence at all, including testimony, not just physical evidence. That means you are still using it wrong.

Since material evidence can go either to prove, or disprove, something, how can you possibly say there is no material evidence in a discussion about religion? If you believe in something despite the existence of evidence to disprove it you are not operating on faith, you are delusional. Faith is not delusion.

I don't see you as an enemy, I am not trying to prove you wrong in your beliefs, just your insistence that faith is not based on facts despite the evidence I provided that directly contradicts your belief. I see you as a fool who is operating on the delusion that your interpretation of reality supersedes the history of the human race.

The Bible actually tells me to be ready to give a reason for my faith. I can't do that if my faith is not based on reason, so your insistence on using the wrong definition of faith just proves you do not understand faith. The fact that I am the first person you have run into in 40 years that understands that does not make me wrong, it just means you haven't run into anyone that understands it.

At least we're finally getting somewhere. I gotta get going in a few minutes for the day. Let me say this. If you re-read my post, I said that material evidence is not strictly physical. Please, please, please do me the favor of representing what I actually said. I'm trying to show you the same respect, and if I get it wrong, I expect you to correct me on it. However, physical evidence makes up the bulk of material evidence in most cases.

And again, at no point did I call faith "delusion." You're being defensive and assuming that's what I mean. I think we may have run the course of this diversion, but I still can't see how you can continue to refute that faith is independent of material evidence or logical proof. After all, it IS one of the primary senses of the word, is it not? I don't think that can be ignored. And, yes, faith CAN be delusional, it simply is not a given. Regardless, faith is perfectly possible without any material or logical justification. I think we would both agree that it is pretty blind faith, but blind faith is faith too.

Whatever branding you want to place on faith, I wish you well. I simply cannot accompany you.

a) Testimony not based on real facts is inadmissible in court, you can't just go into court and say "god told me to" or else you'll actually be declared insane.

b) Faith IS a delusion, basing your beliefs on an invisible superbeing from another dimension that no one has ever gone to is, if not a delusion, then what?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You used a term, why shouldn't I apply the proper definition to it? By the way, legally, material evidence is any evidence at all, including testimony, not just physical evidence. That means you are still using it wrong.

Since material evidence can go either to prove, or disprove, something, how can you possibly say there is no material evidence in a discussion about religion? If you believe in something despite the existence of evidence to disprove it you are not operating on faith, you are delusional. Faith is not delusion.

I don't see you as an enemy, I am not trying to prove you wrong in your beliefs, just your insistence that faith is not based on facts despite the evidence I provided that directly contradicts your belief. I see you as a fool who is operating on the delusion that your interpretation of reality supersedes the history of the human race.

The Bible actually tells me to be ready to give a reason for my faith. I can't do that if my faith is not based on reason, so your insistence on using the wrong definition of faith just proves you do not understand faith. The fact that I am the first person you have run into in 40 years that understands that does not make me wrong, it just means you haven't run into anyone that understands it.

At least we're finally getting somewhere. I gotta get going in a few minutes for the day. Let me say this. If you re-read my post, I said that material evidence is not strictly physical. Please, please, please do me the favor of representing what I actually said. I'm trying to show you the same respect, and if I get it wrong, I expect you to correct me on it. However, physical evidence makes up the bulk of material evidence in most cases.

And again, at no point did I call faith "delusion." You're being defensive and assuming that's what I mean. I think we may have run the course of this diversion, but I still can't see how you can continue to refute that faith is independent of material evidence or logical proof. After all, it IS one of the primary senses of the word, is it not? I don't think that can be ignored. And, yes, faith CAN be delusional, it simply is not a given. Regardless, faith is perfectly possible without any material or logical justification. I think we would both agree that it is pretty blind faith, but blind faith is faith too.

Whatever branding you want to place on faith, I wish you well. I simply cannot accompany you.

a) Testimony not based on real facts is inadmissible in court, you can't just go into court and say "god told me to" or else you'll actually be declared insane.

b) Faith IS a delusion, basing your beliefs on an invisible superbeing from another dimension that no one has ever gone to is, if not a delusion, then what?

I'm not going to get into a debate with you over faith, simply because I do not hold faith in a revealed God and consider such belief to be largely if not entirely delusional. However, there is a sense of the word that relates to trust in the truth of a matter. One can have faith in a person or an institution as well, and while such faith may be delusional, delusion is not a given. A technicality perhaps, as I believe faith in a God that presumably revealed himself to an ancient few, and whose veracity we cannot reasonably verify, is independent of material evidence or logical proof. I don't think there is a need for the two of us to split hairs simply because of an animosity between you and Quantum and because I did not simply parrot your views.

 

[The Irish Ram]

This is not intended to prove anything, just to offer my opinion on the Book of Revelations as similar to what the great Thomas Jefferson said about it in 1825 when he called it "merely the ravings of a maniac no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

Other than that, then yes, if one considers the Bible the word of our Creator, then agnosticism would not be a good thing to be.

Happily, God is much smarter than Jefferson was. If only Jefferson was alive to day to see the prophesy of Revelation come to pass.
Can you tell me something about Israel 2000 years from now?
Neither could Jefferson, a creation of the Creator.

I was a Christian 30 years ago and I kept hearing the "any day now" crap then as well. So when is this going to happen? Personally I think the Christian churches have been trying their best to bring about their self-fulfilling prophesy because of this ridiculous Apocalyptic interpretation of a book that was most likely nothing more than symbolic anti-Roman observations of the time.

Then the fact that Israel became a nation 2000 years later on the exact day predicted was a symbolic anti Roman thing?

How about the prophesy that once gathered, they would go back to speaking Hebrew?
No one that has been displaced for 2,000 years ever went back to their original language.
But they did.

30 years ago, Israel was not surrounded by her enemies. They are now.

The Ethiopian Jews had not yet returned to Israel. They have now.

We now have armies over 200 million men. Impossible in John's time.

Also impossible until now was the ability to hear the gospel world wide.

There has been no red heifer to sacrifice for 2,000 years. Now there is.
In May 1997 the first Red Heifer was born in 2000 years. Another red Heifer was born in Israel in March of 2002.

Russia could not have invaded Israel at the time John wrote Revelation. On the other hand do you see them choosing their allies as we speak?

I can do this 2,000 times.

Give me a mere mortal that can tell me what to expect next year, let alone 2,000 years into the future.
You had the wrong people telling you things 30 years ago.
Don't consider God fallible, just because man is.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Happily, God is much smarter than Jefferson was. If only Jefferson was alive to day to see the prophesy of Revelation come to pass.
Can you tell me something about Israel 2000 years from now?
Neither could Jefferson, a creation of the Creator.

I was a Christian 30 years ago and I kept hearing the "any day now" crap then as well. So when is this going to happen? Personally I think the Christian churches have been trying their best to bring about their self-fulfilling prophesy because of this ridiculous Apocalyptic interpretation of a book that was most likely nothing more than symbolic anti-Roman observations of the time.

Then the fact that Israel became a nation 2000 years later on the exact day predicted was a symbolic anti Roman thing?

How about the prophesy that once gathered, they would go back to speaking Hebrew?
No one that has been displaced for 2,000 years ever went back to their original language.
But they did.

30 years ago, Israel was not surrounded by her enemies. They are now.

The Ethiopian Jews had not yet returned to Israel. They have now.

We now have armies over 200 million men. Impossible in John's time.

Also impossible until now was the ability to hear the gospel world wide.

There has been no red heifer to sacrifice for 2,000 years. Now there is.
In May 1997 the first Red Heifer was born in 2000 years. Another red Heifer was born in Israel in March of 2002.

Russia could not have invaded Israel at the time John wrote Revelation. On the other hand do you see them choosing their allies as we speak?

I can do this 2,000 times.

Give me a mere mortal that can tell me what to expect next year, let alone 2,000 years into the future.
You had the wrong people telling you things 30 years ago.
Don't consider God fallible, just because man is.

Why would you assume that I consider God fallible? And who wrote the books of the Bible anyway? These fallible men you speak of?

Please provide me with exact Biblical verses for the above prophesies if you don't mind.