God needs a super-natural visit today

[MaxGrit]

I can see you're befuddled.

Things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence is the very definition of religious faith. Further, Christianity requires belief in an absurd nature where dead men don't stay dead, where snakes talk, bushes spontaneously erupt in flames and global floods wipe most of humanity from a flat planet.

That is a shallow definition of faith.. The word faith means "to be persuaded".

Feel free to cherry-pick definitions. However, in the construct of the Abrahamic religion, faith is to accept supernaturalism and absurdities of nature as somehow being real and extant. It's through faith alone that seas part, snakes talk and shrubbery spontaneously bursts into flames.

lol....cherry picking definitions?......can you even find one that uses the words "in spite of".....at least he picked a real definition instead of making one up......

see sig

Bible says:

 

[Chuckt]

You somehow missed it but the children's explanation for faith are taken from the bibles.

I see no reason to be burdened by resorting to faith as an answer for anything especially when faith presumes the acceptance of logical fallacies, absurdities of nature and suspension of rationality. In the realm of reason and rationality, knowledge is knowledge or it isn't. Faith by definition is not knowledge, it is faith-- it is belief despite or regardless of evidence. The moment evidence is applied to faith, and that evidence is shown to support the claim of faith, the claim of faith must lose its status of "faith" and instead become knowledge.

Theism cleverly avoids this trap by asserting its claims only and always fall into the category of faith. Well, I for one agree with theists here: They have no knowledge of the truth nor can they by their own standards, they can only have faith.

Hollie,

Half a definition is better than none but your definition is incomplete.

I'll give you an example. I've been working for my employer for 15 years. They know me. They trust me because I do what they say and I'll tell them how I'm going to do something and when.

You don't know me so if you needed help, would you trust a stranger? The answer is probably, "no" and unless you were desperate, you might never turn to me for help because your faith isn't based on blind trust.

My employer can trust me because it is based on what I have done in the past, who I am and faith in me is just not blind faith but faith plus a little more. I've performed in the past, I did what I said and I looked out for them.

The difference is knowing. You don't know me so you would never get help from me.
You might be fearful of me, untrusting, and I'm just that mean guy on the internet.

Those that know me might fare better with me than you would trust me.

That was a horrible attempt at analogy, or metaphor, or something. Either way, it sidesteps addressing the requirement for faith in religion and the utter absurdities of nature that are furthered by religious dogma.

Hollie,

I sat down and spent a while trying to get a better definition of sin but most Christians are incapable of defining it because they don't have enough material to help them study, they aren't disciplined to do it, they don't see the value or the point because they haven't found the end result from study. I could do the same with the definition of faith but it takes hours and I have many Bible studies that I will never finish.

Most of the pastors I know won't debate. Why is that? It is because when you go down this road, it won't stop and I could answer people's arguments but it never stops. When does it end? I have four bookshelves and some of them are filled with apologetic books. If I had unlimited time, I would do something but I realize that proving people wrong won't change people.

God made the entrance requirements to heaven easy by allowing people who believe to enter.

While God made it open to all, I don't believe that God intends for everyone to go in.
The people who give God a hard time are what? Wise in their own eyes?
God looks at the problem partly that if He were to look upon us, He would have to judge. By not looking or by being quiet, He confounds the wise and the wise basically judge themselves by not believing in a God that they can't see.

The problem is solved. God didn't intend for bad people to see the light and believe because then you would end up with bad people in heaven who would cause a problem and the meek, the weak, etc...., they are the ones who pose less of a problem and they get in.

You are basically handicapped because man cannot see God because He exists somewhere outside of space and time and because you need this extra proof, you lose the ballgame because you don't understand the rules of engagement (military term).

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Lest is a particle of negation. Why shouldn't God heal everyone? Why shouldn't they see, why shouldn't they hear? Why shouldn't their heart understand? Why shouldn't they be converted so that God would heal them?

It is a built in problem of man, you don't want anything to do with it but heaven is open to all but people judge themselves and because of their mental ability, your mental ability will be a self imposed handicapped against you.

So while heaven is open to all, God set up a system that allows you to judge yourself unworthy of heaven.

1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1 Corinthians 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1 Corinthians 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Chuck

 

[Hollie]

I can see you're befuddled.

Things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence is the very definition of religious faith. Further, Christianity requires belief in an absurd nature where dead men don't stay dead, where snakes talk, bushes spontaneously erupt in flames and global floods wipe most of humanity from a flat planet.

That is a shallow definition of faith.. The word faith means "to be persuaded".

Feel free to cherry-pick definitions. However, in the construct of the Abrahamic religion, faith is to accept supernaturalism and absurdities of nature as somehow being real and extant. It's through faith alone that seas part, snakes talk and shrubbery spontaneously bursts into flames.

lol....cherry picking definitions?......can you even find one that uses the words "in spite of".....at least he picked a real definition instead of making one up......

lol.... cherry picking fundamentalists.

Why not find us a definition where reason and rationality (as opposed to faith alone), is required to believe in seas parting, snakes talking and shrubbery spontaneously bursting into flames.

 

[PostmodernProph]

That makes sense, and I agree for the most part. The point I'm making is that that essence of what we mean when we say "I" isn't physical. It isn't my body, or even my brain. In fact, I think we intuitively acknowledge that when we say things like "my body" or "my brain". The physical body isn't me, its just my container. What makes me distinct as a human soul is the contents of my brain, the patterns of information - knowledge, memories, emotions, etc...

/shrugs....but this ignores the fact that without that physical body there would be no contents of a brain....thus its silly to think of people as imaginary and not physical...

All this was in support of my claim that a being that exists in the minds of followers is every bit as powerful and amazing as the traditional conception of Gods. We're short-changing them to insist that they perform magic tricks to inspire our belief.

I realize that was your intent.....the problem is, its still a silly argument.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Biblical matters of faith "in spite of evidence", are derived from one or more of the bibles.

Hebrews 11:1 defines Faith: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


Regarding faith as a requirement:

Mark 9:23
Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Mark 11:24
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

Matthew 9:2
And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

Matthew 17:20
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Matthew 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.


And finally, a directive from Big Cheese Junior:

Mark 11:22
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

I'd say that makes it pretty clear, according to your "source material."

While I understand you would like to believe that the above is what “the hey-zeus” said, there is nothing to corroborate that any of the above was spoken by "the hey-zeus".

I know you will attempt to cite a reference in a “holy text” to substantiate your claim but using an unsubstantiated “holy text” to prove the validity of a “holy text” is not valid. In addition, The various bibles laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason is irrational.

none of which changes the fact that your "in spite of evidence" is totally manufactured by you as part of the definition of faith.....you got caught in a cheap shot and missed....sorry....

Your desperate attempts to defend faith is expected. The various bibles laud faith in spite of evidence. You got caught in an indefensible position and can only lash out like a youngster who has been scolded.

???....what indefensible position?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

The story is a myth.

no, your rationality is a myth......

Reason, rationality, knowledge and enlightenment terrify the religious extremist.

that still leaves YOU un-scary......sorry....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Feel free to cherry-pick definitions. However, in the construct of the Abrahamic religion, faith is to accept supernaturalism and absurdities of nature as somehow being real and extant. It's through faith alone that seas part, snakes talk and shrubbery spontaneously bursts into flames.

lol....cherry picking definitions?......can you even find one that uses the words "in spite of".....at least he picked a real definition instead of making one up......

lol.... cherry picking fundamentalists.

Why not find us a definition where reason and rationality (as opposed to faith alone), is required to believe in seas parting, snakes talking and shrubbery spontaneously bursting into flames.

uh Hollie.....we realize you don't have faith in God.....that doesn't make you rational......you misrepresented the definition of faith because you're bitter and spiteful....we understand that.....its part of what you are.......we don't need another "definition" of what faith isn't.....and you don't need another pathway to go somewhere you don't want to go in the first place.....the only pathway is by faith......simply choose it or reject it, don't whine about it......

 

[dblack]

That makes sense, and I agree for the most part. The point I'm making is that that essence of what we mean when we say "I" isn't physical. It isn't my body, or even my brain. In fact, I think we intuitively acknowledge that when we say things like "my body" or "my brain". The physical body isn't me, its just my container. What makes me distinct as a human soul is the contents of my brain, the patterns of information - knowledge, memories, emotions, etc...

/shrugs....but this ignores the fact that without that physical body there would be no contents of a brain....thus its silly to think of people as imaginary and not physical...

Would you call a computer program 'imaginary'? Would it be 'not real' to you - as you seem to be using those two interchangeably.

All this was in support of my claim that a being that exists in the minds of followers is every bit as powerful and amazing as the traditional conception of Gods. We're short-changing them to insist that they perform magic tricks to inspire our belief.

I realize that was your intent.....the problem is, its still a silly argument.....

How is it silly? I'm basically claiming the same thing that you are - that things like gods and human souls are non-physical entities. I'm just not following the typical 'supernatural' approach to arriving at that conclusion. Why is it so hard to consider we might be talking about the same thing, but just using different terms?

 

[Chuckt]

Feel free to cherry-pick definitions. However, in the construct of the Abrahamic religion, faith is to accept supernaturalism and absurdities of nature as somehow being real and extant. It's through faith alone that seas part, snakes talk and shrubbery spontaneously bursts into flames.

lol....cherry picking definitions?......can you even find one that uses the words "in spite of".....at least he picked a real definition instead of making one up......

lol.... cherry picking fundamentalists.

Why not find us a definition where reason and rationality (as opposed to faith alone), is required to believe in seas parting, snakes talking and shrubbery spontaneously bursting into flames.

By definition, God made the physics and the laws of the universe so talking snakes are only irrational to people who don't believe in a creator of laws. You wouldn't have a problem with flesh on humans talking or humans evolving from an animal to talk so why is flesh talking on a snake any harder? If at all, evolution is harder by random chance to make flesh talk than a creator designing and making flesh talk.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Would you call a computer program 'imaginary'?

until it was coded, yes.....

How is it silly? I'm basically claiming the same thing that you are - that things like gods and human souls are non-physical entities. I'm just not following the typical 'supernatural' approach to arriving at that conclusion. Why is it so hard to consider we might be talking about the same thing, but just using different terms?

because you are using terms that already have meaning......a non-physical entity is not an unreal entity.....an imaginary thing is not real.....thus when you say gods are imaginary you say they are unreal.......all you have done is made up a new meaning for the word "imaginary".....I could do the same thing by saying "all gods are swordfish which means they are real, non-physical entities".....it also would be silly.....

 

[dblack]

Would you call a computer program 'imaginary'?

until it was coded, yes.....

How is it silly? I'm basically claiming the same thing that you are - that things like gods and human souls are non-physical entities. I'm just not following the typical 'supernatural' approach to arriving at that conclusion. Why is it so hard to consider we might be talking about the same thing, but just using different terms?

because you are using terms that already have meaning......a non-physical entity is not an unreal entity.....an imaginary thing is not real.....thus when you say gods are imaginary you say they are unreal.......all you have done is made up a new meaning for the word "imaginary".....I could do the same thing by saying "all gods are swordfish which means they are real, non-physical entities".....it also would be silly.....

Ok. Use whatever terms suit you. If you insist that 'imaginary' means the same thing as 'not real', then I wouldn't say gods are 'imaginary'. What I'm claiming is that gods are real, non-physical entities in the same way human souls, or computer programs, are. Does that make it more clear?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Would you call a computer program 'imaginary'?

until it was coded, yes.....

How is it silly? I'm basically claiming the same thing that you are - that things like gods and human souls are non-physical entities. I'm just not following the typical 'supernatural' approach to arriving at that conclusion. Why is it so hard to consider we might be talking about the same thing, but just using different terms?

because you are using terms that already have meaning......a non-physical entity is not an unreal entity.....an imaginary thing is not real.....thus when you say gods are imaginary you say they are unreal.......all you have done is made up a new meaning for the word "imaginary".....I could do the same thing by saying "all gods are swordfish which means they are real, non-physical entities".....it also would be silly.....

Ok. Use whatever terms suit you. If you insist that 'imaginary' means the same thing as 'not real', then I wouldn't say gods are 'imaginary'. What I'm claiming is that gods are real, non-physical entities in the same way human souls, or computer programs, are. Does that make it more clear?

I agree that God is a real, non-physical entity....since I do no consider the human soul to be a separate entity from the human body I would not consider it to be non-physical.....

 

[dblack]

until it was coded, yes.....



because you are using terms that already have meaning......a non-physical entity is not an unreal entity.....an imaginary thing is not real.....thus when you say gods are imaginary you say they are unreal.......all you have done is made up a new meaning for the word "imaginary".....I could do the same thing by saying "all gods are swordfish which means they are real, non-physical entities".....it also would be silly.....

Ok. Use whatever terms suit you. If you insist that 'imaginary' means the same thing as 'not real', then I wouldn't say gods are 'imaginary'. What I'm claiming is that gods are real, non-physical entities in the same way human souls, or computer programs, are. Does that make it more clear?

I agree that God is a real, non-physical entity....since I do no consider the human soul to be a separate entity from the human body I would not consider it to be non-physical.....

That's genuinely interesting to me. I always thought that a non-physical soul was a staple of Christian belief. Would you say your view is mainstream? (I fully acknowledge that mine is not)

 

[Hollie]

lol....cherry picking definitions?......can you even find one that uses the words "in spite of".....at least he picked a real definition instead of making one up......

lol.... cherry picking fundamentalists.

Why not find us a definition where reason and rationality (as opposed to faith alone), is required to believe in seas parting, snakes talking and shrubbery spontaneously bursting into flames.

uh Hollie.....we realize you don't have faith in God.....that doesn't make you rational......you misrepresented the definition of faith because you're bitter and spiteful....we understand that.....its part of what you are.......we don't need another "definition" of what faith isn't.....and you don't need another pathway to go somewhere you don't want to go in the first place.....the only pathway is by faith......simply choose it or reject it, don't whine about it......

Umm, angry fundie, We use our reason and rationality to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look to knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probabilty, and possiblity) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

You recoil at the terms of faith in your various bibles because your religion requires unyielding acceptance of dogma. I think the problem that religious zealots have with rationality is that they perceive it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions, hence they feel reason is somehow inadequate. Stripped of reason, one cannot even perceive the concept of love or hate or compassion, so therefore, the keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason.

I don’t see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not. I embrace human passion joyfully; it is a part of the wonder of being alive. That we pay for our emotions with fears and acts of questionable ethics is a price we should all be willing to pay, given the choice. It is helpful to know the foundation of human behavior, but not particularly essential in every day life. So I don’t see that accepting rationality strips life of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. And it is only in these types of discussions that the anger and self-hate of fundamentalist Christians rear their banal heads.

Reason and rationality are, unfortunately, often abandoned with the acceptance of ancient religious doctrines that are divisive and foment hate and exclusion.

 

[Hollie]

no, your rationality is a myth......

Reason, rationality, knowledge and enlightenment terrify the religious extremist.

that still leaves YOU un-scary......sorry....

I don't make any effort to be "scary".

I have every reason to believe that mankind will continue to peel back the layers of fear and superstition that religious zealots choose to live enshrouded by, and I believe that humankind can only do so using his rationality. To purport an "incomprehensible" Being (the angry Christian gods, ) used “incomprehensible" means to create existence is a guaranteed method of making the Universe exactly that: incomprehensible.

I also don't find in my conclusion of reason and rationality anything particularly self-righteous or prone to hubris which are the hallmarks of religious fundamentalism. If anything, I am merely celebrating the potential of humanity, which I think is rather more noble that prideful.

That leaves you more an unreasonable zealot than a rational, thinking human.

 

[Hollie]

That makes sense, and I agree for the most part. The point I'm making is that that essence of what we mean when we say "I" isn't physical. It isn't my body, or even my brain. In fact, I think we intuitively acknowledge that when we say things like "my body" or "my brain". The physical body isn't me, its just my container. What makes me distinct as a human soul is the contents of my brain, the patterns of information - knowledge, memories, emotions, etc...

/shrugs....but this ignores the fact that without that physical body there would be no contents of a brain....thus its silly to think of people as imaginary and not physical...

Would you call a computer program 'imaginary'? Would it be 'not real' to you - as you seem to be using those two interchangeably.

All this was in support of my claim that a being that exists in the minds of followers is every bit as powerful and amazing as the traditional conception of Gods. We're short-changing them to insist that they perform magic tricks to inspire our belief.

I realize that was your intent.....the problem is, its still a silly argument.....

How is it silly? I'm basically claiming the same thing that you are - that things like gods and human souls are non-physical entities. I'm just not following the typical 'supernatural' approach to arriving at that conclusion. Why is it so hard to consider we might be talking about the same thing, but just using different terms?

Your gods didn't "by definition" make anything. And, in connection with your "random chance" comment, you make mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of loving and compassionate gods. Mass extinctions have little to do with natural selection. Natural selection can not act in the context of a catastrophic event like an asteroid impact. Survival through these events is based on luck, not adaptation.

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that an intelligent designer would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, intelligent design is not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Other than you being indoctrinated from an early age with the tales and fables of the dominant religion, why do you think anyone should accept the absurdities of nature that are promoted by christianity?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Reason and rationality are, unfortunately, often abandoned with the acceptance of ancient religious doctrines that are divisive and foment hate and exclusion.

not as frequently as they are abandoned in your posts.....

 

[dblack]

/shrugs....but this ignores the fact that without that physical body there would be no contents of a brain....thus its silly to think of people as imaginary and not physical...

Would you call a computer program 'imaginary'? Would it be 'not real' to you - as you seem to be using those two interchangeably.

I realize that was your intent.....the problem is, its still a silly argument.....

How is it silly? I'm basically claiming the same thing that you are - that things like gods and human souls are non-physical entities. I'm just not following the typical 'supernatural' approach to arriving at that conclusion. Why is it so hard to consider we might be talking about the same thing, but just using different terms?

Your gods didn't "by definition" make anything. And, in connection with your "random chance" comment, you make mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of loving and compassionate gods. Mass extinctions have little to do with natural selection. Natural selection can not act in the context of a catastrophic event like an asteroid impact. Survival through these events is based on luck, not adaptation.

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that an intelligent designer would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, intelligent design is not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Other than you being indoctrinated from an early age with the tales and fables of the dominant religion, why do you think anyone should accept the absurdities of nature that are promoted by christianity?

I'm not sure how this addresses anything I've been saying. Did you intend this post as a response to mine?

 

[Hollie]

Reason and rationality are, unfortunately, often abandoned with the acceptance of ancient religious doctrines that are divisive and foment hate and exclusion.

not as frequently as they are abandoned in your posts.....

I knew my post would leave you totally befuddled.

 

[indiajo]

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that an intelligent designer would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, intelligent design is not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Other than you being indoctrinated from an early age with the tales and fables of the dominant religion, why do you think anyone should accept the absurdities of nature that are promoted by christianity?

That is bluntly true. Lots of details of living creatures do really not look like being designed by an all knowing and almighty deity, but by a romanian gipsy fumbling a car together out of randomly collected scrap parts.
Evolution simply cannot make a full reset and restart at every development that comes out quite shitty, it can only try to improve and patchwork, using what is already available.