Faith

[jcribb16]

No, my speculation is that primative cultures in the past inaccurately attributed phenomenon which they did not understand to "gods" and "magic", (since they had no other explanation and apparently needed one).  Further extrapolation speculates that these early 'god forms', (lightening gods/thunder gods, moon gods/goddesses, rain gods/goddesses, fertility goddesses, vulcanic gods, agricultural gods/goddesses and the like), evolved other attributes to attempt to account for other unexplained phenomenon.  These pantheons became somewhat complex for the early folks, (especially the Aegyptian pantheon), and some of them wanted to simplify things by consolidating the 'gods/goddesses' into one 'god'.

I cannot concur that any 'god form' is necessary to survival since each previous attribution of deital aspects has since been more accurately attributed to its actual cause, (except for the more metaphysical and least provable attributes).

Well considering people get over emotional about it, I'm one to think it extends a bit further than just the "god of the gaps" examples you've given. People also attribute love, hatred, jealousy, etc. along with occurrences in nature that were unexplainable. It gets to the point where whenever you approach certain individuals and open a discussion about their deity, they put their shield up and get extremely defensive about it to the point of defending absurdities. I totally agree with what you've stated, but to me it's obvious that there's some emotional attachment/investment in there that stems further than just the good ol' "God did it! lol!" ideas.

Most likely because they are too weak to cope with the idea of a "god" not existing.  It would make life not worth living to have the long time belief system proved to false. People cling to life. If "god" is their "life" then then their life in fact is attached to the "presence" of this imaginary being that "loves and cares for them" and to lose that terrifies them.

It would be hard to be terrified if someone is already dead and there was nothing.  However, if someone dies and goes to heaven, they are then rewarded for that faith because of being in that blessed place.  I would find it extremely terrifying if I died and found out that because I didn't choose to believe in the Lord that I would be sent to an eternal place of punishment.  But there again, it is up to only the person what he or she believes or doesn't believe, agrees with or doesn't agree with.

[falcon9]

Indeed, everyone, whether Christian, athiest, non-believer, etc., will need to take personal responsibility for their decisions. 

There is however,  a great deal of difference between a nonreligious person taking personal responsibility for their decisions and a religious person abdicating such responsibility to "faith" in a belief system.

You say a Christian's belief, with faith, is an "inherent irrationality"...

I don't just "say" it, I've presented the reasoning which shows that "faith/belief" are inherently irrational since they specifically rely upon a _lack_ of evidence/substantiation.  I've asked several people who profess to such, (at least three of them on this forum), if they instead maintain that these 'beliefs' are rational and to support their opinion with something other than 'I believe my beliefs are rational', (which is circular and a null argument).  None have deigned to represent "faith/beliefs" as rational positions per se however, few could reasonably be expected to readily admit that they hold irrational beliefs.

... while in turn, some think that ones who cannot break with the fascination of accepting only concrete evidence, is just as odd. 

Why would that be considered odd?  Do you not require concrete evidence of the groceries you purchased to be bagged to take home?  Does not the grocery cashier require concrete evidence that you've paid for those groceries?  Would you prefer to have 'faith' that the groceries are yours or, expect the cashier to have 'faith' that you paid for them?

Everyone who dies will either live forever with God, or live in the eternal place of punishment, OR, will know nothing because of nothing afterwards.  That's the time when those "belief systems rendered false" will be either be shown to be true, false, or nothing. 

You're speculating there, (since there is no evidence to support your contentions).  Being unaware of other potential options, (no one knows yet), doesn't default the options to the ones speculated upon.  The belief systems mentioned are rendered false because they rely wholey upon "faith/belief" sans substantiation.  That makes them false claims, (since the claimants have consistantly failed to support their claims with anything other than they believe because they have faith - a manifestly circular justification).

As a believer,  I know what I believe to be true is definitely based on my faith in the Lord, in His Word, and on historical teachings. 

You've just confirmed my assertion of the circularity of such a justification.

You nor others in here don't have to exercise that faith nor will I ever be one to try and force it on anyone.  I will speak of it when I feel like I need to or am asked questions about it.  Like others in here have said, this is debate and discuss, not combat and torture. 

Yes, this forum is entitled "D+D", rather than Evade + Sophistry, (which doesn't account for those of "faith" & religious beliefs evading debate points or using sophist circularity as discussion).  These are words; they do not constitute "combat" nor "torture" although they do constitute challenges to those making unsupported claims, (which may be viewed as unconfortable for those unable to meet such challenges).  Consider this; how strong is a belief or faith that cannot stand up to a merely textual challenges, (let alone such documented 'conversion at the point of a sword' challenges to "nonbelievers")?

The bottom line is that people become Christians because they choose to believe, others choose to ignore any concept of God, while others are searching for answers. 

One of the main points of contention within this debate has been whether or not such a choice "to believe" is made on an irrational or, rational basis.  So far, no case for a rational basis for that choice has been presented while the reasoning behind the counter contention of an irrational basis has been elaborated upon extensively.  As far as "searching for answers" goes, I submit the theory, (not the claim), that those holding whichever religious beliefs they cling to have ceased searching and "believe" they've found their "answers".  On the other hand, those who do not cling to such irrational beleif systems are in a better position to keep searching, questioning and being skeptical of unsupported opinions.

[falcon9]

For some reason, (e.g., unknown excuse), such folks apparently don't realize that keeping their belief systems to themselves wouldn't be a problem for everyone else and that their inability to do so is the problem.

“Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all creation” (Mark 16:15)

That's the problem. Mythical/romanticized holy men told them to do it, so they've got to do it. No questions asked. There's plenty of this sprawled out over the New Testament. Trying to show major problems, contradictions, the lack of evidence, etc. in their holy texts is pretty much pointless because they are so adamantly against the idea of something being wrong with their beliefs and thus ignore it-- their god can't be wrong. It's either they don't acknowledge what's in plain sight (I have been told in person that they "just don't see it that way" when the problem is right in front of them) or they make up ridiculously naive excuses of why it's right (it says this, but it actually means this!). Of course this leads back to the faith card, and that's why it's so screwy to us. We don't understand the emotional aspect (as it may vary from person to person), but we do understand everything else.

It's still circular at the foundation; they "believe" that they should evangelize because of their "faith".  I'm going to stick with the theory, (not my 'claim'), that circumstantial evidence of the human tendency to abhor being "wrong" prevails as it does in nonreligious matters.  As "cuppycake" pointed out, having their cherished "beliefs" rendered as irrational, (or worse yet, as false), is a tacit blow to their ego which they are unable to withstand.  This goes far to account for the lengths such religious folk are willing to go out on unsupported limbs, (the excuses, the circular non-reasoning, the emotional justifications).

[falcon9]

It would be hard to be terrified if someone is already dead and there was nothing.

That's not the fear, (terror), religious folks implicitly express; they feel such while they are still alive and dreading physical death.  If you are maintaining that the only options were "heaven/hell/nothing", that is a false dichotomy.

However, if someone dies and goes to heaven, they are then rewarded for that faith because of being in that blessed place.  I would find it extremely terrifying if I died and found out that because I didn't choose to believe in the Lord that I would be sent to an eternal place of punishment.  But there again, it is up to only the person what he or she believes or doesn't believe, agrees with or doesn't agree with.

What happens to such "faith" if a person dies and isn't presented with the 'heaven/hell/nothingness' options listed?  We can only speculate however, we can reasonably estimate that if those options aren't available then "faith/belief" in nonviable options while alive didn't prepare one at all for when they're not alive.  Essentially, it comes down to whether or not a nonphysical existance is the case after physical death.  Either it is or, it isn't.  If it is, any speculations upon the conditions pertaining to nonphysical existance are speculative.  If it isn't, no speculations are required.

[acurtsinger2]

i beleive that maybe birds and bees and all other creatures evolved to allosw that the best survive and the weak do not..but we are the only creatures that love...so why was that a necessary evolution on the humans part?   the big bang may have made worms and snakes and birds, but GOD MADE HUMANS

[falcon9]

i beleive that maybe birds and bees and all other creatures evolved to allosw that the best survive and the weak do not..but we are the only creatures that love...so why was that a necessary evolution on the humans part?   the big bang may have made worms and snakes and birds, but GOD MADE HUMANS

How do you know that "we are the only creatures that love"?  Is this merely your opinion or, have you checked with whales, dolphins, apes, monkies, cats, dogs, etc.?  You extend the concept of "love" to humans but, not to, (or from), other creatures?  Of course, you'd have to define what "love" is before making such a determination; unless it is simply your opinion/belief.

[SurveyMack10]

I abandoned further dialog with you because I do not respect dishonesty and consider it a weak trait unworthy of reciprocation).

Coincidentally, that's pretty much what ended dialog with "SurveyMack10"; her dishonest debate tactics, (I mean, the ones which her own quoted words demonstrated, not mere empty accusations such as yours).

 

Actually, what ended our dialog was your inability to produce the "unanswered challenges" you claimed to exist.

No, what interrupted that "dialog" was my refusal to remind you of what you wrote.  Your faulty memory is not my responsibility.  The challenges you failed to answer are available in the threads in which you participated.  Your continued evasions directly indicated that quoting your own words to repeat the challenge would only engender further evasions on your part.  These evasions relate directly to your next  unsupported claim below:

I was in no way dishonest and I resent that remark.

The unaltered record of your own posted words belies your claim.  It is therefore false and provides additional evidence of your dishonesty.

Also, the bringing up of my name in this post shows ...

It merely shows that your comments were used as an example when "Abrupt" brought up dishonest "debate" tactics after attempting to come to your aid, (as your comments below confirm).

Abrupt- I enjoy reading your responses and find it refreshing that someone calls falcon9 out on his attacking of others debate tactics rather than the actual issue.

On the contrary; I _have_ not only debated the contextual issues but, have refrained from _initiating_ 'attacks', (confining my peripheral responses in that regard to a few counter-attacks After ad hominems were employed against me first).  The hypocrisy of those who initiated the ad hominem attacks, ("SurveyMack10" & "Abrupt"), is contained in these threads and in their own words.  Given this evidence, (which is available to any unbiased reader), one could view that as compelling evidence that Mack lies compulsively.

Your accusing me of lying compulsively, along with the other personal attacks you frequently make at anyone who disagrees with you, severely lowers your credibility and shows your lack of ability and maturity to discuss something without attempting to degrade others.

[SurveyMack10]

I totally agree with your argument that faith is an essential part of Christianity and that God cannot simply show himself for this reason.

Interesting that a lack of evidence is an essential part of the belief system.

I also feel that due to this there will always be people that do not agree, but not everyone can accept that we are allowed to have different belief systems.

On the contrary, anyone who prefers to hold unsubstantiated opinions, ('beliefs', as it were), can do so - at least in the U.S., (not so much in some other places).  Once they toss these unsubstantiated opinions out for Debate+Discussion in a public forum however, they tacitly accept that others may dissent and that such informed dissent is as much "allowed" as their empty opinions are.

You must have somehow mistook this post as being directed towards you as it certainly was not.

[vmcutshall]

I believe that people create their own religion, to justify their beliefs. But faith is believing in the unbelievable and trusting that God will be there through thick and thin. God has always been there for me when I need Him. I am not asking you to believe what I believe I am just telling you my experience with my faith and God. I wish every one knew God the way I do but God gave everyone free will to choose for them selves. 

[SurveyMack10]

I believe that people create their own religion, to justify their beliefs. But faith is believing in the unbelievable and trusting that God will be there through thick and thin. God has always been there for me when I need Him. I am not asking you to believe what I believe I am just telling you my experience with my faith and God. I wish every one knew God the way I do but God gave everyone free will to choose for them selves. 

I love when people share their beliefs and respect others at the same time. I too believe in God and am glad to hear of someone else sharing their faith in a positive way!

[Abrupt]

Abrupt- I enjoy reading your responses and find it refreshing that someone calls falcon9 out on his attacking of others debate tactics rather than the actual issue. Also, I want you to know I am not a dishonest person and that statement made by falcon9 is false. I totally agree with your argument that faith is an essential part of Christianity and that God cannot simply show himself for this reason. I also feel that due to this there will always be people that do not agree, but not everyone can accept that we are allowed to have different belief systems. You have been very respectful when dealing with those who believe differently, even when faced with blatant rude remarks and it has built up your credibility in my opinion.

Thank you, I actually sort of like debating falcon9 as he will force you to clarify your thinking.  Even though it may seem to many to be a lesson in futility it is a good way to improve ones debating skills.  He is fairly consistent and proficient in his style, but you cannot debate him in a typical fashion for the purpose of exchange, but must instead assume the posture of an attorney in a courtroom.  Do not concern yourself with defending your position to others based on what falcon9 says as any that read many of his posts will soon notice that he is self referencing and often relies upon his accusations as evidence of an offense.  I never judged you as dishonest so worry not with that.  Some people are so polarized in how they think and so reliant upon immediate feedback that (without them having known otherwise) they could not voluntarily introduce themselves to the eye of a hurricane because the outer winds would only lead them to conclude that such is the way from all parts and positions of the storm -- what I mean is in relation to faith is that they cannot understand how faith can give you a sense of knowledge about things that cannot be learned or gained in some external observation.  These people trust their physical senses, and some even trust their instincts or gut, but they can never realize that faith grants you another sense that is as tangible as any physical sense and just as impossible to define to one without such a sense.  One can never truly instruct one who has never seen or heard exactly what the experience is like and you cannot do the same for those that never possessed faith.  

I try to be respectful, and generally never mean offense even when it appears that I do.  I do sometimes employ more base tactics to learn information about people when I try to get a better understanding of the person behind the words, but even these are not meant to damage or insult, but instead to reveal and sometimes even to rattle the cage a bit.  I am no master of debate but have had experience with it and enjoy the exercise and I find the best way to improve is to pursue it with/against those that have a talent for it.  There are many different debate styles, and some feel more like a blood sport or an intellectual battle than they do a persuasion of ideas or a sharing of the opinions of knowledge and/or experiences.

[gramev64]

I always liked this:

F- forgetting
A-all
I-I
T-trust
H-HIM

We just have to trust HIM and He will do the rest!

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
Indeed, everyone, whether Christian, athiest, non-believer, etc., will need to take personal responsibility for their decisions.

Quote from: falcon9:
There is however,  a great deal of difference between a nonreligious person taking personal responsibility for their decisions and a religious person abdicating such responsibility to "faith" in a belief system.

Not really.  Both the nonreligious person and the religious person are taking personal responsibility for their decisions.  A religious person may rely on faith as part of the basis, but there are other things they depend on, such as the Bible, historic events, findings (like scrolls, archaeological findings that correlate with the history in the Bible), and even family ancestry and events of many of the people who originally came to America from England and Holland because of wanting the freedom to worship God freely.  This does not include the curious, the nonbelievers, and/or adventurers who also came to this New World.
A nonreligious person is also taking personal responsibility for their decision, as well.  It's done because they choose to not put faith in something they cannot see, or maybe because they don't understand, or even because they just plain don't want anything to do with the subject.  Either way, both are making their decisions based on whatever reason and so are responsible for their own decisions.

[jcribb16]

Quote from jcribb:
You say a Christian's belief, with faith, is an "inherent irrationality"...

Quote from: falcon9:
I don't just "say" it, I've presented the reasoning which shows that "faith/belief" are inherently irrational since they specifically rely upon a _lack_ of evidence/substantiation.  I've asked several people who profess to such, (at least three of them on this forum), if they instead maintain that these 'beliefs' are rational and to support their opinion with something other than 'I believe my beliefs are rational', (which is circular and a null argument).  None have deigned to represent "faith/beliefs" as rational positions per se however, few could reasonably be expected to readily admit that they hold irrational beliefs.

Yes, you have presented reasoning but there are different types of reasoning that people use to debate their points:

1. Reasoning - the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises (*a basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds..; to assume, either explicitly or implicitly, (a proposition) as a premise for a conclusion.)

2. Fallacious reasoning - keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric ...
www.logicalfallacies.info/ 

3. Deductive and inductive refer to two distinct logical processes - Deductive  reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion drawn from a set of premises contains no more information than the premises taken collectively. All dogs are animals; this is a dog; therefore, this is an animal: The truth of the conclusion is dependent only on the method. All men are apes; this is a man; therefore, this is an ape:  The conclusion is logically true, although the premise is absurd. Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is proposed that contains more information than the observations or experience on which it is based. Every crow ever seen was black; all crows are black:  The truth of the conclusion is verifiable only in terms of future experience and certainty is attainable only if all possible instances have been examined. In the example, there is no certainty that a white crow will not be found tomorrow, although past experience would make such an occurrence seem unlikely.

4. Causal reasoning - is the idea that any cause leads to a certain effect. 
Causal reasoning can help to eliminate a few and strengthen the case for researching others, focusing research and targeting resources.
Read more: http://www.experiment-resources.com/causal-reasoning.html#ixzz1aTqWdxj

5. Abductive reasoning, or inference, is a useful tool for determining the course of scientific research.
Read more: http://www.experiment-resources.com/abductive-reasoning.html#ixzz1aTquj1Ni

You and I can say that each of our arguments is based on any or several of these types of reasoning.  Any of these can also be used to try and prove each of our points, logical or illogical.  You say our beliefs are "circular and null" no matter which reasoning is being used.  Yet your rebuttals are constantly circular as well because things presented have to keep being presented because you refuse to accept them as possible answers.  You want proof of something or someone you cannot see - as we want proof of you (not you, in particular) showing that this something or someone does not exist.

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
... while in turn, some think that ones who cannot break with the fascination of accepting only concrete evidence, is just as odd.
 
Quote from: falcon9:
Why would that be considered odd?  Do you not require concrete evidence of the groceries you purchased to be bagged to take home?  Does not the grocery cashier require concrete evidence that you've paid for those groceries?  Would you prefer to have 'faith' that the groceries are yours or, expect the cashier to have 'faith' that you paid for them?

Turn it around.  Since you require concrete evidence, then wouldn't you want to check behind the bagger to make sure there is proof that all items of your grocery list are really in those bags?  Wouldn't you need concrete proof that the money you hand the cashier is actually real and not counterfeit?  After all, there are many cashiers now who have to check the money and make sure your money is for real when it's large bills.  You are assuming that all items are bagged and that your money is not counterfeit when you buy those groceries.  You are also assuming that with each item you are buying that there is exactly the right amount on the inside as told on the outside, that something has not molded inside of a container, that there are correct labels for people with allergies to see and avoid that product (ex. peanut allergies,) etc.

 Maybe I sound ridiculous, but I'm just trying to make a point in return.  We may check the carton of eggs to make sure there are no broken ones or there is the right amount; and check things that are obvious.  However, concrete evidence or proof needed for certain people to see God, would seem normal to spill over into their everyday lives, needing proof of evidence of things that others take for granted (ex.: assumption that the legs of tables and chairs are put together correctly and not done cheaply;  assuming that there are no snakes under your couch, bed, refridgerator, etc., when reaching for something; assuming no one is in your house robbing it while you are gone or still there when you come in; etc.  There seems to be more required from Christians regarding proof of God than there are of things in some people's everyday lives.