Faith

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
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.

Quote from: falcon9:
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).

You don't need evidence for contentions - it is as it is, or will be.  Either Christians will be proven wrong; or nonbelievers will be proven wrong, or nothing will be shown either way because of being dead and buried or cremated and nothing afterwards.  They are not false claims; they are reasonable possibilites/answers - with today's arguments regarding God/no God, if He is real, then everyone will know regardless of the direction they have chosen to go in.  If there is not God, then noone will ever know because of being dead.  So, if I'm wrong, I'll never know, will I?  But if I'm right, then not only will I know, but so will everyone else on earth.  Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever.  I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life.  Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words.  They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those. 

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
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.

Quote from: falcon9:
You've just confirmed my assertion of the circularity of such a justification.

Just as you have circled right around my reasonings and simply refuse to acknowledge even historical teachings, including places that still exist, even if in partial buildings or pieces, where things spoke of in the Bible took place, or places labled with people from the Bible who lived or worked or preached in those places, or archaeological findings of different rulers' temples being uncovered, or even the scrolls found that are in the original languages that speak of Jesus, God, other people - as written about in the Bible, etc.

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
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.

Quote from: falcon9:
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")?

Consider the words underlined in your response.  You are actually showing the one-sided view in a debate and discuss forum.  I don't consider people debating and discussing when the opposite side is trying to make the other side appear as incompetent, evasive, circular, nonchallenging.  You seem to always be on the opposition/prosecution side while putting Christians on the defense/defensive side.  You give the impression that Christians have the inability to think critically, which in turn, tries to make them appear vulnerable to manipulation. (Clarification:  By "You," I am not just singling you out.  I'm speaking of certain people who are nonbelievers, and usually those same people are very sharp and talented in the area of rhetoric.)  From the Old World Dictionary rhetoric can be any of these things:

1.  the study of the technique of using language effectively 
2.  the art of using speech to persuade, influence, or please; oratory 
3.  excessive use of ornamentation and contrivance in spoken or written discourse; bombast 
4.  speech or discourse that pretends to significance but lacks true meaning: all the politician says is mere rhetoric   
 
[C14: via Latin from Greek rhētorikē  ( tekhnē ) (the art of) rhetoric, from rhētōr rhetor ] 

I'm not necessarily saying you or others are using all of those definitions, but it is very obvious to people in here that rhetoric is being used, in a very skillful way, I might add.  But it doesn't change the views and reasonings, or research and answers, that Christians use as their debate/discussion.  Even if you or others want to call it irrational, then that is your opinion or wording.

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
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. 

Quote from: falcon9:
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.

Well, you are right in your "theory," in that those who have found salvation in the Lord do cling to that and don't have the need to search for other answers: God is their answer.  As for rational/irrational, that will remain to be determined, won't it?

With your other response, you say those who aren't clinging to an "irrational belief system" are in a "better position to keep searching, questioning, and being skeptical of unsupported opinions."  Please clarify then, just what these others are searching for and questioning about. Also, why they are even searching in the first place?  And what's the use of searching and finding something when it may have "unsupported opinions?"  Because then it would be too irrational to question and search about anything that may be a possible answer because of skepticism and/or not having enough supported opinions.  However, it appears that just about anything people put out there is better supported when it comes up against the speaking of God.  It almost sounds like there are some very strong nonbelievers who have a very real irrational fear about the possibility of God actually existing and yet they just can't get past the "irrationality" part of it.

[Falconer02]

They are not false claims; they are reasonable possibilites/answers - with today's arguments regarding God/no God, if He is real, then everyone will know regardless of the direction they have chosen to go in.  If there is not God, then noone will ever know because of being dead.  So, if I'm wrong, I'll never know, will I?  But if I'm right, then not only will I know, but so will everyone else on earth.  Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever.  I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life.  Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words.  They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those.  

If I may butt in- you leave out about a billion other possibilities and how other people feel. Christianity isn't the only correct path to salvation according to the majority of the world.
The way you live your life does fall into others lives-- for instance I recall you believing in creationism. Believing and teaching this is completely delusional and that these teachings have an impact on whoever you spread it to. We live in a time where we should value reason and not primitive/backwards thinking. "Irrational" and "delusional" are more than just words because they can have a major impact on others and how they learn about the world. You call these words intimidating and I completely agree- they should intimidate someone to think outside of the restraining box. Other than the religious zealots, there is nothing wrong with that.

[mzmojo]

Good afternoon 2 all, I was reading a bit of what was being said and I should add that The Bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Everyone has and always will have their own opinions @ the end of the day. But I will say this whether Christianity is viewed as right or wrong is it what I stand and believe on. I will  or have never attempted to "force" my opinions on others. I will live my life as God says I should and pray that others find their way in time before its 2 late. 

[jcribb16]

They are not false claims; they are reasonable possibilites/answers - with today's arguments regarding God/no God, if He is real, then everyone will know regardless of the direction they have chosen to go in.  If there is not God, then noone will ever know because of being dead.  So, if I'm wrong, I'll never know, will I?  But if I'm right, then not only will I know, but so will everyone else on earth.  Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever.  I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life.  Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words.  They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those.  

If I may butt in- you leave out about a billion other possibilities and how other people feel. Christianity isn't the only correct path to salvation according to the majority of the world.
The way you live your life does fall into others lives-- for instance I recall you believing in creationism. Believing and teaching this is completely delusional and that these teachings have an impact on whoever you spread it to. We live in a time where we should value reason and not primitive/backwards thinking. "Irrational" and "delusional" are more than just words because they can have a major impact on others and how they learn about the world. You call these words intimidating and I completely agree- they should intimidate someone to think outside of the restraining box. Other than the religious zealots, there is nothing wrong with that.

A billion other possibilities is quite a large amount.  Are you prepared to actually post about a billion other possibilities to back up your statement?  I'm not disagreeing, but making a point about what our words indicate.  Before I take the time to "debate" your remarks on delusional and irrational, I'm asking that you first read the different types of reasoning in another post of mine. 

I will say that you think those words should intimidate someone to think outside of the restraining box, and we all know this is aimed toward the Christians.  The same can be returned right back at you as well.  Some of you do not want to step out of your restraining box and take a leap of faith.  Just as there are religious zealots there are also athiest zealots out there.  However, debating and discussing does not mean that someone is forcing their views on others - but, unfortunately, there are some on both sides who do and both sides turn people off, tune them out, or start calling names.  That to me, is wrong, and going too far.

[jcribb16]

Good afternoon 2 all, I was reading a bit of what was being said and I should add that The Bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Everyone has and always will have their own opinions @ the end of the day. But I will say this whether Christianity is viewed as right or wrong is it what I stand and believe on. I will  or have never attempted to "force" my opinions on others. I will live my life as God says I should and pray that others find their way in time before its 2 late. 

I agree with you.

[falcon9]

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.

Not at all; challenges to the reasoning, (or lack thereof on your part and that of Mack10), could be made in a nonevasive manner in lieu of the unartful dodgings employed thusfar in failed attempts to avoid them.  True, no one is specifically obliged to answer challenges to unsupported opinions however, that's because this forum is not a court, (not even a kangaroo court).  That said, such evasions inherently serve as evidence of evasion.  This evidence of evasion leads to speculations as to why the challenges are being evaded and what that does to weaken the position of those who hold such evaded and unsupported opinions.

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.  

The acccusation that many, (or indeed any), of my posts are self-referential is empty and false.  It is made baldly and with no substantiation whatsoever which qualifies it as mere ad hominem to be disregarded.  On the other hand, evidence in the form of the 'acussed' own printed words, (of which unaltered records exist in these threads), exists to support the contentions, (not "accusations"), made against those who would prefer they were overlooked.  The weak 'counter-attack', (essentially a "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" schoolyard 'argument'), made fails simply because zero conclusive evidence was presented to support it.

--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.

A false "sense of knowledge" does not equate to accurate knowledge, particularly if such dubious "knowledge" relies on a LACK of evidence or substantiation, (e.g., "faith").  By definition then, "faith" cannot impart conclusive knowledge since it relies specifically on unsupported beliefs rather than verifiable evidence.  The word you seem to be hunting for in this context would likely be "gnosis" instead.

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.

Falsely characterizing "faith" as a "tangible sense" does not transform faith into a tangible sense.  In fact, asserting that it does constitutes another unsupported claim, (which I have little expectation of being substantiated, given your previous documented failures to do so).

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.

Such an 'excuse' would carry more conviction were it applied to your opponents as well.

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.

There are indeed a variety of 'debate styles' and some are far more subtle than others.  Be that as it may, information has been imparted in the course of these 'debates' and discussions, (either apart from or, embedded within the discussions themselves).  Each and every time such information as contradicts a "belief" has failed to be countered by "faith" alone.  This indicates either that those holding such "beliefs" have no reasonable counter-arguments or, that there aren't any, (thus envincing the fallback position of 'I don't need reason because faith expressly fails to require it').  And isn't that convienent?

[falcon9]

Both the nonreligious person and the religious person are taking personal responsibility for their decisions. 

That misses the point; religious persons often abdicate personal responsibilty for their decisions by declaring that the big, (or even small ones), are somehow "god's will".  Nonreligious persons do not do this and that's but one enormous difference in taking responsibility and ducking it.

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. 

Unfortunately, the "other things" you mention also rely upon the same "faith" and therefore, do not constitute conclusive evidence, (they do constitute hearsay, however).  Archeological findings reveal physical evidence of structures and implements, they do not inherently corroborate what actually happened in those digs, (as per the hearsay evidence of the bible or, Sanskrit scrolls for instance).  This means that the entire basis for the religious follower is "faith/belief" and not conclusively supportive evidence.

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.

I disagree since the religious persons are emphactically Not using _reason_ as opposed to many nonreligious persons using reason to question and ascertain the actual basis instead of taking an unwaranted 'leap of faith'.

[falcon9]

You don't need evidence for contentions - it is as it is, or will be. 

True, if you are making unsupported contentions - you don't need evidence to support them.  However, if you are asserting a contention which rests solely upon a nebulous "faith", then you tacitly concede that you are making an unsupportable contention.  An unsupported contention is merely an opinion without a solid foundational basis.

Either Christians will be proven wrong; or nonbelievers will be proven wrong, or nothing will be shown either way because of being dead and buried or cremated and nothing afterwards.  They are not false claims; they are reasonable possibilites/answers ...

You've discounted or omitted the variation that no one has yet come back from being dead, (except for a hearsay story regarding a zombie Jeshua), to provide evidence of what being dead is like.  That makes such religious claims as to what happens after one physically dies unreasonable, (no reasonable evidence presented), possibities.  As Falconeer02 pointed out, if one considers all potentialities as being equally "reasonable", (or unreasonable, as the case may be), then claims based upon them cannot be conclusively true.  That which is not conclusively true isn't necessarily false however, it tends to be, (otherwise, it'd be unambiguously true).  Either way, we don't know despite claims of the 'faithful' to know what happens after we're dead.

- with today's arguments regarding God/no God, if He is real, then everyone will know regardless of the direction they have chosen to go in.  If there is not God, then noone will ever know because of being dead. 

The reasoning is faulty in that we're making the for and against arguments while still alive, rather than while disembodied.  The more accurate position would be to argue such things after kicking the bucket.  If you can, I'll met you afterword, and we can pick up where we left off, (unless of course, you've unsuccessfully negotiated that transition and have dissapated into the "second death").

So, if I'm wrong, I'll never know, will I? 

You'll know/discover that you'd been wrong if your consciousness survives not only the transition of physical death, but also the challenge of surviving what's termed the "second death", (dissapation of the speculated disembodied state of being - for which I concede there is no evidence to support ... then again, this portion of the discussion rests upon speculating about speculations anyway).

Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever.  I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life.  Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words.  They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those.  [/color]

The thing is, were you to keep your personal speculative beliefs to yourself, no one would know about, (let alone challenge), them.  Putting them forth in a public forum means that you've tacitly agreed to "Debate+Discuss" them.  In turn, this means that complaining when challenged on a public forum is a bit irrational.  One of the points of contention within these threads has been an on-going challenge to those who profess various "faiths" to show whether their choice to rely upon "faith" is reasonable or, irrational.  Thusfar, no rational basis supported by reasoning has been presented, (indeed, it has been asserted by some of those of "faith" that faith expressly eschews reason and logic therefore, there are no logical reasons for professing "faith" according to such a position). 

As an aside, there are several instances where people consciously choose to use an irrational basis for choices.  Emotionally-based decisions are mainly inherently irrational, (and many people know this and proceed regardless).  Humor is essentially illogical and yet, laughter makes people feel good so, we indulge in it.  In some areas of human experience, making choices which rest upon an irrational basis can be dangerous, (e.g., running out into heavy traffic and expecting "faith" to keep one from getting whacked, for instance).

[falcon9]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
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.

Quote from: falcon9:
You've just confirmed my assertion of the circularity of such a justification.

Just as you have circled right around my reasonings ...

Not yet addressing your justifications, ("reasons" do not equate to 'reasoning'), isn't the same thing as your using circular 'nonreasoning', (e.g., "As a believer,  I know what I believe to be true is definitely based on my faith ... ").  It's a little one-sided to address your justifications while ya'll evade addresses challenges to your contentions however, I have done so and will again in this reply below.

... and simply refuse to acknowledge even historical teachings ...

If you are alluding to any non-biblical sources, please indicate which ones so that they can be examined in order to address them.  Perhaps you are hinting at the Dead Sea scrolls as one alternate source or, something else?

... including places that still exist, even if in partial buildings or pieces, where things spoke of in the Bible took place, or places labled with people from the Bible who lived or worked or preached in those places, or archaeological findings of different rulers' temples being uncovered ...

Finding archeological evidence of buildings, pottery or temples does not substantiate hearsay 'evidence' of events that allegedly took place there.  Finding the "Ark of The Covenant", the "staff of Moses", the original stone-carved "ten commandments" or heck, even some Aeyptian records of a bunch of hebrew migrant laborers fleeing from Aegyptian troops across the desert, (note: the pharohic civilizations of the specified time period kept pretty good hierglyphic records of both mundane things like crops production/nile floodings and more esoteric stuff as well).  An event like several thousand migrant workers taking off under such conditions as to instigate a military response would get noted simply because military actions did get recorded - even if only logistical/supply records), hasn't happened.

or even the scrolls found that are in the original languages that speak of Jesus, God, other people - as written about in the Bible, etc.[/color]

Other scrolls, in say, Sanskrit?  Surely you aren't obliquely referring to the gnostic or, Dead Sea scrolls?  If so, these are merely hearsay 'records' which predate latter transcriptions which would someday become various versions of the "bible".  They do not constitute independent evidence and indeed, hold such contradictions that the Council of Nicea deliberately omitted several source scrolls of so-called 'lost books of the bible'.  If that was not the quagmire alluded to, which other scrolls were intended in your vague reference?

[falcon9]

I'm not necessarily saying you or others are using all of those definitions, but it is very obvious to people in here that rhetoric is being used, in a very skillful way, I might add. 

Actually, you are saying exactly that however, this does not negate the reasoning employed by what you are characterizing as "rhetoric", nor does it alleviate the burden of reasonable rebuttal.  Essentially, you seem to be implying that, if you can recast reasonable challenges and the lines of reasoning presented as dissent in view of unsupported opinion as 'mere rhetoric' in the hopes of evasion, that you can avoid the dissenting arguments.

But it doesn't change the views and reasonings, or research and answers, that Christians use as their debate/discussion.  Even if you or others want to call it irrational, then that is your opinion or wording. [/color]

No doubt there are others awaiting such elusive "reasonings, or research and answers" to be presented as supporting evidence.  Ascertaining whether or not such purported, (and yet to be presented), 'evidence' is irrational, rational, conclusive or inconclusive will rely upon reasoning and not unsupported opinion, (as you conclude in advance of the ascertations ... making such a conclusion sophist).

[SurveyMack10]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
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.

Quote from: falcon9:
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).

You don't need evidence for contentions - it is as it is, or will be.  Either Christians will be proven wrong; or nonbelievers will be proven wrong, or nothing will be shown either way because of being dead and buried or cremated and nothing afterwards.  They are not false claims; they are reasonable possibilites/answers - with today's arguments regarding God/no God, if He is real, then everyone will know regardless of the direction they have chosen to go in.  If there is not God, then noone will ever know because of being dead.  So, if I'm wrong, I'll never know, will I?  But if I'm right, then not only will I know, but so will everyone else on earth.  Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever.  I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life.  Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words.  They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those. 

  great response!

[SurveyMack10]

Good afternoon 2 all, I was reading a bit of what was being said and I should add that The Bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Everyone has and always will have their own opinions @ the end of the day. But I will say this whether Christianity is viewed as right or wrong is it what I stand and believe on. I will  or have never attempted to "force" my opinions on others.

Very true, being a Christian is not harming anyone and there is no rule that we all have to believe the same thing. Great post!