shopping for religion?

Simon your 100% 'abcertainty' statement is wrong. I know 100% that logic exists, mathematics exist and an objects pyhsical attributes exist. Say you look out the window and see a tree, by your reckoning there is not 100% proof that tree exists. However the trees physical attributes exist i.e trunk, branch, leaves etc whether or not the tree is actually there.

Some things are more certain than others, but I know (to use the common definition of the word) that either God exists or am I psychotic to the point of hearing a voice that doesn't exist.

Strange because I KNOW for certain that a christian god with his given attributes does NOT exist.



G

Originally posted by spamandham

If you hear it with your ears like you would anyone else talking to you, then I suggest you seek medical attention. You may be having temporal lobe siezures.

I've explored this possibility - wouldn't you?

There's nothing physically wrong with my brain.

The voice I hear has no source - but it is not in my head.

Perhaps my faith is based in the unseen, but I do not understand how you arrived at the conclusion that faith is bad for society.

Faith does wonders, it is pride that endangers society, faith in and of itself is perfectly normal as far as I'm concerned and an everyday part of life.

If I go to a dentish in Harley Street London, I have faith in the fact that he will do a good job on my teeth, I may have never seen his work before but that doesn't stop me having faith in this persons ability to do a good job.

Likewise, I may not be certain of God's existence - but I go by what I can see and the evidence around me. I have seen evidence during my lifetime that has made it incredibly difficult, although not impossible - to doubt the existence of God.

Therefore I believe in him, I recognise that my belief is belief and not knowledge and I never use my faith to condemn others, since what I believe in faith is not certain by any means.

I do not understand why you have made it your mission to convert the believers, but it is a mission doomed to failure. You cannot change my belief any more than I can change yours. My faith is what I consider to be a gift from God, it doesn't make me a better person - it doesn't hurt anyone, either directly or indirectly, therefore I see no reason why it should be considered detrimental to the society in which I live in.

Originally posted by shihulud
Simon your 100% 'abcertainty' statement is wrong. I know 100% that logic exists, mathematics exist and an objects pyhsical attributes exist.

As was already explained, the term abscertainty in this thread means "absolute certainty." Obviously I do not know if you are absolutely certain of what you claim to be, but unless you can prove to us that you have attained absolute certainty of such things, you cannot say that Simon's abcertainty statement is wrong (well you can but it won't add anything to the discussion.)

Say you look out the window and see a tree, by your reckoning there is not 100% proof that tree exists. However the trees physical attributes exist i.e trunk, branch, leaves etc whether or not the tree is actually there.

The tree is the tree's phsyical attributes; if the tree's physical attributes exist, so does the tree. To perceive a tree however, is not enough to have absolute certainty of the tree's physical attributes, in other words the tree, existing.

Now back on topic:

Shopping for religion seems, to me, like searching the belief structure which makes you feel most comfortable. I think it is better to create a belief structure, rather than choose an organized one. This belief structure should be created through direct experience, and intuition.



[edit on 24/11/2005 by AkashicWanderer]

I can accept that Christianity satisfies many people. I can't understand it but I accept it. I don't try to change anybody's religious beliefs - everyone should find peace with G-d in whatever way is most true for them.

It does not matter what is “true for you.” If something is true, it has to be true for everyone. 2+2=4 isn’t just true for me, it’s true for everyone, period. Truth is truth is truth! Christianity is based on true historical facts that have been documented.

Shopping for religion seems, to me, like searching the belief structure which makes you feel most comfortable. I think it is better to create a belief structure, rather than choose an organized one.

You should not base your “shopping experience" on what makes you feel “comfortable.” Look at what is TRUE!!! Let the historical facts speak for themselves.
Why should you create your own belief structure, as there are too many in this world as it is. That’s how we got so many denominations to begin with.

This belief structure should be created through direct experience, and intuition.

No, it should be structured on what the Bible says. If you don’t believe in the Bible, ask yourself, “Why not?”
And research the facts. Pray and ask God to guide you and reveale Himself to you. If you are truly sincere in your quest for Him, He will speak to you, and guide you to the Truth.

Originally posted by just me 2
Truth is truth is truth! Christianity is based on true historical facts that have been documented.
[snip]
You should not base your “shopping experience" on what makes you feel “comfortable.” Look at what is TRUE!!! Let the historical facts speak for themselves.

And what historical facts would they be?, remembering that history is written by the victors. Also there is historical fact in 'The Da Vinci Code' are we then to surmise that this story is true and not fiction????

This belief structure should be created through direct experience, and intuition.

No, it should be structured on what the Bible says. If you don’t believe in the Bible, ask yourself, “Why not?”
And research the facts.

Granted the bible contains some useful info but so does the koran, the enuma elish, the pyramid texts and the oxford childrens encyclopedia so why should I choose the bible to believe in?. I have done a bit a research and my conclusion(at the mo) is that spiritual aspect of religion is untrue.



G

It does not matter what is “true for you.” If something is true, it has to be true for everyone. 2+2=4 isn’t just true for me, it’s true for everyone, period. Truth is truth is truth! Christianity is based on true historical facts that have been documented.

I'm not sure just how familiar you are with your own religion but, while there is some "truth", some "goodness", and some accurate "history" in the Bible and in your Christian doctrine, you simply cannot make the argument that it is all true and the only truth. Well, you might get away with that in your Sunday School class but, not too many other places.

I've been surrounded by Christianity (Paulinism) most of my life and an "active participant" for a great deal of it so, please save your preaching for someone else. In fact, I suggest you try reading something other than the Bible for a change. You just might discover that there is no religion, doctrine, dogma, or ideaology that has legitimate claim to the only possibile version of the truth.

However, you must find you own way or accept the way that somebody else has shown you and you must accept that others have the same freedom; a freedom not granted by any man-made law but by the natural law that makes it impossible for anyone to force a set of beliefs onto any other. It has never been possible and that is probably one of the greatest attributes of humankind. So, no matter how loudly you thump that Bible or use it as a bludgeon, you cannot convince me to accept a half-truth as the whole truth.

I'm trying to be as nice as possible, here. I do not think you are being intentionally false or malevolent. If you are as happy with your beliefs as I am with mine, then that's the way it ought to be.

Originally posted by just me 2
Christianity is based on true historical facts that have been documented.
...

Look at what is TRUE!!! Let the historical facts speak for themselves.

You're building your house on sand. There are no credible historical facts for the resurrection, or even the crucifixion, or for any of the miracles of Jesus. Nor is there any evidence that contradicts the premise that Jesus never even existed.

The complete lack of any contemporary documentation of the one who is supposedly the most important man to have ever lived, should be telling you something.

One of my most profound religious conversations took place at the house of a friend, a Hindu colleague from work. He'd mentioned Hinduism once and I'd said I'd read portions of the Mahabharata, Ramanaya, Bhagavad-Gita, and others, so he felt he could talk to me a bit. This particular day he asked me (after first asking me not to mention it to others and not to get upset with him) if I would "respond to a rumor" he'd heard about Christianity.

I told him I'd be glad to talk to him, wouldn't get mad, and would respect his privacy.

He hesitated a moment and then asked if it was part of the Christian cultism to "engage of a ritualistic cannibalism of their god"!

I was shocked for a second that anyone could believe such a weird thing, but then thought for a minute or so and said, "well, yes, we do believe in such a thing -- sort of." I didn't want to go into the difference between the Catholics' and Orthodox' doctrine of transubstantiation, the Episcopalians' and Lutherans' of consubstantiation, and most other Protestant sub-cults as 'something else'. but I did mention that the Last Supper, which, in turn was taken from another very Holy Day of the Jews, talked about such things.

He was shocked. It's obvious from his look that no CIVILIZED PERSON would EVER think of eating Brahma or Krishna!

My point is that stuff we people of a certain faith take for granted and are completely used to can be strange, frightening, and even a bit repugnant to others, which, by itself, is one of the reasons we need to learn how other peoples' faiths work -- just so we can keep from weirding each other out.

Originally posted by just me 2
It does not matter what is “true for you.” If something is true, it has to be true for everyone. 2+2=4 isn’t just true for me, it’s true for everyone, period. Truth is truth is truth! Christianity is based on true historical facts that have been documented.

This is a lie. Truth, as I stated earlier, is an almost entirely subjective phenomenon. There are no immutable facts stating that Christ lived, or that he was the son of God, just as there are no certain axia indicating the contrary. All we have in selecting our religion is faith, the lack thereof, or a keen appreciation for metaphor and symbolism that transcends the need for a physical deity.

Shopping for religion seems, to me, like searching the belief structure which makes you feel most comfortable. I think it is better to create a belief structure, rather than choose an organized one.

The "historical facts" have been edited, rewritten, added to, and taken away from so many times that they are more opinion than fact at this point. The truth is that none of us know what happened two thousand years ago, or at the dawn of the universe, or at any other point in time that we did not observe ourselves.

This belief structure should be created through direct experience, and intuition.

No, it should be structured on what the Bible says. If you don’t believe in the Bible, ask yourself, “Why not?”
And research the facts. Pray and ask God to guide you and reveale Himself to you. If you are truly sincere in your quest for Him, He will speak to you, and guide you to the Truth.

The Bible became unreliable in about 500 A.D. with the Council of Nicea and Emperor Constantine's drastic overhaul of the scriptures. Since then it has been re-translated over and over again so many times that almost nothing of the original remains.

And if we are to believe the Bible, to which translation ought we adhere? Several of them are at odds with each other, and even within a given iteration of the book one will find numerous idioms that contradict one another directly.

Christianity is as good a religion as any, as long as one focuses more on the message of Christ than on the exact semantics of its delivery or the millenia-old propaganda that fills texts like the epistles of Paul. But to expound it as certain fact is to wander into dangerous territory where you will be hard pressed to find a solid bit of ground to stand upon.

[edit on 25-11-2005 by The Parallelogram]

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
I've explored this possibility - wouldn't you?

There's nothing physically wrong with my brain.

You can't eliminate brain malfunction even if you've been checked out. Our instruments aren't that good. They can detect large scale problems, but not minor ones. A second possibility is night terrors (which are not always terrifyng). It is possible to enter a dream state that is vividly remebered as real later on.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Perhaps my faith is based in the unseen, but I do not understand how you arrived at the conclusion that faith is bad for society.

Faith causes the sheep to follow blindly. Acceptance of faith in one aspect of your life impairs skepticism in other aspects. I suspect this is why there is such strong correlation between religious faith and political faith.

Faith leads to war and religious atrocities such as the Inquisition, witch trials, the Holocaust, etc.

People often react violently when there faith is challenged, and many consider the mere existence of those without their faith as a challenge.

In the US, the faithful evangelical are organizing politically to attempt a back door theocracy. Can you honestly say that Bush's religious faith played no role in the decision to attack Iraq?

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
If I go to a dentish in Harley Street London, I have faith in the fact that he will do a good job on my teeth, I may have never seen his work before but that doesn't stop me having faith in this persons ability to do a good job.

That isn't faith, that's a judgement based on evidence. The mere fact that he is in business and is accredited is a good indicator he is competant.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
I have seen evidence during my lifetime that has made it incredibly difficult, although not impossible - to doubt the existence of God.

Since you know god exists based on evidence, you should have no problem providing a consistent definition for "god".

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
I do not understand why you have made it your mission to convert the believers, but it is a mission doomed to failure.

Convert them to what?

I'm not really trying to convert anyone, I'm simply battling against the lies, half-truths, crap evidence and faulty reasoning people present. Isn't exposing falseness a noble goal in it's own right? At the same time, I'm refining my own position. Who knows? Maybe someone will come along with something innovative and change my position.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
You cannot change my belief any more than I can change yours.

You can change mine, but you will have to present a solid rational argument to do so. I won't accept arguments based on emotional pleas, or arguments from consequences, or other fallacious forms.

I agree that I probably can't change yours, but perhaps I can at least help you get to the point where you realize it truly is based on faith. If I can help you reach the point where your only answer to the question "why do you believe" is "because I have faith", we will both have been served.

You have given clues that although you claim to have faith, in reality you are using what you consider credible evidence combined with faulty reasoning to support your beliefs. Faith is less dangerous when people realize it really is pure faith. Tolerance of others follows that realization.

Young earth Christians and Biblical inerrantists are classic examples of how dangerous people can be when they think their religious faith is rooted in evidence.

Originally posted by just me 2
If something is true, it has to be true for everyone.

Agreed, so long as the word "truth" as you are using it, is meant to mean "absolute truth."

Unfortunately I cannot perceive absolute truth. I can only subjectively perceive through my five senses. What may be subjectively true to me, may be subjectively false to you. This is very important to remember. Your perspective, based on subjective truth, is not absolute truth.

2+2=4 isn’t just true for me, it’s true for everyone, period.

Mathematics are subjective. Perhaps in another region of space, in which the spacetime continuum does not act in the same way ours does, and Euclidian geometry is no longer valid, 2+2 may not equal 4.

Christianity is based on true historical facts that have been documented. Look at what is TRUE!!! Let the historical facts speak for themselves.

Gnosticism is based on true historical facts that have been documented!

Obviously neither you or I have any absolute proof to back up our claims of absolute truth.

The documentation of historical events is subjective, and as such any perception of these documented facts will also be subjective.

Why should you create your own belief structure, as there are too many in this world as it is.

The quantitative properties of belief structures, should not in any way infuence my choice of creating a new one.

This belief structure should be created through direct experience, and intuition.

No, it should be structured on what the Bible says.

I do not value written subjective interpretation over my own direct experience and intuition.

Pray and ask God to guide you and reveale Himself to you. If you are truly sincere in your quest for Him, He will speak to you, and guide you to the Truth.

Agreed.

Originally posted by spamandham

Faith causes the sheep to follow blindly. Acceptance of faith in one aspect of your life impairs skepticism in other aspects. I suspect this is why there is such strong correlation between religious faith and political faith.

Faith leads to war and religious atrocities such as the Inquisition, witch trials, the Holocaust, etc.

People often react violently when there faith is challenged, and many consider the mere existence of those without their faith as a challenge.

In the US, the faithful evangelical are organizing politically to attempt a back door theocracy. Can you honestly say that Bush's religious faith played no role in the decision to attack Iraq?

Of course his faith played a role - but it is also equally obvious that his faith was misplaced, just for the record - I am strongly opposed to the Iraq war and have been to several anti-war marches, most notably in February of 2003, prior to the invasion.

Originally posted by Spamandham
That isn't faith, that's a judgement based on evidence. The mere fact that he is in business and is accredited is a good indicator he is competant.

I would have to disagree, there are plenty of dentists with false credentials - in choosing a dentist, I must have faith that his credentials are trustworthy.

Originally posted by Spamandham
Since you know god exists based on evidence, you should have no problem providing a consistent definition for "god".

I never said I knew - I said I believed through faith. However my faith is based on evidence gathered. I also do not agree with your stance that you must be able to define something in order to prove it exists - mathematically/scientifically speaking certainly, otherwise no.

Do emotions exist? Try and define an emotion without using another emotion as an adjective, it's hard - not impossible certainly. But why should I be able to define emotions in order to believe that they exist.

To be honest, I could provide a definition for God, but it would be my interpretation of God and not a definition shared by everybody, thus it would be considered inconsistent by your standard. I hardly see the point.

Originally posted by Spamandham
Convert them to what?

I'm not really trying to convert anyone, I'm simply battling against the lies, half-truths, crap evidence and faulty reasoning people present. Isn't exposing falseness a noble goal in it's own right? At the same time, I'm refining my own position. Who knows? Maybe someone will come along with something innovative and change my position.

Fair enough, but it comes across from your posts as though you believe your interpretation is the only logical interpretation that can be reached from a look at the facts - just because your logic follows a logical sequence does not imply it is faultless.

Originally posted by SpamandhamYou can change mine, but you will have to present a solid rational argument to do so. I won't accept arguments based on emotional pleas, or arguments from consequences, or other fallacious forms.

I agree that I probably can't change yours, but perhaps I can at least help you get to the point where you realize it truly is based on faith. If I can help you reach the point where your only answer to the question "why do you believe" is "because I have faith", we will both have been served.

You have given clues that although you claim to have faith, in reality you are using what you consider credible evidence combined with faulty reasoning to support your beliefs. Faith is less dangerous when people realize it really is pure faith. Tolerance of others follows that realization.

Young earth Christians and Biblical inerrantists are classic examples of how dangerous people can be when they think their religious faith is rooted in evidence.

Evidence can support a number of conclusions, it is by faith that I came to believe in God - but I disagree that my faith is independant of any evidence.

My belief is based on faith, this has always been my position - however your assumption that my belief is based on blind faith is one that I cannot agree with. I have always been a skeptic, I test everything until I am satisfied with my conclusion, I have no qualms about dismissing my beliefs entirely if new evidence should come to light that contradicts my beliefs.

I believe that atheism requires just as much faith as belief in God. Both atheists and believers are uncertain whether God exists. The only position that does not require faith is agnosticism, but that is a position that relies on not answering the question, leaving it open - sitting on the fence in a sense.

Tolerance is achieved through understanding that both atheists and believers require faith in the evidence they have gathered. If you understand that your position is based on faith, you will be less likely to be intolerant of someone elses belief.

That is my opinion on the matter in any case.

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

Mathematics are subjective. Perhaps in another region of space, in which the spacetime continuum does not act in the same way ours does, and Euclidian geometry is no longer valid, 2+2 may not equal 4.

I think your maybe a wee bit too subjective, it doesn't matter where you are in the universe 2+2 will always = 4. Look at it this way if you build a time machine and travel back 4000 years you will be relatively -4000 years old but really your still the same age as you were, your body will be working on your time not relative time. Same goes for maths

Also since you like subjectivity I can bet that you dont live your life subjectively. Next time your on the top of a high building, look over the edge and see how far down it is. Now because your 'subjective' it would be reasonable to assume that it might not be as high as it looks so why not jump off to test your 'subjectivity' Somehow I dont think you would jump just as much as you would stand in the way of a speeding bus.


G

Originally posted by shihulud
I think your maybe a wee bit too subjective, it doesn't matter where you are in the universe 2+2 will always = 4.

How do you know this?

It is currently accepted that our Euclidean geometry is only true in this region of space. Were you to travel to a region of space with no large body of mass near it, you might find that currently accepted geometric laws are no longer in effect.

It is only reasonable to assume that if laws of geometry are directly dependant on a large body of mass, it is very possible that our laws of mathematics are as well.

Look at it this way if you build a time machine and travel back 4000 years you will be relatively -4000 years old but really your still the same age as you were, your body will be working on your time not relative time.

This is all just subjective speculation. Were it possible to physically travel back in time, how do you know that no bodily physical variables would change?

Also since you like subjectivity I can bet that you dont live your life subjectively.

The only other choice would be to live my life objectively, which as I already explained is impossible.

Next time your on the top of a high building, look over the edge and see how far down it is. Now because your 'subjective' it would be reasonable to assume that it might not be as high as it looks so why not jump off to test your 'subjectivity'

It is also possible to assume that the building may be a lot higher than it looks. Due to the nature of my subjective perception, both are equally likely, and therefore none is more reasonable than the other.

It is better to assume that what I perceive is correct, in order to be as objective as possible. Beginning to assume things based on subjective perception, in other words subjectively interpreting subjective information, only takes one further away from objectivity.


[edit on 25/11/2005 by AkashicWanderer]

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

Mathematics are subjective. Perhaps in another region of space, in which the spacetime continuum does not act in the same way ours does, and Euclidian geometry is no longer valid, 2+2 may not equal 4.

I think your maybe a wee bit too subjective, it doesn't matter where you are in the universe 2+2 will always = 4. Look at it this way if you build a time machine and travel back 4000 years you will be relatively -4000 years old but really your still the same age as you were, your body will be working on your time not relative time. Same goes for maths

Also since you like subjectivity I can bet that you dont live your life subjectively. Next time your on the top of a high building, look over the edge and see how far down it is. Now because your 'subjective' it would be reasonable to assume that it might not be as high as it looks so why not jump off to test your 'subjectivity' Somehow I dont think you would jump just as much as you would stand in the way of a speeding bus.


G

How is time the same everywhere?

Time is not a constant, the speed of light in a vaccuum is.

A year is as long as it takes for the world to orbit the sun. If you go to any other planet - a year will be longer or shorter depending on the length of time it takes for the planet to orbit the sun/star. How then is a year the same throughout the universe?

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Of course his faith played a role - but it is also equally obvious that his faith was misplaced,

The nature of faith prevents you from being able to determine whether or not it is misplaced.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
I would have to disagree, there are plenty of dentists with false credentials - in choosing a dentist, I must have faith that his credentials are trustworthy.

Well, I suppose if you have no reason at all to suspect he is competent, and yet you go in anyway, then that may well be faith - and you may well end up worse off as a result. Personally, I'd do a bit of investigating first.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
I never said I knew - I said I believed through faith. However my faith is based on evidence gathered.

If you have gathered evidence you consider credible, and properly used reason, and you have concluded "god" (whatever that means) exists, then you have knowledge, not faith.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
I also do not agree with your stance that you must be able to define something in order to prove it exists

If you can't define it, then you don't know what it is that you are arguing exists. You might as well be arguing that frolup exists.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Do emotions exist? Try and define an emotion without using another emotion as an adjective, it's hard - not impossible certainly. But why should I be able to define emotions in order to believe that they exist.

I suppose if you arguing that god exists because you experience god (in the same way emotions exist because you experience them), then I suppose that's valid, as long as you define god as simply the unknown source of that experience (which could very well be natural). Though I don't think that's what you have in mind when you say "god".

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
To be honest, I could provide a definition for God, but it would be my interpretation of God and not a definition shared by everybody,

All these people arguing that god exists, yet they can't even agree on what "god" means...tsk tsk.

The point of the definition excercise is not to demonstrate that your concept of god is somewhat unique to you, but rather, to demonstrate that the definition you likely have for god is contradictory in nature.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Fair enough, but it comes across from your posts as though you believe your interpretation is the only logical interpretation that can be reached from a look at the facts

Who doesn't talk that way? It's a hassle to hedge everything I say.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
My belief is based on faith, this has always been my position - however your assumption that my belief is based on blind faith is one that I cannot agree with. I have always been a skeptic, I test everything until I am satisfied with my conclusion, I have no qualms about dismissing my beliefs entirely if new evidence should come to light that contradicts my beliefs.

You and I are not using the same definition of faith. You do not seem to make any distinctions between faith, knowledge, and belief. These words are related, but they are not synonyms.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
I believe that atheism requires just as much faith as belief in God. Both atheists and believers are uncertain whether God exists. The only position that does not require faith is agnosticism, but that is a position that relies on not answering the question, leaving it open - sitting on the fence in a sense.

I disagree. I have made a judgement based on evidence that there are no gods. My judgement is a valid induction based on the evidence. I have as much right to say "gods do not exist" based on that judgement as a jury has to say "guilty". Neither of these is a claim of abscertainty.

FYI, agnostics can be theists or atheists in addition to being agnostic, because agnosticism is not a statement of belief, but rather, it is a statement of what is knowable. Anyone who says "There is no evidence for god, yet I believe in god through faith" is an agnostic.

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
The Bible became unreliable in about 500 A.D. with the Council of Nicea and Emperor Constantine's drastic overhaul of the scriptures.

Your off by about 200 years. Of course, there is no reason to suspect the books that found their way into the Bible were ever reliable to begin with.

Originally posted by Spamandham
The nature of faith prevents you from being able to determine whether or not it is misplaced.

He believed God was on his side. I don't know about you - but having seen the recent state of Iraq I'd beg to differ.

Originally posted by Spamandham
Well, I suppose if you have no reason at all to suspect he is competent, and yet you go in anyway, then that may well be faith - and you may well end up worse off as a result. Personally, I'd do a bit of investigating first.

You would have to believe that the person who was giving you the information was telling you the truth and was well-informed. This requires faith.

Originally posted by Spamandham
If you have gathered evidence you consider credible, and properly used reason, and you have concluded "god" (whatever that means) exists, then you have knowledge, not faith.

I have belief. I believe in gravity, through evidence. I do not know whether gravity exists, it is simply the most coherent explanation I have as to why I am attracted to the earth.

Originally posted by SpamandhamIf you can't define it, then you don't know what it is that you are arguing exists. You might as well be arguing that frolup exists.

As long as I knew within myself what frolup was and based my belief in frolup on good evidence then yeah - I agree.

Originally posted by SpamandhamI suppose if you arguing that god exists because you experience god (in the same way emotions exist because you experience them), then I suppose that's valid, as long as you define god as simply the unknown source of that experience (which could very well be natural). Though I don't think that's what you have in mind when you say "god".

God to me is the uncaused cause. God is infinite, having neither beginning nor end. God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. God is all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, omnipresent and just. It is impossible to know God fully as everything is within God - but God is within nothing and confined by nothing.

^^ That's my definition of God as I see him. There is nothing contradictory about this definition, unless you add to it.

Originally posted by SpamandhamYou and I are not using the same definition of faith. You do not seem to make any distinctions between faith, knowledge, and belief. These words are related, but they are not synonyms.

Knowledge in my opinion is impossible, in the truest sense of the word. In the traditional sense, knowledge is simply a belief with a fragment of truth in it. But since knowledge is subject to uncertainty (nothing is perfect), our truths are also subject to uncertainty, belief is the best we can hope for. Faith is belief in that which cannot be sensed (using the 5 senses we are aware of). We use faith when we are uncertain, faith is what makes us choose one explanation over another. When we have faith in something we also believe it to be true - this is what makes it belief and not knowledge.

Originally posted by SpamandhamI disagree. I have made a judgement based on evidence that there are no gods. My judgement is a valid induction based on the evidence. I have as much right to say "gods do not exist" based on that judgement as a jury has to say "guilty". Neither of these is a claim of abscertainty.

Valid does not mean true.

You have the right to claim gods do not exist, but you do not have the authority to tell people they are wrong when your beliefs are open to the same uncertainties as everyone elses. But as long as we're in agreement on the abcertainty issue, that's cool.

Originally posted by SpamandhamFYI, agnostics can be theists or atheists in addition to being agnostic, because agnosticism is not a statement of belief, but rather, it is a statement of what is knowable. Anyone who says "There is no evidence for god, yet I believe in god through faith" is an agnostic.

Perhaps that it what it has come to mean, but in Greek to be agnostic is to hold no opinion either way. That is the definition I am using.

not that I'm not enjoying this but, the premise of this thread is that people are "socially and/or culturally programmed" to select a certain religious bias without having ever examined any others...can we said to be in agreement on this? (I hope not - I'd hate to kill my own thread!)

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
He believed God was on his side. I don't know about you - but having seen the recent state of Iraq I'd beg to differ.

I don't think he has learned from it. He is still beating the war drums over Iran. He appears to have reached the pinnacle of faith - insanity.

Originally posted by Spamandham
You would have to believe that the person who was giving you the information was telling you the truth and was well-informed. This requires faith.

What you call faith, I call induction. Did you read the post I made a couple of posts back where I discussed these things and attempted to make definitions that we could work with? You didn't oppose those definitions, yet you are also not using them. You are still equating faith with belief of any kind, and use the word "knowledge" simply to mean "absolute certainty". I refuse to use these definitions, as they are nonstandard and appear to be designed for the express purpose of equating faith with reason via equivocation.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
God to me is the uncaused cause. God is infinite, having neither beginning nor end. God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. God is all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, omnipresent and just. It is impossible to know God fully as everything is within God - but God is within nothing and confined by nothing.

...vague enough to be meaningless, though I can't imagine what evidence has led you to believe this exists.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Valid does not mean true.

I agree, but "valid" is the best we can do without perfect knowledge. "True" applies only to pure logic.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Perhaps that it what it has come to mean, but in Greek to be agnostic is to hold no opinion either way. That is the definition I am using.

No it doesn't. "gnosis" relates to knowledge, not belief.