Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Comments (Page 8,291)

Showing posts 165,801 - 165,820 of223,192
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Astra

Blacktown, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172719
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DNF wrote:
To 'astra'
Care to look at the violence you and your kind cause?
Bombing abortion clinics. That wasn't atheists.
They didn't bomb churches, that was you folks.
Atheists also don't expect free trips all over the world that are paid by someone else so they can proselytize in countries where such actions are illegal. Again that's YOUR group.
Shall we look at the 103 verses of the Bible that instruct your missionaries to obey civil laws?
Didn't think so.
Atheists are the worst killers humanity has ever come across.

"State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.

State atheism in Albania was taken to an extreme during the totalitarian regime installed after World War II, when religions, identified as imports foreign to Albanian culture, were banned altogether.[30] The Agrarian Reform Law of August 1945 nationalized most property of religious institutions, including the estates of monasteries, orders, and dioceses. Many clergy and believers were tried, tortured, and executed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
Astra

Blacktown, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172720
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
blog of lies!
Thats just your opinion! Atheism and free speech is not compatible. Tough luck you live in a democracy.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172721
Jul 21, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, at least you have the decency to admit it's just opinion.
Which makes me ask.... why?
Since, as you claim, it's literally of infinite significance?
Why?
Why did your god not do better than that?
What was his agenda, in allowing such obfuscation to creep in to his "message"?
And why not re-release a **modern** update? One that is clearly and without any doubts, of **divine** origins?
And don't try the dodge of "faith"... that won't wash.
Infinite significance, remember? To rely on the untrustworthy faith?
Is to be evil.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here Bob. I'm confused by your wording. Untrustworthy faith? Trust is faith. That's the way I've always understood the word. If you have faith in something, it's because you trust it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the dodge of faith." I truly want to answer your question Bob. I appreciate your kindness and your integrity. I see no difference between us, other than our worldview.
Perhaps if you explain what you mean, I can answer you. My answer may not be satisfactory to your sensibilities, but it will be an honest answer. You deserve no less than that.
25or6to4

Fond Du Lac, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172722
Jul 21, 2013
 
DebJ wrote:
<quoted text>
In my opinion, if there is nothing after life, then it's up to us to make every day count for something. If you've only got one chance, make the most of it.
Why does everything have to have a purpose for you to qualify? If you want everything to be structured and balanced, that's fine. Just be aware that you may not get it, no matter how badly you want it. Wouldn't you be better off woking with what you've got?
It takes some courage to even entertain the possibility that there may be nothing after life, would you agree? We cling to life, understandably; it's the only reality we really know. But why do some religious people want "eternal life?" Why do they see their own lives as so important, that they must continue.. FOREVER? Can there be some satisfaction in knowing that, after one dies, others will carry on with the challenges, the sorrows, the joys of life? Maybe do better than we did? Is seeking eternal life sort of being like the kid on the merry-go-round who never wants to get off and give someone else a turn? Is it an expression of ultimate selfishness? Just wondering.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172723
Jul 21, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here Bob. I'm confused by your wording. Untrustworthy faith? Trust is faith.
False. Faith is the exact opposite of knowledge.

If you had knowledge? You would not need faith at all.

If you know that someone can be trusted? You don't need any faith at all-- so "faith=trust" is bs.

In fact? When there is zero fact, but you wish to insist on some wishful idea is true anyway? You rely on..

... faith.

In short? Faith is a lie you have told yourself so often, that you forgot that it was a lie in the first place.

No god, who is good, would rely on faith alone.

To do so, is to be evil.

Because-- by definition-- faith is **never** based on fact (else you'd not need faith at all), so faith is based on not-a-fact.

A lie, as I already explained.
Roman Apologist wrote:
That's the way I've always understood the word. If you have faith in something, it's because you trust it.
No--it's because you have knowledge of it, or else you **think** you have knowledge of it (sometimes based in false "information" someone else has fed you).

To trust without knowledge is to be naive-- not unlike an innocent, but inexperienced child.

I expect better from any being worthy of the title "god".

And so, I must ask **why**, if the messages in the bible are literally of ***infinite*** consequence?

Why are there no certainties within it?

What sort of god writes a confusing and muddled-up mess, and then...

... goes **silent** for 2000+ years, with nary a reinforcement-repeat message?

Hint: if you **already** believe? Then the repeat-messages are not for **you**, are they? You've already given up and allowed yourself to be indoctrinated into the ...

... well, no other word to call it: the lies.

Without facts to back it? It's opinion-- lies, to be blunt.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172724
Jul 21, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "the dodge of faith." I truly want to answer your question Bob. I appreciate your kindness and your integrity. I see no difference between us, other than our worldview.
Perhaps if you explain what you mean, I can answer you. My answer may not be satisfactory to your sensibilities, but it will be an honest answer. You deserve no less than that.
Thanks. I **have** enjoyed our exchanges immensely. Makes me think.

I will be interested in how you answer the "dodge of faith" question.

I've asked this of other thoughtful people before.

Nobody, so far, can answer without retreating back into the false idea of faith.

Maybe you will surprise me?

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172725
Jul 21, 2013
 
25or6to4 wrote:
<quoted text>
It takes some courage to even entertain the possibility that there may be nothing after life, would you agree? We cling to life, understandably; it's the only reality we really know. But why do some religious people want "eternal life?" Why do they see their own lives as so important, that they must continue.. FOREVER? Can there be some satisfaction in knowing that, after one dies, others will carry on with the challenges, the sorrows, the joys of life? Maybe do better than we did? Is seeking eternal life sort of being like the kid on the merry-go-round who never wants to get off and give someone else a turn? Is it an expression of ultimate selfishness? Just wondering.
The allure of supposed immortality is a strong one.

It can also be (albeit dubious) comfort to someone who's come face-to-face with their own or their loved one's mortality.

Of course, once a person is deeply indoctrinated, that very mind-meme will seem to "fight" any attempts to dislodge it.

See the idea of antiprocess for an interesting hypothesis about this last observation. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiprocess" ;

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172726
Jul 21, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
Paul wrote first and likely within 3-5 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, and not decades later as you claim without proof or any supporting evidence. Here's how we can be highly confident of that:
Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthian church in 96A.D. in which he talks about the earlier letters of Paul they had received and were holding. This letter of Clement still exists and can be read today. In that letter, in chapter 47, Clement writes:
"Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you."
Cephas was the disciple Peter who converted Clement. In this letter, Clement plainly says that Paul started writing when the gospel was starting to be preached. Since Christianity started in Jerusalem, this has to be very early. It took months for the gospel to circulate.
I don't find this particularly convincing. Among other things, someone writing from the perspective of 50+ years later may very well see the first few decades as when things 'first began'. It is certainly far from clear that this means within the first 3-5 years. Furthermore, it isn't completely clear how long of a delay there was between the events and when people began to preach about the events. And how do you know this letter relates to events in Jerusalem? At best, it relates to when factions began to be formed in the early community. Since Paul was one of the foci for the development of such factions, your evidence is, at best, ambiguous.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172727
Jul 21, 2013
 
Source that there are no unbiased historians please. Wow you totally pulled that one out if your christhole. I would be humiliated to assume such a thing. I am not biased against the idea that Jesus existed, I am merely correctly stating that there is no historical proof for his existence. Sorry you don't like the facts when they contradict your biases.

Your apologetic book does not reflect on the majority of scholars. Produce a secular non apologetic scholar making that claim and we can go from there. See? I can answer questions, unlike you.

How could you possibly know what I like or don't like? Again you are assuming way too much and making a fool of yourself. Let's see if you are able to answer in a factual non apologetic opinionated way...

Proof that Paul supposedly wrote this 3-5 years later? We'll assume that this Paul even existed for the time being. That would fly in the face of conventional reasoning because the earliest shred of gospel doesn't appear until over 50 years later. Proof please. The only historically accurate letter of Clement is a letter to a church in Corinth berating church leadership. Anything else is a later writing attributed to him. And even if those weren't an early Christian forgery as is so prevalent in those days, he is doing nothing more than writing early Christian beliefs. Again this on no way answers why this man Paul, who we'll pretend existed for now, would be the first to write about this miracle man son of god instead of people who had actually supposedly met him. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

As expected you did not answer the question but rather desperately tried to change the subject in an effort to proselytize. Epic fail.

Lol expansion and compression! Lmfao! Come on man that is a total cop out and you know it. Apologetic bleating at it's finest! How could you possibly know the writer is doing that since we have no idea the person who actually wrote them? Provide the actual author and them documenting that they cruelly did this. Otherwise you are just making sht up again and you know it.

Tell me compress and expand where Jesus was born. Was it in Mary and Joseph's home or in a manger? Lol! So silly! Epic fail as expected. There are several errors and contradictions in the gospels and we don't need to compress or expand them to see them.

If I were a history student looking into the matter of Jesus' resurrection I would seek out verifiable, unbiased sources showing such a thing was even considered to have happened. Such an event would have been clearly documented by many in that time period especially since he marched into Jerusalem with hundreds of resurrected dead Jewish Prophets walking behind him. Such a thing surely would have been noticed correct? It would have made more waves than pottery sales yes?
Roman Apologist wrote:
That's not possible. No historian investigates the past without bias.

I notice you didn't say anything when I demonstrated that the books and the ten tests actually exist.

I'll be glad to fill in the blanks for you, but on my terms,And you don't like that do you?

Paul wrote first and likely within 3-5 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.

Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthian church in 96A.D. in which he talks about the earlier letters of Paul.

Now for challenge 2:

The alleged contradictions in the New Testament are only apparent contradictions. Meaning, they can be reconciled by knowing the context, the culture, the style of writing, etc.

For example, there is the subject of expansion and compression. How many women or angels were at the empty tomb is a great example of an apparent contradiction, and it's only because of one writer compressing the account.

Now I have a question for you.

If you were a history student, and were given the assignment of looking for historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, how would you proceed?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172728
Jul 21, 2013
 
Because he is unable to use reason but rather views things through his biased apologetic glasses. That is why he has no idea how idiotic he makes himself look.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>You know this... how? You have a magical Time Machine which lets you compare a 1000th generational copy document with the originals?

People do not change that much.

Unless you do have a Time Viewer? You are just blowing smoke.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172729
Jul 21, 2013
 
I already asked him to illustrate how they were incorrect and as expected he fled the question in terror. When you just pull stuff right out of your christhole such critical thinking questions are terrifying.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Well, at least you have the decency to admit it's just opinion.

Which makes me ask.... why?

Since, as you claim, it's literally of infinite significance?

Why?

Why did your god not do better than that?

What was his agenda, in allowing such obfuscation to creep in to his "message"?

And why not re-release a **modern** update? One that is clearly and without any doubts, of **divine** origins?

And don't try the dodge of "faith"... that won't wash.

Infinite significance, remember? To rely on the untrustworthy faith?

Is to be evil.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172730
Jul 21, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't find this particularly convincing. Among other things, someone writing from the perspective of 50+ years later may very well see the first few decades as when things 'first began'. It is certainly far from clear that this means within the first 3-5 years. Furthermore, it isn't completely clear how long of a delay there was between the events and when people began to preach about the events. And how do you know this letter relates to events in Jerusalem? At best, it relates to when factions began to be formed in the early community. Since Paul was one of the foci for the development of such factions, your evidence is, at best, ambiguous.
Yes, I agree with you-- the most optimistic dates appear to be no earlier than 60CE. And possibly as late as 120CE.

But even 60CE is too little, too late-- with an average lifespan of barely 30 years? Likely nobody alive, by 60CE, who was at the alleged events.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172731
Jul 21, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here Bob. I'm confused by your wording. Untrustworthy faith? Trust is faith. That's the way I've always understood the word. If you have faith in something, it's because you trust it.
The question isn't whether you trust it. The question is whether it is trustworthy. In other words, is the trust you put in it warranted? And, the fact is, many people put trust in things that are untrustworthy.

Now, you can be circular and say that you have decided to put trust in it, so you have concluded it is trustworthy. Or you can claim that subsequent events have validated that trust and proven the trustworthiness. But in that case, it *isn't* a matter of faith; it is a matter of beliefs you feel have been tested and validated. We can argue whether the tests are valid and demonstrate your claims, but it is not faith that validates beliefs, but testing.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172732
Jul 21, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
False. Faith is the exact opposite of knowledge.
If you had knowledge? You would not need faith at all.
If you know that someone can be trusted? You don't need any faith at all-- so "faith=trust" is bs.
In fact? When there is zero fact, but you wish to insist on some wishful idea is true anyway? You rely on..
... faith.
In short? Faith is a lie you have told yourself so often, that you forgot that it was a lie in the first place.
No god, who is good, would rely on faith alone.
To do so, is to be evil.
Because-- by definition-- faith is **never** based on fact (else you'd not need faith at all), so faith is based on not-a-fact.
A lie, as I already explained.
<quoted text>
No--it's because you have knowledge of it, or else you **think** you have knowledge of it (sometimes based in false "information" someone else has fed you).
To trust without knowledge is to be naive-- not unlike an innocent, but inexperienced child.
I expect better from any being worthy of the title "god".
And so, I must ask **why**, if the messages in the bible are literally of ***infinite*** consequence?
Why are there no certainties within it?
What sort of god writes a confusing and muddled-up mess, and then...
... goes **silent** for 2000+ years, with nary a reinforcement-repeat message?
Hint: if you **already** believe? Then the repeat-messages are not for **you**, are they? You've already given up and allowed yourself to be indoctrinated into the ...
... well, no other word to call it: the lies.
Without facts to back it? It's opinion-- lies, to be blunt.
Ah, yes, Faith in Action.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/health/paki...

Wait, WTF??

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172733
Jul 21, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The question isn't whether you trust it. The question is whether it is trustworthy. In other words, is the trust you put in it warranted? And, the fact is, many people put trust in things that are untrustworthy.

Now, you can be circular and say that you have decided to put trust in it, so you have concluded it is trustworthy. Or you can claim that subsequent events have validated that trust and proven the trustworthiness. But in that case, it *isn't* a matter of faith; it is a matter of beliefs you feel have been tested and validated. We can argue whether the tests are valid and demonstrate your claims, but it is not faith that validates beliefs, but testing.
As always you separate the chaff from the wheat here, and distill it down to words even *I* can understand.

Thanks-- you are correct-- it's the **testing** that generates new knowledge.

Without testing and verification? It's just ..

... Harry Potter-esque.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172734
Jul 21, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, yes, Faith in Action.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/health/paki...
Wait, WTF??
To alleviate them a smidgen? The CIA did commit fraud with respect to vaccines a little while ago.

Alas.

They posed as vaccinating doctors (and they actually **did** administer real vaccines), but were secretly gathering intelligence on the whereabouts of Al Queida and other would-be terrorists.

Alas, they couldn't keep this secret, and what they were doing -- leaked.

Now, the locals have an excellent excuse to distrust would be purveyors of vaccines....!

Horrid consequence-- but the CIA's never been real good at seeing the consequences of their insipid stupidity.

Iran/Contra, anyone?

.... meh.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172735
Jul 21, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
False. Faith is the exact opposite of knowledge.
If you had knowledge? You would not need faith at all.
If you know that someone can be trusted? You don't need any faith at all-- so "faith=trust" is bs.
In fact? When there is zero fact, but you wish to insist on some wishful idea is true anyway? You rely on..
... faith.
In short? Faith is a lie you have told yourself so often, that you forgot that it was a lie in the first place.
No god, who is good, would rely on faith alone.
To do so, is to be evil.
Because-- by definition-- faith is **never** based on fact (else you'd not need faith at all), so faith is based on not-a-fact.
A lie, as I already explained.
<quoted text>
No--it's because you have knowledge of it, or else you **think** you have knowledge of it (sometimes based in false "information" someone else has fed you).
To trust without knowledge is to be naive-- not unlike an innocent, but inexperienced child.
I expect better from any being worthy of the title "god".
And so, I must ask **why**, if the messages in the bible are literally of ***infinite*** consequence?
Why are there no certainties within it?
What sort of god writes a confusing and muddled-up mess, and then...
... goes **silent** for 2000+ years, with nary a reinforcement-repeat message?
Hint: if you **already** believe? Then the repeat-messages are not for **you**, are they? You've already given up and allowed yourself to be indoctrinated into the ...
... well, no other word to call it: the lies.
Without facts to back it? It's opinion-- lies, to be blunt.
Here's a link from two websites that show that the word faith is synonymous with trust.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/faith...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/trus...

I myself don't operate in a mindless vacuum of certainty. I don't know of anyone who does. Day in and day out we all make choices based on probability. If we choose to take a different route to work, it's based on the probability that another route is too busy or is too long, or has too many turns, etc. I approach trust/faith the same way. I evaluate everything on a scale that ranges like this:

Possibility>>>Plausib ility>>>Probability >>>Certainty

I don't have to be certain of something to trust it. I happen to live less than 500 yards from a traffic light. I trust it everyday based on the probability. Was there ever a time that this traffic signal didn't work? Yes. During storms and power outages. So can I be certain it will function 100% of the time? No. Nobody operates with 100% certainty all the time. If they did, they'd never leave the toilet.

As for your question, I trust that God has announced Himself in a major way. I believe the evidence is more probable than not, that He did this through the person of Jesus Christ. Now here is where I'm sure we'll disagree. I trust the evidence that is available to us. it's not 100% certain. I allow for the difference in culture, the chronological span, the language barrier, etc. I can't afford to assume that my lack of understanding negates the truthfulness or fallacy of any historical claim. If this is of infinite and eternal importance, then I am the last person I should trust.

Let me ask you a question. If God was to suddenly appear, leaving no question in the minds of humankind about his identity, what do you think the fear factor would be like?

And I still don't understand what you mean by the "dodge of faith." Call me slow on that one. You'll have to explain what you mean a little more in detail.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172736
Jul 21, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
To alleviate them a smidgen? The CIA did commit fraud with respect to vaccines a little while ago.
Alas.
They posed as vaccinating doctors (and they actually **did** administer real vaccines), but were secretly gathering intelligence on the whereabouts of Al Queida and other would-be terrorists.
Alas, they couldn't keep this secret, and what they were doing -- leaked.
Now, the locals have an excellent excuse to distrust would be purveyors of vaccines....!
Horrid consequence-- but the CIA's never been real good at seeing the consequences of their insipid stupidity.
Iran/Contra, anyone?
.... meh.
True.

And yet the children are crippled.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172737
Jul 21, 2013
 
Exactly. This doesn't even get into how much even on those first 4 centuries were changed around and edited once they did finally get penned.

If someone really thinks that the copy of the gospels people have in their bible today matches up with those ancient scrolls they are woefully mistaken. Even the scrolls vary from minor changes to entire paragraphs added or removed!
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I agree with you-- the most optimistic dates appear to be no earlier than 60CE. And possibly as late as 120CE.

But even 60CE is too little, too late-- with an average lifespan of barely 30 years? Likely nobody alive, by 60CE, who was at the alleged events.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172738
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I think your biggest problem is you rely far too much on personal bias and belief. This is fine if you want to discuss your faith with fellow Christians, but if you want to step into our world based in observable reality you will need facts.

I can tell you rely on presupposition thinking that others deep down agree with you. This is childish and makes a fool of out of you.

When wanting to debate or sway an atheist you will need to use testable, verifiable data not personal opinions and your habit of dodging questions and deliberately changing the subject when you are stumped, one of your favorites we see, only makes you look foolish.

I grew up in a friendly little baptist church. So your tactics are nothing new for me as the youth ministers and even boss man preacher would do the same thing. Avoid questions, give excises why they didn't want to answer them and change the subject.

Of anyone would try to do that in any other circumstance they would be laughed out of the room.

Let me show you an example of how you look.

Teacher: Little Johnny? Stand up and tell us what is 8 x 8.
Little Johnny: 8 times 8 teacher is a construct of your mind and really has no certifiable answer.
Teacher: Little Johnny we are not discussing philosophy we are having a multiplication test on Friday. Do you know the answer?
Little Johnny: We have several experts across the world who would look at that from a variety of standpoints. Here is just one, Mr. Smith of Sacramento California is studying the stray cats in his neighborhood. He noticed that when he gave them milk and cat food compared to milk and tuna fish they would...
Teacher: That has no relevance to your multiplication test. Do you know the answer or not?
Little Johnny: I have answered your question, sorry if it didn't meet your expectations. If you would look at the stray cats when they had cat food and milk compared to..
Class: Sigh....
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Here's a link from two websites that show that the word faith is synonymous with trust.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/faith...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/trus...

I myself don't operate in a mindless vacuum of certainty. I don't know of anyone who does. Day in and day out we all make choices based on probability. If we choose to take a different route to work, it's based on the probability that another route is too busy or is too long, or has too many turns, etc. I approach trust/faith the same way. I evaluate everything on a scale that ranges like this:

Possibility>>>Plausib ility>>>Probability >>>Certainty

I don't have to be certain of something to trust it. I happen to live less than 500 yards from a traffic light. I trust it everyday based on the probability. Was there ever a time that this traffic signal didn't work? Yes. During storms and power outages. So can I be certain it will function 100% of the time? No. Nobody operates with 100% certainty all the time. If they did, they'd never leave the toilet.

As for your question, I trust that God has announced Himself in a major way. I believe the evidence is more probable than not, that He did this through the person of Jesus Christ. Now here is where I'm sure we'll disagree. I trust the evidence that is available to us. it's not 100% certain. I allow for the difference in culture, the chronological span, the language barrier, etc. I can't afford to assume that my lack of understanding negates the truthfulness or fallacy of any historical claim. If this is of infinite and eternal importance, then I am the last person I should trust.

Let me ask you a question. If God was to suddenly appear, leaving no question in the minds of humankind about his identity, what do you think the fear factor would be like?

And I still don't understand what you mean by the "dodge of faith." Call me slow on that one. You'll have to explain what you mean a little more in detail.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 165,801 - 165,820 of223,192
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••