Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Faith and theism

TUF
Posts: 21,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:03:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
https://www.youtube.com...

I am proud that he was able to admit that he doesn't know. I wouldn't have when I was fed all the propaganda. Instead I would have probably bumbled around like an idiot trying to justify my position with a stance that I honestly have no way to defend, or didn't have enough knowledge or background in to answer effectively.

But it's usually at this point where people mention something along the lines of their answers coming down to faith. What is faith?

Faith being confidence in a person, place, concept, or thing existing with out real evidence to support it.

I can understand wanting to have faith in a concept like a God if everything about that ideal makes you happy. But why attach all the specificities of a religion to it, if you are going to do that? By doing so you attach yourself to ideals you do like, but also have to attach yourself to ideas that you may not necessarily like (in the case of the video, the verse in Deuteronomy that talks about stoning people of different beliefs for example)?

I could say I believed in some greek god who promotes honesty, love, and kindness, and all I ask is that you sacrifice your first born child to be accepted into my eternal real. This is a far-fetched example it seems, but honestly isn't a lot crazier than some of the things these different religions encompass.

Why should your faith lead you to pursue aspects of a religion that you can't prove, and can at certain times prove distasteful?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:29:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:03:33 PM, TUF wrote:
What is faith?

Faith being confidence in a person, place, concept, or thing existing with out real evidence to support it.

That's untrue, TUF. Faith means something much broader, and always has.

faith (n.) mid-13c., faith, feith, fei, fai "faithfulness to a trust or promise; loyalty to a person; honesty, truthfulness," from Anglo-French and Old French feid, foi "faith, belief, trust, confidence; pledge" (11c.), from Latin fides "trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE root *bheidh- "to trust" (source also of Greek pistis "faith, confidence, honesty;" see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Accomodated to other English abstract nouns in -th (truth, health, etc.).

From early 14c. as "assent of the mind to the truth of a statement for which there is incomplete evidence," especially "belief in religious matters" (matched with hope and charity). Since mid-14c. in reference to the Christian church or religion; from late 14c. in reference to any religious persuasion.

Faith is about what we believe when the evidence is incomplete. For example, I might have faith in the value of the Australian dollar -- but not without evidence. I might know what it was worth yesterday, and have some idea what might affect its value today.

But religion offten makes faith sacred -- so that it's counted impious or disloyal to doubt, even if the evidence is contrary.

Others might call such doubt something else though, like critical thinking. Critical thinking might mean I trust the value of the Oz dollar up to a point, but not if circumstances change drastically.

Why should your faith lead you to pursue aspects of a religion that you can't prove, and can at certain times prove distasteful?

Pious faith is defined by its ability to do just that, TUF. If it didn't do that, it'd be ordinary faith -- the kind subject to critical thought.

Perhaps the real question is: why is it virtuous to be uncritical in religious faith?

One reason might be, religion offers privilege to its adherents -- some metaphysical benefit supposed to make them the envy of other beliefs.

But such privilege is typically tied to attitudes, beliefs and behaviours, so the more pious and uncritical the faith, the more the adherent may feel deserving of privilege.

So simply put, perhaps it's greed and vanity making faith uncritical.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:48:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:03:33 PM, TUF wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

I am proud that he was able to admit that he doesn't know. I wouldn't have when I was fed all the propaganda. Instead I would have probably bumbled around like an idiot trying to justify my position with a stance that I honestly have no way to defend, or didn't have enough knowledge or background in to answer effectively.

But it's usually at this point where people mention something along the lines of their answers coming down to faith. What is faith?

Faith being confidence in a person, place, concept, or thing existing with out real evidence to support it.


No. Stop.

I can understand wanting to have faith in a concept like a God if everything about that ideal makes you happy. But why attach all the specificities of a religion to it, if you are going to do that? By doing so you attach yourself to ideals you do like, but also have to attach yourself to ideas that you may not necessarily like (in the case of the video, the verse in Deuteronomy that talks about stoning people of different beliefs for example)?

I could say I believed in some greek god who promotes honesty, love, and kindness, and all I ask is that you sacrifice your first born child to be accepted into my eternal real. This is a far-fetched example it seems, but honestly isn't a lot crazier than some of the things these different religions encompass.

Why should your faith lead you to pursue aspects of a religion that you can't prove, and can at certain times prove distasteful?

There's very little we can "prove" even disregarding religion. If you're going to wait until something is "proved" before you assent to t you're not going to getting very far in life.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
TUF
Posts: 21,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 4:16:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:29:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:33 PM, TUF wrote:
What is faith?

Faith being confidencein a person, place, concept, or thing existing with out real evidence to support it.

That's untrue, TUF. Faith means something much broader, and always has.

faith (n.) mid-13c., faith, feith, fei, fai "faithfulness to a trust or promise; loyalty to a person; honesty, truthfulness," from Anglo-French and Old French feid, foi "faith, belief, trust, confidence; pledge" (11c.), from Latin fides "trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE root *bheidh- "to trust" (source also of Greek pistis "faith, confidence, honesty;" see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Accomodated to other English abstract nouns in -th (truth, health, etc.).

From early 14c. as "assent of the mind to the truth of a statement for which there is incomplete evidence," especially "belief in religious matters" (matched with hope and charity). Since mid-14c. in reference to the Christian church or religion; from late 14c. in reference to any religious persuasion.

Your definition is exactly what I said good sir, where is the specific issue?

Faith is about what we believe when the evidence is incomplete. For example, I might have faith in the value of the Australian dollar -- but not without evidence. I might know what it was worth yesterday, and have some idea what might affect its value today.

To me the whole thing seems backwards. Why choose to believe that something HAS to be true if the evidence, is like you say, incomplete? Wouldn't the logical, or mature thing to do, be to admit you don't know? But even then, I don't mind those who choose to believe in a God even with a lack of evidence. It's more along the lines of people adopting religious behaviors in addition to their theism, that they don't like morally, but agree with nonetheless.

But religion often makes faith sacred -- so that it's counted impious or disloyal to doubt, even if the evidence is contrary.

In other words, it's a scare tactic? Sounds manipulative doesn't it?

Why should your faith lead you to pursue aspects of a religion that you can't prove, and can at certain times prove distasteful?

Pious faith is defined by its ability to do just that, TUF. If it didn't do that, it'd be ordinary faith -- the kind subject to critical thought.

Perhaps the real question is: why is it virtuous to be uncritical in religious faith?

One reason might be, religion offers privilege to its adherents -- some metaphysical benefit supposed to make them the envy of other beliefs.

But such privilege is typically tied to attitudes, beliefs and behaviours, so the more pious and uncritical the faith, the more the adherent may feel deserving of privilege.

So simply put, perhaps it's greed and vanity making faith uncritical.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 4:23:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:48:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:33 PM, TUF wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

I am proud that he was able to admit that he doesn't know. I wouldn't have when I was fed all the propaganda. Instead I would have probably bumbled around like an idiot trying to justify my position with a stance that I honestly have no way to defend, or didn't have enough knowledge or background in to answer effectively.

But it's usually at this point where people mention something along the lines of their answers coming down to faith. What is faith?

Faith being confidence in a person, place, concept, or thing existing with out real evidence to support it.


No. Stop.

I paraphrased a definition from 1 and 2: http://dictionary.reference.com...

I can understand wanting to have faith in a concept like a God if everything about that ideal makes you happy. But why attach all the specificities of a religion to it, if you are going to do that? By doing so you attach yourself to ideals you do like, but also have to attach yourself to ideas that you may not necessarily like (in the case of the video, the verse in Deuteronomy that talks about stoning people of different beliefs for example)?

I could say I believed in some greek god who promotes honesty, love, and kindness, and all I ask is that you sacrifice your first born child to be accepted into my eternal real. This is a far-fetched example it seems, but honestly isn't a lot crazier than some of the things these different religions encompass.

Why should your faith lead you to pursue aspects of a religion that you can't prove, and can at certain times prove distasteful?

There's very little we can "prove" even disregarding religion. If you're going to wait until something is "proved" before you assent to it you're not going to getting very far in life.

I see this as backward logic. It's one thing to choose an action based on unknown facts . But my question is why this action, when the circumstances seem distasteful?

Choosing to aspire in a belief in God is one thing, but going a step further and choosing to believe that one book of hundreds of thousands is more correct than the other hoard of books describing how we can best appease this same God is a little silly isn't it? Especially if you only agree with certain specific moral principles in that book, and not the rest. But people will still based their outlook over the entire religion based on only the positive outlooks, and feign to ignore, or twist/mis-interpret meanings of the parts they don't like ( IE stoning people with different beliefs).
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 5:14:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 4:16:35 PM, TUF wrote:

Your definition is exactly what I said good sir, where is the specific issue?

A quibble, maybe. It seemed to conflate 'no real evidence' with 'incomplete evidence'. Supporting evidence is by implication incomplete -- else it would be conclusive evidence. :)

To me the whole thing seems backwards. Why choose to believe that something HAS to be true if the evidence, is like you say, incomplete? Wouldn't the logical, or mature thing to do, be to admit you don't know?

Myth informs behaviour, TUF. People will war, sacrifice and even die for mythical belief. In an ancient world, with no CCTV cameras, no police, where few crimes get investigated, much less solved, where custom is critical to harmony and cooperation, belief in supernatural myth may have a significant benefit to social order and the rule of law.

So propagating myth, even if it's known or suspected to be false, might help shore up social order and cultural cohesion.

But religion often makes faith sacred -- so that it's counted impious or disloyal to doubt, even if the evidence is contrary.
In other words, it's a scare tactic? Sounds manipulative doesn't it?

It clearly is. If you look at the changes in major theologies, they seldom arise from new scriptural or historical evidence. More often, they adapt to the needs of political or theocratic rulers, or the desire to attract and remain relevant to adherents.

Thus, divorce is sinful -- until it's politically expedient. Unbaptised infants go to purgatory -- until educated parishioners protest in numbers. Women can't be ordained -- until female parishioners start walking. Gays can't be married -- until such marriage will attract a substantial number of gay adherents to a declining faith.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 8:37:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:03:33 PM, TUF wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

I am proud that he was able to admit that he doesn't know. I wouldn't have when I was fed all the propaganda. Instead I would have probably bumbled around like an idiot trying to justify my position with a stance that I honestly have no way to defend, or didn't have enough knowledge or background in to answer effectively.

But it's usually at this point where people mention something along the lines of their answers coming down to faith. What is faith?

Faith being confidence in a person, place, concept, or thing existing with out real evidence to support it.

I can understand wanting to have faith in a concept like a God if everything about that ideal makes you happy. But why attach all the specificities of a religion to it, if you are going to do that? By doing so you attach yourself to ideals you do like, but also have to attach yourself to ideas that you may not necessarily like (in the case of the video, the verse in Deuteronomy that talks about stoning people of different beliefs for example)?

I could say I believed in some greek god who promotes honesty, love, and kindness, and all I ask is that you sacrifice your first born child to be accepted into my eternal real. This is a far-fetched example it seems, but honestly isn't a lot crazier than some of the things these different religions encompass.

Why should your faith lead you to pursue aspects of a religion that you can't prove, and can at certain times prove distasteful?: :

The problem with most Christians that come to hear me preach the gospel is that they won't ever say, "I don't know". Instead of saying these three words, they start lying to me because I know they haven't got a clue who our Creator is or what "Christ" means.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:01:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:29:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:33 PM, TUF wrote:
What is faith?

Faith being confidence in a person, place, concept, or thing existing with out real evidence to support it.

That's untrue, TUF. Faith means something much broader, and always has.

faith (n.) mid-13c., faith, feith, fei, fai "faithfulness to a trust or promise; loyalty to a person; honesty, truthfulness," from Anglo-French and Old French feid, foi "faith, belief, trust, confidence; pledge" (11c.), from Latin fides "trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE root *bheidh- "to trust" (source also of Greek pistis "faith, confidence, honesty;" see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Accomodated to other English abstract nouns in -th (truth, health, etc.).

From early 14c. as "assent of the mind to the truth of a statement for which there is incomplete evidence," especially "belief in religious matters" (matched with hope and charity). Since mid-14c. in reference to the Christian church or religion; from late 14c. in reference to any religious persuasion.

Faith is about what we believe when the evidence is incomplete. For example, I might have faith in the value of the Australian dollar -- but not without evidence. I might know what it was worth yesterday, and have some idea what might affect its value today.

But religion offten makes faith sacred -- so that it's counted impious or disloyal to doubt, even if the evidence is contrary.

Others might call such doubt something else though, like critical thinking. Critical thinking might mean I trust the value of the Oz dollar up to a point, but not if circumstances change drastically.

Why should your faith lead you to pursue aspects of a religion that you can't prove, and can at certain times prove distasteful?

Pious faith is defined by its ability to do just that, TUF. If it didn't do that, it'd be ordinary faith -- the kind subject to critical thought.

Perhaps the real question is: why is it virtuous to be uncritical in religious faith?

One reason might be, religion offers privilege to its adherents -- some metaphysical benefit supposed to make them the envy of other beliefs.

But such privilege is typically tied to attitudes, beliefs and behaviours, so the more pious and uncritical the faith, the more the adherent may feel deserving of privilege.

So simply put, perhaps it's greed and vanity making faith uncritical.: :

May I add to your post here about faith and belief;

The word "faith" that you read about in the old testament is only understood by God's prophets and saints who actually hear His voice and His first commands. This is the moment of faith, meaning we actually get to know our Creator.

Since He is totally invisible to us, we have absolutely no proof other than hearing His voice and obeying His commandments to get us ready to testify to His knowledge in written or spoken form. He performs several miracles for us to get to trust Him before we start testifying but when we share these miracle stories with anyone, they can only believe them. Most people can't believe the wild miracle stories I've witnessed.

Miracles are not proof that God exists because many things happen on this planet that can't be explained by His people but His people always try explain them anyway. These explanations are believed by most people, even though some people know those explanations are just guesses.

God's chosen believers are those who may witness several unexplained events in their lives so they accept them as miracles from God instead of trying to explain them or totally ignore them. Believers don't have the faith that us saints and prophets have but they get to know our Creator indirectly through miracles and other observations. Some of them claim they heard the voice of God but only to get their attention. They are not used by God to testify to His knowledge like He does with us saints so they can only believe our testimonies.

Belief and faith are totally different.

Faith is knowing our Creator without needing any visible evidence such as a miracle or other types of evidence. Faith is the moment God starts to speak into our mind.

Belief is not knowing our Creator for sure but believing He is the one who performed the miracles they witness, possibly the one who spoke some words in their minds or through other indirect ways ( maybe by reading the Bible ) that God uses to get them to believe in Him.

Once a believer hears the voice of God ( the gospel ) that we saints witness to them, they will believe it's His voice and listen to Him. Some of them don't trust everything we share with them but others go all the way to the deepest levels of knowledge that God has revealed to His saint that's witnessing to them.

I've had close to 7 years of testifying to the knowledge of God now so I have lots of experience working with His believers. They're all different so each one gets some different knowledge from God while I preach Him to them.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 1:25:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:03:33 PM, TUF wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

I am proud that he was able to admit that he doesn't know. I wouldn't have when I was fed all the propaganda. Instead I would have probably bumbled around like an idiot trying to justify my position with a stance that I honestly have no way to defend, or didn't have enough knowledge or background in to answer effectively.

But it's usually at this point where people mention something along the lines of their answers coming down to faith. What is faith?

Faith being confidence in a person, place, concept, or thing existing with out real evidence to support it.

I can understand wanting to have faith in a concept like a God if everything about that ideal makes you happy. But why attach all the specificities of a religion to it, if you are going to do that? By doing so you attach yourself to ideals you do like, but also have to attach yourself to ideas that you may not necessarily like (in the case of the video, the verse in Deuteronomy that talks about stoning people of different beliefs for example)?

I could say I believed in some greek god who promotes honesty, love, and kindness, and all I ask is that you sacrifice your first born child to be accepted into my eternal real. This is a far-fetched example it seems, but honestly isn't a lot crazier than some of the things these different religions encompass.

Why should your faith lead you to pursue aspects of a religion that you can't prove, and can at certain times prove distasteful?

Response: Atheists use faith for the same reason when they claim that they descended from ape like ancestors, which means their grandparents use to swing from trees throwing feces at each other. That is a direct insult to their parents, which is based on no evidence, since evolution is clearly not supported by evidence. Or a moral system that is based on majority votes, which means their secularism would be responsible for the likes of Hitler and other secular concepts that put ruthless and perverted people into power.

So if it is okay for you to pursue aspects of atheist belief that is not supported by facts and are distasteful, then it should be okay for theists to do so as well.
TUF
Posts: 21,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:04:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 1:25:47 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:33 PM, TUF wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

I am proud that he was able to admit that he doesn't know. I wouldn't have when I was fed all the propaganda. Instead I would have probably bumbled around like an idiot trying to justify my position with a stance that I honestly have no way to defend, or didn't have enough knowledge or background in to answer effectively.

But it's usually at this point where people mention something along the lines of their answers coming down to faith. What is faith?

Faith being confidence in a person, place, concept, or thing existing with out real evidence to support it.

I can understand wanting to have faith in a concept like a God if everything about that ideal makes you happy. But why attach all the specificities of a religion to it, if you are going to do that? By doing so you attach yourself to ideals you do like, but also have to attach yourself to ideas that you may not necessarily like (in the case of the video, the verse in Deuteronomy that talks about stoning people of different beliefs for example)?

I could say I believed in some greek god who promotes honesty, love, and kindness, and all I ask is that you sacrifice your first born child to be accepted into my eternal real. This is a far-fetched example it seems, but honestly isn't a lot crazier than some of the things these different religions encompass.

Why should your faith lead you to pursue aspects of a religion that you can't prove, and can at certain times prove distasteful?

Response: Atheists use faith for the same reason when they claim that they descended from ape like ancestors, which means their grandparents use to swing from trees throwing feces at each other. That is a direct insult to their parents, which is based on no evidence, since evolution is clearly not supported by evidence. Or a moral system that is based on majority votes, which means their secularism would be responsible for the likes of Hitler and other secular concepts that put ruthless and perverted people into power.

So if it is okay for you to pursue aspects of atheist belief that is not supported by facts and are distasteful, then it should be okay for theists to do so as well.

When did anyone ever mention anything about atheism? This is an agnostic outlook, not atheistic.

At any rate this discussion isn't your typical arm struggle between which side has more "evidence" than the other. My question is why place your entire belief system around one or two moral principles you agree with that spite the others that you may not agree with so much? My point is admitting you don't know all the answers isn't as scary as many humans believe it is. People strive to understand things that can't always be understood, it is human nature. But by doing so, we resort to believing in ancient primal things like stoning each other and admonishing an entire group of people based on their personal preferences. Absent of religion, I doubt society would be as deposed in these categories as they are today.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:18:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 8:04:41 AM, TUF wrote:
At 3/24/2015 1:25:47 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:33 PM, TUF wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

I am proud that he was able to admit that he doesn't know. I wouldn't have when I was fed all the propagandist. Instead I would have probably bumbled around like an idiot trying to justify my position with a stance that I honestly have no way to defend, or didn't have enough knowledge or background in to answer effectively.

But it's usually at this point where people mention something along the lines of their answers coming down to faith. What is faith?

Faith being confidence in a person, place, concept, or thing existing with out real evidence to support it.

I can understand wanting to have faith in a concept like a God if everything about that ideal makes you happy. But why attach all the specificities of a religion to it, if you are going to do that? By doing so you attach yourself to ideals you do like, but also have to attach yourself to ideas that you may not necessarily like (in the case of the video, the verse in Deuteronomy that talks about stoning people of different beliefs for example)?

I could say I believed in some greek god who promotes honesty, love, and kindness, and all I ask is that you sacrifice your first born child to be accepted into my eternal real. This is a far-fetched example it seems, but honestly isn't a lot crazier than some of the things these different religions encompass.

Why should your faith lead you to pursue aspects of a religion that you can't prove, and can at certain times prove distasteful?

Response: Atheists use faith for the same reason when they claim that they descended from ape like ancestors, which means their grandparents use to swing from trees throwing feces at each other. That is a direct insult to their parents, which is based on no evidence, since evolution is clearly not supported by evidence. Or a moral system that is based on majority votes, which means their secularism would be responsible for the likes of Hitler and other secular concepts that put ruthless and perverted people into power.

So if it is okay for you to pursue aspects of atheist belief that is not supported by facts and are distasteful, then it should be okay for theists to do so as well.

When did anyone ever mention anything about atheism? This is an agnostic outlook, not atheistic.

At any rate this discussion isn't your typical arm struggle between which side has more "evidence" than the other. My question is why place your entire belief system around one or two moral principles you agree with that spite the others that you may not agree with so much? My point is admitting you don't know all the answers isn't as scary as many humans believe it is. People strive to understand things that can't always be understood, it is human nature. But by doing so, we resort to believing in ancient primal things like stoning each other and admonishing an entire group of people based on their personal preferences. Absent of religion, I doubt society would be as deposed in these categories as they are today.

Response: Well my reply can be applied to agnostics as well since they also accept secularism and evolution. Nonetheless, I know of no theists or anyone for that matter who believe and accept what they find distasteful. So the question itself does not have merit, nor should it be just addressed to theists when people of all ideologies accept things based on Faith including atheists and agnostics that are distasteful. This is my point.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:48:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 1:25:47 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:33 PM, TUF wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

I am proud that he was able to admit that he doesn't know. I wouldn't have when I was fed all the propaganda. Instead I would have probably bumbled around like an idiot trying to justify my position with a stance that I honestly have no way to defend, or didn't have enough knowledge or background in to answer effectively.

But it's usually at this point where people mention something along the lines of their answers coming down to faith. What is faith?

Faith being confidence in a person, place, concept, or thing existing with out real evidence to support it.

I can understand wanting to have faith in a concept like a God if everything about that ideal makes you happy. But why attach all the specificities of a religion to it, if you are going to do that? By doing so you attach yourself to ideals you do like, but also have to attach yourself to ideas that you may not necessarily like (in the case of the video, the verse in Deuteronomy that talks about stoning people of different beliefs for example)?

I could say I believed in some greek god who promotes honesty, love, and kindness, and all I ask is that you sacrifice your first born child to be accepted into my eternal real. This is a far-fetched example it seems, but honestly isn't a lot crazier than some of the things these different religions encompass.

Why should your faith lead you to pursue aspects of a religion that you can't prove, and can at certain times prove distasteful?

Response: Atheists use faith for the same reason when they claim that they descended from ape like ancestors, which means their grandparents use to swing from trees throwing feces at each other. That is a direct insult to their parents, which is based on no evidence, since evolution is clearly not supported by evidence. Or a moral system that is based on majority votes, which means their secularism would be responsible for the likes of Hitler and other secular concepts that put ruthless and perverted people into power.

So if it is okay for you to pursue aspects of atheist belief that is not supported by facts and are distasteful, then it should be okay for theists to do so as well.

We can easily see who gives Islam a bad reputation, the Muslim apologetic propagandist who would much rather live in the seventh century, while other Muslims prefer living in the twenty-first century, which is why Muslims are at war with one another. And, very much like the Catholics and Protestants were warring five hundred years ago, we need to step back and let the Muslim sects go at each other and not interfere. It's the only way Islam can enter present day societies.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 10:00:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 8:48:43 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/24/2015 1:25:47 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:33 PM, TUF wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

I am proud that he was able to admit that he doesn't know. I wouldn't have when I was fed all the propaganda. Instead I would have probably bumbled around like an idiot trying to justify my position with a stance that I honestly have no way to defend, or didn't have enough knowledge or background in to answer effectively.

But it's usually at this point where people mention something along the lines of their answers coming down to faith. What is faith?

Faith being confidence in a person, place, concept, or thing existing with out real evidence to support it.

I can understand wanting to have faith in a concept like a God if everything about that ideal makes you happy. But why attach all the specificities of a religion to it, if you are going to do that? By doing so you attach yourself to ideals you do like, but also have to attach yourself to ideas that you may not necessarily like (in the case of the video, the verse in Deuteronomy that talks about stoning people of different beliefs for example)?

I could say I believed in some greek god who promotes honesty, love, and kindness, and all I ask is that you sacrifice your first born child to be accepted into my eternal real. This is a far-fetched example it seems, but honestly isn't a lot crazier than some of the things these different religions encompass.

Why should your faith lead you to pursue aspects of a religion that you can't prove, and can at certain times prove distasteful?

Response: Atheists use faith for the same reason when they claim that they descended from ape like ancestors, which means their grandparents use to swing from trees throwing feces at each other. That is a direct insult to their parents, which is based on no evidence, since evolution is clearly not supported by evidence. Or a moral system that is based on majority votes, which means their secularism would be responsible for the likes of Hitler and other secular concepts that put ruthless and perverted people into power.

So if it is okay for you to pursue aspects of atheist belief that is not supported by facts and are distasteful, then it should be okay for theists to do so as well.

We can easily see who gives Islam a bad reputation, the Muslim apologetic propagandist who would much rather live in the seventh century, while other Muslims prefer living in the twenty-first century, which is why Muslims are at war with one another. And, very much like the Catholics and Protestants were warring five hundred years ago, we need to step back and let the Muslim sects go at each other and not interfere. It's the only way Islam can enter present day societies.

Response: Rather, we can see what continues to show Islam is the truth and best of religions from atheist and agnostic propagandists who desperately try to show that their backward ideology is better.This is why people fall deaf to hearing them because we can look through recent history and see how western civilization just 100 or so years ago practiced racism, segregation, dismissed women's rights, and other backward thinking all in the name of secularism, while Islam has a vast history of empires, and rich civilizations. So it is not a case of Islam being backwards and secularism progressing, but the use of propaganda by atheists and agnostics and other non-Muslims in pushing their backwards secular laws into Muslim countries then adopting the principles of Islam in their own societies and lying to say it has been secularism all along. Yet the rich history of Islam and disgraceful tactics of western law just a hundred years ago shows otherwise.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 11:15:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 10:00:40 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/24/2015 8:48:43 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/24/2015 1:25:47 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:33 PM, TUF wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

I am proud that he was able to admit that he doesn't know. I wouldn't have when I was fed all the propaganda. Instead I would have probably bumbled around like an idiot trying to justify my position with a stance that I honestly have no way to defend, or didn't have enough knowledge or background in to answer effectively.

But it's usually at this point where people mention something along the lines of their answers coming down to faith. What is faith?

Faith being confidence in a person, place, concept, or thing existing with out real evidence to support it.

I can understand wanting to have faith in a concept like a God if everything about that ideal makes you happy. But why attach all the specificities of a religion to it, if you are going to do that? By doing so you attach yourself to ideals you do like, but also have to attach yourself to ideas that you may not necessarily like (in the case of the video, the verse in Deuteronomy that talks about stoning people of different beliefs for example)?

I could say I believed in some greek god who promotes honesty, love, and kindness, and all I ask is that you sacrifice your first born child to be accepted into my eternal real. This is a far-fetched example it seems, but honestly isn't a lot crazier than some of the things these different religions encompass.

Why should your faith lead you to pursue aspects of a religion that you can't prove, and can at certain times prove distasteful?

Response: Atheists use faith for the same reason when they claim that they descended from ape like ancestors, which means their grandparents use to swing from trees throwing feces at each other. That is a direct insult to their parents, which is based on no evidence, since evolution is clearly not supported by evidence. Or a moral system that is based on majority votes, which means their secularism would be responsible for the likes of Hitler and other secular concepts that put ruthless and perverted people into power.

So if it is okay for you to pursue aspects of atheist belief that is not supported by facts and are distasteful, then it should be okay for theists to do so as well.

We can easily see who gives Islam a bad reputation, the Muslim apologetic propagandist who would much rather live in the seventh century, while other Muslims prefer living in the twenty-first century, which is why Muslims are at war with one another. And, very much like the Catholics and Protestants were warring five hundred years ago, we need to step back and let the Muslim sects go at each other and not interfere. It's the only way Islam can enter present day societies.

...we can look through recent history and see how western civilization just 100 or so years ago practiced racism, segregation, dismissed women's rights, and other backward thinking all in the name of ...

Religion.

while Islam has a vast history of empires, and rich civilizations.

Yes, the Muslim Conquests, in which Muslims killed people if they didn't convert to Islam, looting and stealing everything they could get their hands on.

So it is not a case of Islam being backwards and secularism progressing, but the use of propaganda by atheists and agnostics and other non-Muslims in pushing their backwards secular laws into Muslim countries then adopting the principles of Islam in their own societies and lying to say it has been secularism all along. Yet the rich history of Islam and disgraceful tactics of western law just a hundred years ago shows otherwise.

Prove it.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 11:26:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 11:15:17 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
.

Religion.

Response: Atheism.
while Islam has a vast history of empires, and rich civilizations.

Yes, the Muslim Conquests, in which Muslims killed people if they didn't convert to Islam, looting and stealing everything they could get their hands on.

Response: Yes. Muslim conquests in which perverted secular ideas were by atheists and agnostics were removed and destroyed for its backward nature.
So it is not a case of Islam being backwards and secularism progressing, but the use of propaganda by atheists and agnostics and other non-Muslims in pushing their backwards secular laws into Muslim countries then adopting the principles of Islam in their own societies and lying to say it has been secularism all along. Yet the rich history of Islam and disgraceful tactics of western law just a hundred years ago shows otherwise.

Prove it.

Response: You are the proof.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 11:36:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 11:26:02 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/24/2015 11:15:17 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
.

Religion.

Response: Atheism.
while Islam has a vast history of empires, and rich civilizations.

Yes, the Muslim Conquests, in which Muslims killed people if they didn't convert to Islam, looting and stealing everything they could get their hands on.

Response: Yes. Muslim conquests in which perverted secular ideas were by atheists and agnostics were removed and destroyed for its backward nature.

Yes, that's how you Islamic apologetics handle things, with violence and killing. That's why folks like you who prefer living in the seventh century are so dangerous to the rest of the world.

So it is not a case of Islam being backwards and secularism progressing, but the use of propaganda by atheists and agnostics and other non-Muslims in pushing their backwards secular laws into Muslim countries then adopting the principles of Islam in their own societies and lying to say it has been secularism all along. Yet the rich history of Islam and disgraceful tactics of western law just a hundred years ago shows otherwise.

Prove it.

Response: You are the proof.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 11:54:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 11:36:52 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Yes, that's how you Islamic apologetics handle things, with violence and killing. That's why folks like you who prefer living in the seventh century are so dangerous to the rest of the world.

Response: Yes, that's what you atheist/agnostic propagandists respond with when their Islamic propaganda is exposed and it is shown that their attempt to spread their backward of violence and perversion like it was in the 7th century falls flat because Islam is clearly the better than their secular beliefs.

So it is not a case of Islam being backwards and secularism progressing, but the use of propaganda by atheists and agnostics and other non-Muslims in pushing their backwards secular laws into Muslim countries then adopting the principles of Islam in their own societies and lying to say it has been secularism all along. Yet the rich history of Islam and disgraceful tactics of western law just a hundred years ago shows otherwise.

Prove it.

Response: You are the proof.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 12:15:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 11:54:09 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: Yes, that's what you atheist/agnostic propagandists respond with when their Islamic propaganda is exposed and it is shown that their attempt to spread their backward of violence and perversion like it was in the 7th century falls flat because Islam is clearly the better than their secular beliefs.

Now, you're just talking gibberish.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 12:33:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 12:15:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/24/2015 11:54:09 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: Yes, that's what you atheist/agnostic propagandists respond with when their Islamic propaganda is exposed and it is shown that their attempt to spread their backward of violence and perversion like it was in the 7th century falls flat because Islam is clearly the better than their secular beliefs.


Now, you're just talking gibberish.

Response: Says the person profound in gibberish.