Do you believe in God? - Page 11

On October 10 2008 17:12 asdf2000 wrote: I think faith can have different forms. I think that faith can be useful. Faith that the bathroom sign will lead to a bathroom. Faith that your calculator works correctly. Faith that NASA landed on the moon, and we've really been to outer space. Faith that germs are real, as is D.N.A. These things can be verified, as can other things we take on faith. But it isn't necessarily practical to verify everything you take on faith. Now - if one has experiences in their life that lead them to take on faith in a god or higher power - who are we to tell them that they are wrong, or that they are stupid. Did you have the same experiences they had? Faith is, however, not useful should one not investigate what they are taking faith in. Stubborn blind faith is for stubborn blind fools.

Those are retarded examples, we can determine whether or not the bathroom sign leads to the bathroom, we have evidence that we landed on the moon, we've used the calculator or a calculator before and can easily determine if it works, DNA is material and can be studied and examined, as can germs. That's not the same in even the remotest sense in faith that an omnipotent omniscient immaterial entity exists and it can never be proven or tested.

but it is wrong, they both cannot be right (atheists and theists).

On October 10 2008 17:46 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Many of the others - they see existence a different way than most atheists/agnostics/etc. They interpret things differently. This leads to a different type of understanding. Just because this type of understanding is different, does not mean it is wrong. trying to counter this but i dont see what is going on here ~_~ not sure what u are arguing or what i am arguing

That's ok. At least you are awesome.

The only thing im really trying to say is to try to always be open to new ideas and new ways of looking at things.

Try to never decide you've figured something out completely, until you are sure you have figured out everything completely.

well if god starts talking to me i will believe.

acutally i'd probably just think i'm crazy

i'm pretty agnostic.

On October 10 2008 17:18 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 17:12 asdf2000 wrote:Now - if one has experiences in their life that lead them to take on faith in a god or higher power - who are we to tell them that they are wrong, or that they are stupid. Did you have the same experiences they had? so based on this we cannot say anything about a murderer, we didnt have the same experience they had, does that exonerates them from what they did?, newflash, judging is fine.

about this Baal,you do realise that if freedom of choice doesn't actually exist judging the murderer is really pointless and I mean that in the sense of pointing fingers.What's not pointless is to try to discourage the rest of the society from doing something similar by punishing him.Of course justice exists for several other reasons too

On October 10 2008 17:48 ikc5 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 17:12 asdf2000 wrote: I think faith can have different forms. I think that faith can be useful. Faith that the bathroom sign will lead to a bathroom. Faith that your calculator works correctly. Faith that NASA landed on the moon, and we've really been to outer space. Faith that germs are real, as is D.N.A. These things can be verified, as can other things we take on faith. But it isn't necessarily practical to verify everything you take on faith. Now - if one has experiences in their life that lead them to take on faith in a god or higher power - who are we to tell them that they are wrong, or that they are stupid. Did you have the same experiences they had? Faith is, however, not useful should one not investigate what they are taking faith in. Stubborn blind faith is for stubborn blind fools. Those are retarded examples, we can determine whether or not the bathroom sign leads to the bathroom, we have evidence that we landed on the moon, we've used the calculator or a calculator before and can easily determine if it works, DNA is material and can be studied and examined, as can germs. That's not the same in even the remotest sense in faith that an omnipotent omniscient immaterial entity exists and it can never be proven or tested.

I didn't say it was the same. I was trying to illustrate a point about the nature and use of faith, but obviously I failed miserably.


And I think some would argue that god can be observed, god can be felt. But it is subjective, not objective.

On October 10 2008 17:58 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 17:18 Baal wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:12 asdf2000 wrote:Now - if one has experiences in their life that lead them to take on faith in a god or higher power - who are we to tell them that they are wrong, or that they are stupid. Did you have the same experiences they had? so based on this we cannot say anything about a murderer, we didnt have the same experience they had, does that exonerates them from what they did?, newflash, judging is fine. about this Baal,you do realise that if freedom of choice doesn't actually exist judging the murderer is really pointless and I mean that in the sense of pointing fingers.What's not pointless is to try to discourage the rest of the society from doing something similar by punishing him.Of course justice exists for several other reasons too

i never claimed that free will does not exist, i mean we could get anal and philosophical and saying we are just a product of our experienes as slight as they are but its pointless to discuss such a sophist topic.

On October 10 2008 18:05 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 17:48 ikc5 wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:12 asdf2000 wrote: I think faith can have different forms. I think that faith can be useful. Faith that the bathroom sign will lead to a bathroom. Faith that your calculator works correctly. Faith that NASA landed on the moon, and we've really been to outer space. Faith that germs are real, as is D.N.A. These things can be verified, as can other things we take on faith. But it isn't necessarily practical to verify everything you take on faith. Now - if one has experiences in their life that lead them to take on faith in a god or higher power - who are we to tell them that they are wrong, or that they are stupid. Did you have the same experiences they had? Faith is, however, not useful should one not investigate what they are taking faith in. Stubborn blind faith is for stubborn blind fools. Those are retarded examples, we can determine whether or not the bathroom sign leads to the bathroom, we have evidence that we landed on the moon, we've used the calculator or a calculator before and can easily determine if it works, DNA is material and can be studied and examined, as can germs. That's not the same in even the remotest sense in faith that an omnipotent omniscient immaterial entity exists and it can never be proven or tested. I didn't say it was the same. I was trying to illustrate a point about the nature and use of faith, but obviously I failed miserably. And I think some would argue that god can be observed, god can be felt. But it is subjective, not objective.

how can you observe god?

On October 10 2008 18:05 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 17:48 ikc5 wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:12 asdf2000 wrote: I think faith can have different forms. I think that faith can be useful. Faith that the bathroom sign will lead to a bathroom. Faith that your calculator works correctly. Faith that NASA landed on the moon, and we've really been to outer space. Faith that germs are real, as is D.N.A. These things can be verified, as can other things we take on faith. But it isn't necessarily practical to verify everything you take on faith. Now - if one has experiences in their life that lead them to take on faith in a god or higher power - who are we to tell them that they are wrong, or that they are stupid. Did you have the same experiences they had? Faith is, however, not useful should one not investigate what they are taking faith in. Stubborn blind faith is for stubborn blind fools. Those are retarded examples, we can determine whether or not the bathroom sign leads to the bathroom, we have evidence that we landed on the moon, we've used the calculator or a calculator before and can easily determine if it works, DNA is material and can be studied and examined, as can germs. That's not the same in even the remotest sense in faith that an omnipotent omniscient immaterial entity exists and it can never be proven or tested. I didn't say it was the same. I was trying to illustrate a point about the nature and use of faith, but obviously I failed miserably. And I think some would argue that god can be observed, god can be felt. But it is subjective, not objective.

most people can also feel that they are the best poker players in the world getting unlucky all the time
I doubt that this or god can be observed though,it's just a matter of being precise and accurate with your observations.

On October 10 2008 18:10 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 18:05 asdf2000 wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:48 ikc5 wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:12 asdf2000 wrote: I think faith can have different forms. I think that faith can be useful. Faith that the bathroom sign will lead to a bathroom. Faith that your calculator works correctly. Faith that NASA landed on the moon, and we've really been to outer space. Faith that germs are real, as is D.N.A. These things can be verified, as can other things we take on faith. But it isn't necessarily practical to verify everything you take on faith. Now - if one has experiences in their life that lead them to take on faith in a god or higher power - who are we to tell them that they are wrong, or that they are stupid. Did you have the same experiences they had? Faith is, however, not useful should one not investigate what they are taking faith in. Stubborn blind faith is for stubborn blind fools. Those are retarded examples, we can determine whether or not the bathroom sign leads to the bathroom, we have evidence that we landed on the moon, we've used the calculator or a calculator before and can easily determine if it works, DNA is material and can be studied and examined, as can germs. That's not the same in even the remotest sense in faith that an omnipotent omniscient immaterial entity exists and it can never be proven or tested. I didn't say it was the same. I was trying to illustrate a point about the nature and use of faith, but obviously I failed miserably. And I think some would argue that god can be observed, god can be felt. But it is subjective, not objective. how can you observe god?

How can I observe god? Or how can you observe god? Or how could Gandhi observe god?

Fasting would probably be a good starting point.

On October 10 2008 18:12 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 18:05 asdf2000 wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:48 ikc5 wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:12 asdf2000 wrote: I think faith can have different forms. I think that faith can be useful. Faith that the bathroom sign will lead to a bathroom. Faith that your calculator works correctly. Faith that NASA landed on the moon, and we've really been to outer space. Faith that germs are real, as is D.N.A. These things can be verified, as can other things we take on faith. But it isn't necessarily practical to verify everything you take on faith. Now - if one has experiences in their life that lead them to take on faith in a god or higher power - who are we to tell them that they are wrong, or that they are stupid. Did you have the same experiences they had? Faith is, however, not useful should one not investigate what they are taking faith in. Stubborn blind faith is for stubborn blind fools. Those are retarded examples, we can determine whether or not the bathroom sign leads to the bathroom, we have evidence that we landed on the moon, we've used the calculator or a calculator before and can easily determine if it works, DNA is material and can be studied and examined, as can germs. That's not the same in even the remotest sense in faith that an omnipotent omniscient immaterial entity exists and it can never be proven or tested. I didn't say it was the same. I was trying to illustrate a point about the nature and use of faith, but obviously I failed miserably. And I think some would argue that god can be observed, god can be felt. But it is subjective, not objective. most people can also feel that they are the best poker players in the world getting unlucky all the time

people can feel lots of things

I doubt that this or god can be observed though,it's just a matter of being precise and accurate with your observations.

I don't understand what you are saying.

On October 10 2008 18:09 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 17:58 lebowski wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:18 Baal wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:12 asdf2000 wrote:Now - if one has experiences in their life that lead them to take on faith in a god or higher power - who are we to tell them that they are wrong, or that they are stupid. Did you have the same experiences they had? so based on this we cannot say anything about a murderer, we didnt have the same experience they had, does that exonerates them from what they did?, newflash, judging is fine. about this Baal,you do realise that if freedom of choice doesn't actually exist judging the murderer is really pointless and I mean that in the sense of pointing fingers.What's not pointless is to try to discourage the rest of the society from doing something similar by punishing him.Of course justice exists for several other reasons too i never claimed that free will does not exist, i mean we could get anal and philosophical and saying we are just a product of our experienes as slight as they are but its pointless to discuss such a sophist topic.

it's not sophist at all,the greatest control mechanism that the christian religion brought upon the western world is the concept of sin

On October 10 2008 18:18 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 18:09 Baal wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:58 lebowski wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:18 Baal wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:12 asdf2000 wrote:Now - if one has experiences in their life that lead them to take on faith in a god or higher power - who are we to tell them that they are wrong, or that they are stupid. Did you have the same experiences they had? so based on this we cannot say anything about a murderer, we didnt have the same experience they had, does that exonerates them from what they did?, newflash, judging is fine. about this Baal,you do realise that if freedom of choice doesn't actually exist judging the murderer is really pointless and I mean that in the sense of pointing fingers.What's not pointless is to try to discourage the rest of the society from doing something similar by punishing him.Of course justice exists for several other reasons too i never claimed that free will does not exist, i mean we could get anal and philosophical and saying we are just a product of our experienes as slight as they are but its pointless to discuss such a sophist topic. it's not sophist at all,the greatest control mechanism that the christian religion brought upon the western world is the concept of sin

Do you think Karma is a control mechanism as well?

On October 10 2008 18:18 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 18:09 Baal wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:58 lebowski wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:18 Baal wrote:   On October 10 2008 17:12 asdf2000 wrote:Now - if one has experiences in their life that lead them to take on faith in a god or higher power - who are we to tell them that they are wrong, or that they are stupid. Did you have the same experiences they had? so based on this we cannot say anything about a murderer, we didnt have the same experience they had, does that exonerates them from what they did?, newflash, judging is fine. about this Baal,you do realise that if freedom of choice doesn't actually exist judging the murderer is really pointless and I mean that in the sense of pointing fingers.What's not pointless is to try to discourage the rest of the society from doing something similar by punishing him.Of course justice exists for several other reasons too i never claimed that free will does not exist, i mean we could get anal and philosophical and saying we are just a product of our experienes as slight as they are but its pointless to discuss such a sophist topic. it's not sophist at all,the greatest control mechanism that the christian religion brought upon the western world is the concept of sin

while definitely a control mechanism (especially in Catholicism), the concept of sin predates Christianity.

say what you want about the tenants of Christianity, at least its an ethos

On October 10 2008 18:16 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 18:12 lebowski wrote: [quote] I doubt that this or god can be observed though,it's just a matter of being precise and accurate with your observations. I don't understand what you are saying.

in simple words, god could never be objectively observed and subjective observations are useless

On October 10 2008 18:21 sniderstyle wrote: say what you want about the tenants of Christianity, at least its an ethos

rofl

On October 10 2008 18:22 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 18:21 sniderstyle wrote: say what you want about the tenants of Christianity, at least its an ethos rofl

On October 10 2008 18:21 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 18:16 asdf2000 wrote:   On October 10 2008 18:12 lebowski wrote: [quote] I doubt that this or god can be observed though,it's just a matter of being precise and accurate with your observations. I don't understand what you are saying. in simple words, god could never be objectively observed and subjective observations are useless

Subjective observations are useless? So you learn nothing on your own? Or you get a 2nd opinion on everything?


I can't knock what you're saying (surely you didn't intend to come off as radical as it sounds to me).

However, the view is terribly materialistic, which I disagree with.