It All Comes Down to Faith

[OmarKhayyam]

"Religion isn't about looking for absolute answers. It's about finding absolute identity."

And THAT is just meaningless gibberish. What the Hell is "absolute identity"? You think are you 2 people? One gets a DL and ones a ticket to eternal life?

Oh wait, I've got it now.:yes:

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."

Makes perfect sense.

 

[cottage]

​

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...comes-down-faith-post1575221.html#post1575221

So, instead of making further inane comments, why not inform me of the question you want answering? And then you could answer the two specific and reasonable questions that I asked you so that I can establish what your objection is.

Over to you.

Lets start small by seeing if I can get you to give a legitimate answer to one of the questions I already asked;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quagmire http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...comes-down-faith-post1572813.html#post1572813

You lost me. In what way does this; "But where does the prejudiced view that 'there is no God' is false find it inception?" equal this; " So, yes, faith is prejudiced by definition".

And please don't tell me you already answered this. All you did was rephrase your original assertions.
Here we go, then.

Okay, I’m saying faith is dogma, a doctrine or belief held as preconceived notion (exemplified by the principle I gave in my OP). It doesn’t have to deny reason, but is not dependent upon it. Prejudice is demonstrated by unfalsifiable beliefs or doctrines, which do not permit divergence or disagreement. Faith is prejudiced, beliefs not necessarily so. Here are some (very abridged) examples to make the point:

Faith: God, General (all monotheistic religions). One cannot both believe and not believe in God. God is the Creator, omnipotent and necessarily existent by definition.
Beliefs: Can attribute any characteristics or anthropomorphic traits to God, such as man is made in his image. Can believe or deny any doctrine that presumes to speak on behalf of God.

Specific


Faith: Christianity: God sent Jesus his only son to earth to atone for our sins. Cannot be a Christian while denying the Resurrection.
Beliefs: Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, and other parts of the Old Testament can be understood as allegory. Anglican Church has relativist view of miracles etc.

Faith: Roman Catholic: the dogma that God preserved the Virgin Mary from any stain of original sin from the moment she was conceived. Cannot be a Roman Catholic while denying the above and that the Pope is God’s representative on earth.
Beliefs: Parts of the Bible can be interpreted by exegesis or explained as allegory.


Faith: Fundamentalist Christians: The Bible is the inerrant word of God. ‘Only those who are born again shall see heaven’.
Beliefs: Bible is not open to interpretation or exegesis.


Faith: Islam: That Allah is the only God, his existence and singularity is not open for interpretation.
Beliefs: The Koran is interpreted differently. The Killing of unbelievers ‘wherever you find them’ is highly disputed.

Buddhism: a developed collection of beliefs: part empirical, part metaphysical, part supernatural. Belief in a God and Karma are not obligatory. Not dogmatic, in my view.

NB. Apologies for any belief system inadequately or incorrectly described by my limited knowledge.

 

[Fatihah]

I linked to such a paper. How many times did I have to re-iterate that for you now?

Response: And I've already explained in post 140 that it explains creation.

Quote: themadhair
And again Fatihah – you haven’t presented something requiring an alternative. Assuming what you want to be true doesn’t make it so.

Response: And again, I don't have to. If you are claiming another alternative, it is for you to present it, not me.

 

[ayani]

Any logical or philosophical argument for god's existence falls short. There is no proof, nor objective evidence, of god's existence. Ultimately, any belief in a deity has to come down to faith, and faith alone.

Is there anything more pure/noble/etc. about basing belief only on faith? Is it better to try to formulate other arguments to bolster your faith?

sometimes arguments can help clarify what one believes, or explain one's beliefs to others.

but arguments at the end of the day are only words. they can help a person to understand and get a clearer picture, but really, it's faith in what can not be physically proven which makes all the difference.

 

[themadhair]

Response: And I've already explained in post 140 that it explains creation.

You tell yourself that Fatihah. The entire point of the paper was that by using a multi-dimensional ‘slingshot’ model the singularity assumed in big bang theory, which is the ‘creation’ point and the associated breaking down of the physics laws as we know them, was avoided while remaining entirely consistent with current observation.

Response: And again, I don't have to. If you are claiming another alternative, it is for you to present it, not me.

So I have to present an alternative before you will present an idea for me to present an alternative to. Typical Fatihah logic?

 

[Falvlun]

Response: And again, I don't have to. If you are claiming another alternative, it is for you to present it, not me.

You claim that because televisions and microwaves and such were created that means everything needs a creator. But you have not shown that nature is the same sort of thing as the tools that we create. In other words, you have not shown nature (or the universe) to be a creation. If nature is not a creation, then by definition, it needs no Creator.

An alternative view would be that the universe has always existed and it goes through cyclical periods of expansion and contraction. Never created, it has no creator. Now what?

 

[themadhair]

An alternative view would be that the universe has always existed and it goes through cyclical periods of expansion and contraction. Never created, it has no creator. Now what?

Already tried that. Fatihah argued that each cycle is a creation.

 

[Falvlun]

Already tried that. Fatihah argued that each cycle is a creation.

Which is rather hard to do with the whole "everything has always existed" caveat. :yes:

~~~~~~

Riverwolf, if you are interested, I'm opening a thread about blind faith vs regular faith. I know it's a popular distinction on this forum, but I've just never "got" it. Here's the link to the new thread: Blind Faith vs Regular Faith

 

[Riverwolf]

That being said, I'm not sure I would define that particular practice as "faith." "Dogmatism" and "faith" are not the same thing.

And the good Father is telling you they ARE.

I recognized this thirst, this demand for the absolute. Because if you don't hang on to the unchanging, to the absolute, to that which cannot disappear, you might disappear. I recognized that this thirst for the never-ending, the permanent, the wonders of all things, this intolerance or fear of diversity, that which is different -- these are characteristics of religion.

Religious faith IS BLIND; always and necessarily so. If you weren’t looking for some final absolute all encompassing eternal answer you would not bother with these myths at all.:shout

They are silly on their face and have no more claim to rational attention than the scribblings of a 5 yr old. UNLESS you imbue them with some eternal supernatural power "beyond logical understanding." Some "intuition" you create that makes sense of the nonsensical. And having done that you must NOW believe it. Else the absurdity of what you have just done is all too clear. And now that have done it - swallowed whole the crap you created - it becomes the "absolute" in your life with which there is no compromise. Add a little pathological paranoia and VOILÀ - 9/11.

Exactly what the good Father recognized before he was told anything about who or what.

Who in the world is the good Father and why does he have authority?!

I'm afraid you have not provided a good argument. This post is little more than a rant.

 

[Riverwolf]

Ok. So who would ever say: "They just completely disproved my belief in XYZ, but I'm still going to believe in XYZ." Would it not be more reasonable to assume that they simply didn't feel their belief was sufficiently disproven?

Under this criteria, how could anyone be accused of having blind faith?

Why should ANYONE be accused of having blind faith? What's the worth in that? It's hardly a crime.

And yet apparently you believe some people have not sufficiently tested their faith, by your belief that there is a difference between blind faith and regular faith.

If all these are simply up to the individual to decide-- which I agree-- then you really can't distinguish "blind faith" from ordinary "faith"... except by your own prejudice of what constitutes blind faith, and what constitutes regular faith.

It's not important to me whether or not someone else has blind faith. It's my responsibility to make sure I don't have blind faith.

It might not be your problem or business, but you certainly appear to be able to pass judgement upon someone to be able to label him "close-minded" in the first place.

If it is all "up to the individual" how are you able to get inside his head to find out that he is close-minded?

Why should I care? I try not to label people as anything, especially not people I only see online. I do fail sometimes. I'm only human.

And exactly how are things of a religious or spiritual nature disproven?

Heck, even with all the scientific support for evolution, it does not disprove the possibility of Creationism.

No, it does not.

With regards to the divine, it cannot be proven or disproven at this time.

 

[logician]

"With regards to the divine, it cannot be proven or disproven at this time."

WHich means it cannot be assumed to exist.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Who in the world is the good Father and why does he have authority?!

I'm afraid you have not provided a good argument. This post is little more than a rant.

See #181

Do try to keep up.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Which means it cannot be assumed to exist."

No, you can make that assumption. But it is only an assumption and has no supporting evidence and considerable counter evidence. But you can assume it anyway.

Just not very logical to do so.

 

[Azakel]

"With regards to the divine, it cannot be proven or disproven at this time."

Which means it cannot be assumed to exist.

It also cannot be assumed it doesn't exist ether.

 

[logician]

"Which means it cannot be assumed to exist."

No, you can make that assumption. But it is only an assumption and has no supporting evidence and considerable counter evidence. But you can assume it anyway.

Just not very logical to do so.

Correct, there is no basis for the assumption.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...just a side note...in Webster's...def #1
Assumption is the bodily taking up of a person into heaven.

 

[Azakel]

Thief here...just a side note...in Webster's...def #1
Assumption is the bodily taking up of a person into heaven.

And here are the other definitions from Webster:
2: a taking to or upon oneself <the assumption of a new position>3: the act of laying claim to or taking possession of something <the assumption of power>4: arrogance, pretension5 a: an assuming that something is true b: a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted6: the taking over of another's debts

 

[OmarKhayyam]

assumption

&#8226; noun 1 a thing that is assumed to be true. 2 the action of assuming responsibility or control. 3 (Assumption) the reception of the Virgin Mary bodily into heaven, according to Roman Catholic doctrine.


Note in this thread the word was NOT capitalized. We don't usually refer to medieval mythology for current definitions.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:themadhair]

So I have to present an alternative before you will present an idea for me to present an alternative to. Typical Fatihah logic?[/QUOTE]

Response: Exactly. If you are claiming another way in which something can exists besides the act of it being a creation from a creator, it is for you to bring it forth, not me. It's not my argument. It's yours. To make it seem irrational because I won't supply you with an argument to help you argue with me instead of you presenting your argument yourself is just simply unheard of and absurd. Any reasonable person can see that.

The fact that you need me to supply you with an alternative argument is evident enough that you don't have one, thus proving my stance on the subject despite your response below trying to say otherwise.

 

[Willamena]

"Which means it cannot be assumed to exist."

No, you can make that assumption. But it is only an assumption and has no supporting evidence and considerable counter evidence. But you can assume it anyway.

Just not very logical to do so.

Assuming you mean an assumption *that has* no supporting evidence and considerable counter evidence --no, if there's no evidence there can be no counter evidence either.