Brian63

Moiii,

I think you'd be well advised to read this brief (but award-winning) essay:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/fish.html" target="_blank">A Fish Did Not Write This Essay</a>

Welcome to the II!

Brian

Amos

But Dr. Retard, faith in God is non rational and is neither rational nor irrational. To think that faith in God is irrational shows lack of understanding the distinction between rational and non rational which is irrational in itself. To think it is rational to believe in God is equally irrational or it would not be called faith but science seeking understanding.

Amos

Fair enough, but tell me please why you keep opening up your eyes if you want to see something and why does it get dark when you close your eyes? Do you really think that it is light outside if you had no eyes to see with?

Buckster

Personally, I think that it would be more reasonable to say that "faith" can be defined as believing in that which you cannot tangibly detect by any means. Though I cannot see gravity, I can tangibly detect it though it's effects on a scale, through the fact that I don't fly off the Earth as it rotates, etc...

The bible says, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." This says the same thing to me.

If you have anything (like a scale) that confirms a thing exists physically (like gravity, to use your example), you have moved past "faith" into the realm of assurance, even if that assurance is not 100% or completly wrapped up with a bow that tells every possible thing about it, you know SOMETHING tangible about it, even if that something is just that it DOES exist by SOME piece of actual, tangible evidence.

We need not have "faith" that gravity exists. We KNOW it does. Even if we don't know exactly HOW it all works *yet*, there IS evidence that it EXISTS. We do not KNOW a god exists simply because there is NO tangible evidence that god(s) do, which is what "faith" is all about.

If you believe in god(s) it is ONLY because you have "faith" that such god(s) exist. If you had any actual, tangible evidence for the existence of said god(s), "faith" would no longer be required.

The whole NT is about the issue of "faith" because of this inherent difference that defines it and sets it apart in it's special way from those things we can naturally, tangibly percieve and detect. I think that's a valid point to the issue of "faith" vs. knowledge of the world around us, and why the two are wholly exclusive to one another.

Amos

Agape has no opposites and cannot be selfish, pleasure seeking, jealous, protective and all those qualities that have an opposite of their own. Eros is an extraction of agape like time is ot eternity.

Viti

Kvalhion

Bravo and a <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

...that post was just awesome

Dr. Retard

OK, I hereby define 'faith' as "herpes".

Dr. Retard

But Amos, everything you are saying is totally unsupported and controversial, yet you state it as though it were common knowledge among the clued-in intelligentsia (which, sadly, doesn't include poor old benighted me). Support your claims or at least explain the rationale for such an irritating tone.

Orpheous99

What, do you actually see god? What does he/she/it look like, a Big Blue Banana by any chance?

Even if I had no eyes I can still "see" the world through my other senses. What physical sense do "see" god with?

Christians can only "perceive" their god through a 1500 year old book of mostly myths, fairy tales, and wishful thinking.

moiii

CAN ANYONE PROVIDE ME WITH PROOF THAT THERE IS NO GOD?