Predict the 1st Banning for uncivil behavior in the new Religious Threads...

[JettaKnight]

If I agree with ChristianPatriot...so what? How does this make me a better person? How does it make my community better? How does it increase social equity or improve the quality of life of anyone?

It forces you to confront the fact that there is a fixed truth and it may not align with your desires or the desires of society in general. It forces you to subject yourself to His will. It places a priority on service to the Creator and His plan.

Often this is very much aligned with social equity, but social equity in itself is not the end goal. There's something behind the curtain that's much, much better.

If I agree with BugI02...so what? How does this make me a better person? How does it make my community better? How does it increase social equity or improve the quality of life of anyone?

It means it's a relative. From a social standpoint, screw community - you and your survival is most important. Now going along with the rules and making your community a better place may be the optimum method of survival and happiness.

 

[jamil]

So is science. Science cannot prove the beginning of everything. You have to have faith to believe all that matter was just sitting there waiting to go bang.

So you're saying you're all arguing about opinions? Well, wouldn't be the first time on INGO.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

So you're saying you're all arguing about opinions? Well, wouldn't be the first time on INGO.

I just want people to be real with themselves. You can call it science but at it's core it's a belief system based on faith.

 

[JettaKnight]

But that's just a matter of faith. You have to believe it. It is functionally no different than opinion.

There either is or is not a creator. Our opinion does not change that fact. Our faith is no influence on the facts of the world.

And if there is, then truth must be defined by that creator, if only through the sheer act of creating the universe and it's physical laws. Whether we accept these as truth does not negate the fact that they are true.



Plugging your ears and turning you back to the approaching train on whose tracks you stand does not make the train vanish.





The faith part comes in when you choose to decide to believe in a creator and live your life according to his prescriptions for your life. Having faith is the willingness to observe the signs and step of the railroad tracks. Now, if there is no creator, I figure the worst that can happen is look stupid jumping off the tracks for train that doesn't exist.

 

[jamil]

I just want people to be real with themselves. You can call it science but at it's core it's a belief system based on faith.

Science itself is an intellectually honest process for seeking answers. Scientists are no more intellectually honest than anyone else. They're humans with biases and favorites. If scientists say the evidence says more than it says, yes, that is faith. But they didn't arrive at their faith as a result of scientific inquiry.

 

[jamil]

There either is or is not a creator. Our opinion does not change that fact. Our faith is no influence on the facts of the world.

And if there is, then truth must be defined by that creator, if only through the sheer act of creating the universe and it's physical laws. Whether we accept these as truth does not negate the fact that they are true.



Plugging your ears and turning you back to the approaching train on whose tracks you stand does not make the train vanish.





The faith part comes in when you choose to decide to believe in a creator and live your life according to his prescriptions for your life. Having faith is the willingness to observe the signs and step of the railroad tracks. Now, if there is no creator, I figure the worst that can happen is look stupid jumping off the tracks for train that doesn't exist.

Arguments like this can be broken down into simple dichotomies like that. There is a god, or there isn't. Salvation is necessary, or it's not. People believe both ways. One side is wrong. Both sides are belief. In this case, one side believes because of faith. The other side believes because of physical evidence. Which way is better? That's where it becomes more obvious that opinion is involved.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Science itself is an intellectually honest process for seeking answers. Scientists are no more intellectually honest than anyone else. They're humans with biases and favorites. If scientists say the evidence says more than it says, yes, that is faith. But they didn't arrive at their faith as a result of scientific inquiry.

Science isn't the be-all end-all. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have scientific evidence of how the particles that make up a big bang came into existence or if they've always existed.

We all have a 50/50 shot. Either there is a supreme deity or there isn't.

If there isn't a God than we just cease to exist.

If there is a God........oh boy........

 

[BugI02]

So, again, what changes if I agree with either of you?

Realistically, possibly only in what direction your intellect and curiousity lead you.

 

[PaulF]

If there isn't a God than we just cease to exist.

If there is a God........oh boy........

Then everyone...EVERYONE...needs to worry if they picked the right one.

 

[BugI02]

It forces you to confront the fact that there is a fixed truth and it may not align with your desires or the desires of society in general. It forces you to subject yourself to His will. It places a priority on service to the Creator and His plan.

Often this is very much aligned with social equity, but social equity in itself is not the end goal. There's something behind the curtain that's much, much better.


It means it's a relative. From a social standpoint, screw community - you and your survival is most important. Now going along with the rules and making your community a better place may be the optimum method of survival and happiness.

Your placement of these words in my mouth indicates you have read few of my posts and alas know me not at all

 

[jamil]

Science isn't the be-all end-all. It is impossible to have scientific evidence of how the particles that make up a big bang come into existence or if they've always existed.

We all have a 50/50 shot. Either there is a supreme deity or there isn't.

If there isn't a God than we just cease to exist.

If there is a God........oh boy........

50/50? How did you calculate those odds? Just because you can fashion a question as a binary doesn't mean the odds are 50/50.

And of course science is not the be-all end-all. Humans managed to discover some truths before science came along. And they managed to "discover" a lot of myths as well.

Also, the direness of our situation doesn't make god or no god any more or less likely. I can't think of anything more dire than dying. In my way of thinking, that's forever. But I'm not going to believe something I have no evidence for just because the alternative is unpleasant. Then again I don't think hell is all that pleasant to think about either.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Then everyone...EVERYONE...needs to worry if they picked the right one.

You and I have the exact same fate if there is no God. I lose nothing if I die and cease to exist. I'll have lived a joy filled life.

If there is a God.....

 

[jamil]

You and I have the exact same fate if there is no God. I lose nothing if I die and cease to exist. I'll have lived a joy filled life.

If there is a God.....

You say that as if the odds are even. You'll need to pull some evidence to build that case.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

50/50? How did you calculate those odds? Just because you can fashion a question as a binary doesn't mean the odds are 50/50.

And of course science is not the be-all end-all. Humans managed to discover some truths before science came along. And they managed to "discover" a lot of myths as well.

Also, the direness of our situation doesn't make god or no god any more or less likely. I can't think of anything more dire than dying. In my way of thinking, that's forever. But I'm not going to believe something I have no evidence for just because the alternative is unpleasant. Then again I don't think hell is all that pleasant to think about either.

What's the other alternative? There is a God...kinda?

 

[JettaKnight]

Arguments like this can be broken down into simple dichotomies like that. There is a god, or there isn't. Salvation is necessary, or it's not. People believe both ways. One side is wrong.

Yes, the philosophical aspect is relatively simple. That does not negate it's importance.

Both sides are belief. In this case, one side believes because of faith. The other side believes because of physical evidence. Which way is better? That's where it becomes more obvious that opinion is involved.

Both "sides" do indeed believe what they believe.

However, it's wrong to make the claim as you imply that Christian beliefs lack physical evidence. On contrary, there's a strong physical evidence for a Creator, A God that is part of His creation, and an incarnation of God 2000 years ago.

Again, whether that evidence is dismissed or not does not erode its existence in reality.

 

[jamil]

What's the other alternative? There is a God...kinda?

There is a god / is not a god, may be a .01% / 99.99% deal. You're presenting it as 50/50 just because you're limiting to just two choices. I'm thinking the odds are not in your favor.

 

[BugI02]

There either is or is not a creator. Our opinion does not change that fact. Our faith is no influence on the facts of the world.

And if there is, then truth must be defined by that creator, if only through the sheer act of creating the universe and it's physical laws. Whether we accept these as truth does not negate the fact that they are true.



Plugging your ears and turning you back to the approaching train on whose tracks you stand does not make the train vanish.





The faith part comes in when you choose to decide to believe in a creator and live your life according to his prescriptions for your life. Having faith is the willingness to observe the signs and step of the railroad tracks. Now, if there is no creator, I figure the worst that can happen is look stupid jumping off the tracks for train that doesn't exist.

I hope you're not arguing for belief as the 'smart money' play

 

[BugI02]

Arguments like this can be broken down into simple dichotomies like that. There is a god, or there isn't. Salvation is necessary, or it's not. People believe both ways. One side is wrong. Both sides are belief. In this case, one side believes because of faith. The other side believes because of physical evidence. Which way is better? That's where it becomes more obvious that opinion is involved.

Jamil, I think its a matter of choosing the correct tools for the job at hand. Faith can't solve practical problems and science can't solve spiritual problems. I choose to carry both sets of tools in my kit.

 

[HoughMade]

There is a god / is not a god, may be a .01% / 99.99% deal. You're presenting it as 50/50 just because you're limiting to just two choices. I'm thinking the odds are not in your favor.

What is the evidence there is no God? The inability to see Him in a telescope? That people choose not to believe what writings He may have inspired? If the realm of the "supernatural" is rejected, exactly what evidence could there possibly be?

...other than the FACT that disorder does not beget incredible order....unless you assume it did during unobserved eons....or that everything that there is must have sprung into existence from nothing....which, again, is an assumption that is neither observed, nor observable.

Perhaps God wants people to have faith without appearing in front of them (again)...which, of course, would be rejected for numerous reasons.

 

[PaulF]

You and I have the exact same fate if there is no God. I lose nothing if I die and cease to exist. I'll have lived a joy filled life.

If there is a God.....

I most definitely agree, if there is no God.

But what if there is a god, and it isn't yours? What if the Hindus were right all along?