Belief Without Evidence WTF?

[SoCaldrums]

Right. So where is there any "contradiction?"

Going to the witch wasn't god's will. He was trying to do something else for god, and went to the witch along that road. He shouldn't have, but did.

 

[Finshaggy]

Right. So where is there any "contradiction?"

While attempting to commit the will of god, gods people (sometimes) disobey the will of god. But still it is the book of "what to do, and what is" not "Maybe this, and this happens. Maybe that, and that happens"

 

[Finshaggy]

Right. So where is there any "contradiction?"

And instead of murdering the witch, as clearly stated you should do in the bible, he seeks her out...

AND witch hunts should be rampant. WE "Shall not permit a sorceress to live."

 

[cannabineer]

I don't see where I disrespected you at all! And I'm not going to try to prove God exists to you, just as you can't prove He doesn't. I'd highly recommend a book/dvd called Creator And The Cosmos by Hugh Ross. To you. Not the bumper sticker trolls. Dude's a double PHD...I think in astrophysics and...astronomy? He also happens to be an "old-earth creationist", which puts him outside of mainstream Christian belief (so much so that many say he *isn't* a Christian). He can talk your talk though...I'm no astrophysist...hell, I can't even spell it. But dude's pretty fascinating .

Not saying you disrespected me. However I did notice that you sought thoughtful debate in re ontology. I paid attention to the discussion and though I'd provide an opening.
I became interested because the way I read the thread, you were implying that the observation of the activity of the divine was as immediately discernible as wind and air. I wanted to know if I could induce you to provide specifics. From this post the answer appears to be No.

I'll say this, speaking for myself: One of the most offensive Biblical passages is Romans 1:20. Imo it is incorrect. It then papers over its incorrectness (and the to-me-obvious fact that God's presence in the world is not obvious) with an appeal to ridicule; in effect, "if you don't see it you're an idiot and a troll". It seems like a very poor way for supposed scribes-of-God to comport themselves. cn

 

[Heisenberg]

Not saying you disrespected me. However I did notice that you sought thoughtful debate in re ontology. I paid attention to the discussion and though I'd provide an opening.
I became interested because the way I read the thread, you were implying that the observation of the activity of the divine was as immediately discernible as wind and air. I wanted to know if I could induce you to provide specifics. From this post the answer appears to be No.

I'll say this, speaking for myself: One of the most offensive Biblical passages is Romans 1:20. Imo it is incorrect. It then papers over its incorrectness (and the to-me-obvious fact that God's presence in the world is not obvious) with an appeal to ridicule; in effect, "if you don't see it you're an idiot and a troll". It seems like a very poor way for supposed scribes-of-God to comport themselves. cn

I find it a typical thing to see religious folk talking as if the thing(s) that convince them of God should be obvious for all to see, but when you press them about it they either change the subject, provide you will poorly thought out arguments, or in some cases admit that the reasons are not obvious, simply faith, but they believe anyway.

As I have said before, faith is fine with me as long as you admit it and then realize what it means, but faith is in no way an obvious thing that should be apparent to everyone.

to quote myself

It's fine to believe something on faith IF you understand what that means. It means you are not allowed to debate your idea, because you can not support it. It means you are not allowed to use your ideas to influence any sort of social or public policy, because you have no justification. You certainly are not allowed to teach your ideas in any sort of authoritative context. You have the right to express your belief and then sit down and be quiet because your idea amounts to wild speculation. Speculation is not afforded certitude. When the idea of God acquires more support and evidence than the idea of leprechauns or the tooth fairy, you might then have something more to say.

 

[cannabineer]

I find it a typical thing to see religious folk talking as if the thing(s) that convince them of God should be obvious for all to see, but when you press them about it they either change the subject, provide you will poorly thought out arguments, or in some cases admit that the reasons are not obvious, simply faith, but they believe anyway.

I don't begrudge believers their faith. I don't especially like the mandate to evangelize, but I have a "live and let live" attitude that avoids unnecessary conflict. i was once a rather serious student of the New Testament, and Romans 1:20 always stuck in my craw. The text of that verse (from the NIV translation) is this:

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

It's a classic no-winner. Invisible/clearly seen? And if I don't see it, I am without excuse!? (only one thing to say: ) Excuuse me?
cn

 

[eye exaggerate]

I don't begrudge believers their faith. I don't especially like the mandate to evangelize, but I have a "live and let live" attitude that avoids unnecessary conflict. i was once a rather serious student of the New Testament, and Romans 1:20 always stuck in my craw. The text of that verse (from the NIV translation) is this:



It's a classic no-winner. Invisible/clearly seen? And if I don't see it, I am without excuse!? (only one thing to say: ) Excuuse me?
cn

...I've thought this to be man and woman. There was an intense study involved in going from literal to metaphorical interpretation (and super fuzzy points in between). But that's just my bit. I'm not pushing anything. Eternal 'power' + Divine (receptive) nature is what I take from that. No claims on 'righthood'.

 

[Finshaggy]

[video]http://video.adultswim.com/squidbillies/squidvolution.html[/video]

Semantics

 

[ThE sAtIvA hIgH]

You missed a vital part of this whole argument, such a vital part that without out it we would seem like the people with the faulty logic when it is really sativa (you give sativa a bad name sativahigh) with the faulty logic.
Sativa said he has evidence that goes against my beliefs and that his evidence disproved my god. He then said I ignore his points and EVIDENCE.
Do you now understand? (not trying to be a dick). He claimed to have evidence countless times, and now he just wants to say we are the ones that need evidence. Bullshit he claimed to have evidence so now I want to see it.

show me a link to where ive said i have evidence a god dosent exist lol ive said many times i cant prove a god dosent exist but i lack the belief that one does then you go on shouting prove he dosent blah blah , same old rubbish wich countless inteligent people have gone over over n over again with you , i would choose to ignore you now coz i find you tedious , but im not gonna let you spread nonsense in my thread , so yeah .
and more to the point still not one scrap of evidence for your god existing lmao.

 

[ThE sAtIvA hIgH]

Damn he edited his post so I can show you guys where he claimed he has evidence. But if you care to see just look at post number 58. The quote on that post shows where this whole argument of asking for proof from him originated. Check it out.

ha ha ha your desperate dude ,your hysterical over a slight miswording i typed ,i was supposed to type 'your ignoring facts not evidence ,i can understand your excitment that i typed something incorrectly but it still dosent back up your argument in anyway , how could it even be possible to have evidence something dosent exist you total moron ? anyway more to the point still not one scrap of evidence your god exists lmao .

 

[SoCaldrums]

Dude...you make no sense. Fail. If/when you come up with a "contradiction", let me know.

While attempting to commit the will of god, gods people (sometimes) disobey the will of god. But still it is the book of "what to do, and what is" not "Maybe this, and this happens. Maybe that, and that happens"

 

[SoCaldrums]

I made a (simple) analogy. I never said that "the activity of the divine was as immediately discernible as wind an air". On the contrary, the point is that you can't see either wind or God, yet there's plenty of evidence that both exist. AFA Rom 1:20...don't know what to tell you. Pretty self-explanitory.God put enough evidence of His existence out there, and it's up to us to see/discern it. Might be "in your face", but I don't see how you can call it "incorrect".

Not saying you disrespected me. However I did notice that you sought thoughtful debate in re ontology. I paid attention to the discussion and though I'd provide an opening.
I became interested because the way I read the thread, you were implying that the observation of the activity of the divine was as immediately discernible as wind and air. I wanted to know if I could induce you to provide specifics. From this post the answer appears to be No.

I'll say this, speaking for myself: One of the most offensive Biblical passages is Romans 1:20. Imo it is incorrect. It then papers over its incorrectness (and the to-me-obvious fact that God's presence in the world is not obvious) with an appeal to ridicule; in effect, "if you don't see it you're an idiot and a troll". It seems like a very poor way for supposed scribes-of-God to comport themselves. cn

 

[ThE sAtIvA hIgH]

hey heppatitus your time would be better spent , on your knees praying to your invisible friend up above , couldnt you pray yourself some credibal evidence he exists so you can stop looking so stupid infront the internetz people lmao.

 

[SoCaldrums]

You make a couple false assumptions here...at least about me. I'm not "religious" at all. I believe in the Bible. I don't wear funny hats, chant, face certain directions when I pray or fly planes into buildings when people disagree with me.So I'm not big on "religion". And I didn't say God "is obvious for all to see"...the Bible does however. *I* needed more proof than that. So I read the Bible. It has more manuscript evidence than any works of Plato or Shakespeare. Archeological evidence supports it (there's never been an archeological find that contradicts *anything* in it). The prophetic evidence is overwhelming (people wrote about Jesus' crucifixion...a punishment that hadn't even been invented yet, thousands of years before Jesus was born..along with when/where He'd be born/etc). And statistically...for one man to fulfill all the prophecies written about him would be impossible unless he was divine. So I don't have a *blind* faith (and I haven't even gotten into my own witness of things that can only be ascribed to a higher source). So that's all the evidence *I* need. You obviously need more. Well...if God can't provide it for you, I certainly can't.

I find it a typical thing to see religious folk talking as if the thing(s) that convince them of God should be obvious for all to see, but when you press them about it they either change the subject, provide you will poorly thought out arguments, or in some cases admit that the reasons are not obvious, simply faith, but they believe anyway.

As I have said before, faith is fine with me as long as you admit it and then realize what it means, but faith is in no way an obvious thing that should be apparent to everyone.

to quote myself

 

[ThE sAtIvA hIgH]

You make a couple false assumptions here...at least about me. I'm not "religious" at all. I believe in the Bible. I don't wear funny hats, chant, face certain directions when I pray or fly planes into buildings when people disagree with me.So I'm not big on "religion". And I didn't say God "is obvious for all to see"...the Bible does however. *I* needed more proof than that. So I read the Bible. It has more manuscript evidence than any works of Plato or Shakespeare. Archeological evidence supports it (there's never been an archeological find that contradicts *anything* in it). The prophetic evidence is overwhelming (people wrote about Jesus' crucifixion...a punishment that hadn't even been invented yet, thousands of years before Jesus was born..along with when/where He'd be born/etc). And statistically...for one man to fulfill all the prophecies written about him would be impossible unless he was divine. So I don't have a *blind* faith (and I haven't even gotten into my own witness of things that can only be ascribed to a higher source). So that's all the evidence *I* need. You obviously need more. Well...if God can't provide it for you, I certainly can't.

lol how come there is no evidence of a flood on the scale of noahs flood , that wiped everything out lol every bone we find today would all be on the same level , it would be clear to see evidence all around us of a flood that size and where did all the water go ?
you dont believe in religion but you believe in the bible lol and btw none of the bible can be used as credibal evidence, as it was word passed down .The bible can not be used as evidence to support that the God of the bible exists, because you must first assume that the bible's claim that God exists is true. .

 

[ThE sAtIvA hIgH]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VxE7OOl6Qo

 

[eye exaggerate]

it would be clear to see evidence all around us of a flood that size and where did all the water go ?

...the serengeti

 

[ThE sAtIvA hIgH]

the serengeti lol your funny

 

[Harrekin]

lol how come there is no evidence of a flood on the scale of noahs flood , that wiped everything out lol every bone we find today would all be on the same level , it would be clear to see evidence all around us of a flood that size and where did all the water go ?
you dont believe in religion but you believe in the bible lol and btw none of the bible can be used as credibal evidence, as it was word passed down .The bible can not be used as evidence to support that the God of the bible exists, because you must first assume that the bible's claim that God exists is true. .

Yeah I picked up on that too, not religious but believes whats written in the Bible...its an interesting paradox.

 

[ChronicObsession]

God = Supernatural. Why men have gay sex and kiss each other and hold hands in the cinema and shower together = Scientific.
Can you put God in a laboratory and do tests on him? No, you can't. And a plus about God is that you don't need a team of scientists to work together and *Proof* anything for the masses. Believe it, or DONT. I find this post offensive. Stupid people disregard YOUR vital point? Pfffff. On a related topic, I'm going to go take a morning dump. Good day Sir.

how is it seriousley possible people believe in gods without evidence , anything else in life requires evidence, to believe its true , yet when it comes to believing in a god , stupid people disregard this vital point , why is this ? its truly shocking