| Player1x3 said: So basiclly your whole argument is ''Lol, thats stupid''? Get off your high arrogant atheist horse and actually read what I said. And im 100% sure that millions of people would agree with me on beleive to see. I also said that it differs from person to person. Again, go read what I said and stop being the coolest kid in the room. God wouldt allow humans to find evidence proving or disproving his existance, it all comes down to your choosing, if and how dou you want to beleive. |
Well, you said that you have to believe to see. If a kid was raised in the Sahara desert and never saw snow and then was flown by plane to Antartica would he not see the snow because he did not believe in it? It does seem to be at least counterintuitive.
From another post:
| Player1x3 said:
I dont see how it was possible not to beleive in higher power back than when people knew very little about the world around them. Surely, a person could have disagreed with the specific God of a specific religion, but big chances are they still beleive in some form of prime mover and creator of universe. So while not everyone was a theist, i almost 100% sure all of them were deists. |
Tell that to Diagoras of Melos. Though I doubt that it was as widespread as today.
| Player1x3 said: So thats your argument? No evidence or anything to back it up, just wishful thinking. And atheism was accepted by law for over 300 years by now, there would be no reason why one wouldnt come out as atheist in the age of enlightment |
Like I said, I do not wish to do all the research and I also feel I have overstated my case there but for the second part I disagree:
"At the time, however, Rousseau's strong endorsement of religious toleration, as expounded by the Savoyard vicar in Émile, was interpreted as advocating indifferentism, a heresy, and led to the condemnation of the book in both Calvinist Geneva and Catholic Paris." (from wikipedia's article on Rousseau)
Even saying that religious toleration was good was scandalous. It might not have been illegal but homosexuality is not illegal today and yet a lot of prominent people hide theirs because it is not politically acceptable.
| Player1x3 said: My point stands, science and religion do not in any way go against each other. Hell, for centuries catholic church was the only source of knowledge in western europe and |
I disagree. They can cohabit and if they go against each other you can choose side but there are ways in which they go against each others. Specifically, when religions describe the world in a way that is different than what science understand it to be. If religion says the earth is at the center of the universe and science says otherwise then they go against each other (galileo). If religion changes its tack to say the same as science then they stop going againgst each other. And vice versa, if a prevailing scientific theory changes from an eternal universe to a universe with a beginning then they stop going against each other ion that point (though maybe not in the details).
| Player1x3 said: You misunderstand or perhaps I explained it bad. Let me try again. I speak for myself personally when I say that i know that God existst. That was an answer for your ''faith is irrational'' replay. Believe to see leads me to seeing (or realizing God) and that leads me to knowing God exists. Those 3 things lead to another, they are all connected. Like I said, you dont have to accept this as some evidence that indicates existance of God. I am not even presenting it that way, I am just trying to explain why faith isnt irrational (at least my system of faith, for which i am sure millions of other people share) Like I said in my previous post, some people believe and than see, other choose to see than believe.In theism faith CAN LEAD TO KNOLEDGE(maybe ''awarness or ''enlightment'' are better words). I hope you realize that. Actually, no, you cant realize it, thats the problem. Only those of faith can |
Bolded: or both, they are not mutually exclusive and the latter makes the former more likely.
First, faith is irrational by definition. if it is not irrational then it is not faith but knowledge. If you know that god exists then you do not have faith that he exists. I do not have faith that the chair I sit on exists. I know by virtue of not having my ass hitting the floor.
Second, you start your line of logic with believe to see. If you start with belief then it is faith, not reason, and thus by definition irrational.
As for faith leading to knowledge, I would argue that it definitely can lead to the appearance of knowledge but if it could lead to real kowledge then the best scientists would be clerics. Also, if faith by itself can lead to knowledge then every religion would lead to knowledge equally as they all have faith.
Lastly, one question: Let's say you have to take a plane and you have two choices. One is a plane designed by aeronautical engineers applying scientific principles of lift and the other is designed by clerics of your religion who got the knowledge of how to design it strictly through application of their faith. Which plane would you take?
| Player1x3 said: I do not reject either Big Bang nor evoulution, while i fully accepted evolution, Big Bang is still yet to be proven. Althoug I do beleive God has something to do with big Bang and creation of universe. I also believe that God, once finished with creating universe, didnt interact with nature or universe at all anymore |
I must say I find it rather surprising as I find the theory of evolution harder to explain than the theory of the big bang as the big bang has got the universe's expansion and the cosmic background to support it while evolution is either circumstantial evidence (fossil record) or complicated genetics.
The cause of the big bang on the other hand, I would agree has yet to be properly explained.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
