I don’t have to have faith in something just to prove it. As a matter of fact, I can perform an experiment intentionally to disprove something and end up with the opposite results. Now, jmullaney’s idea may require some initial faith for success. Any proof of God may require initial faith that I am incapable of. That doesn’t mean that I must have faith before proof in ANY idea.
1 Corinthians 1:27
But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong.
Although I understand the non-Christian use of the word “faith” to mean “belief,” the Christian meaning is rather clear – having faith means keeping Christ’s commandments, which I’ve already cites above. As James mentions, even the Demons believe – faith is not the same thing.
I would agree, but to the best of my knowlege many of these systems rule that greed is OK, because the ends justify the means. But, I’ve been down that rabbit hole too many times around here already…
Skeptics and critical thinkers who’ve decided to make all decisions free from the influence of faith will in time become atheists. Theists can always reserve the right to have faith, but this does not mean they are less intelligent.
Well, thanks to quantum mechanics, there is a logical reason for everything. That doesn’t mean a corellation between faith and an underlying reality which can’t be seen by those who do not live by faith can’t be shown, although in the strictest logical sense there may be no way to prove it.
There is an inherent illogic to being a slave to sin also, though unwise is perhaps a better standard.
Some science is subjective though, you must admit. Subjectivity does not invalidate a truth which any subject can see independantly. How do you have a witness prove that you see colored lights when you rub your eyes? You can’t. Does that make such a theory or experiment false? No, it does not.
Well, you might be on the edge of throwing out all of psycology and sociology as non-sciences if you wish to paint with such a broad brush. A mere lack of volunteers to conduct an experiment doesn’t mean it is invalid. Nor was my experiment really entirely subjectivr, I simply lack the ability to bring forth any witnesses at this time.
For physics, chemistry, and some biology experiments such tight restrictions make perfect sense for their fields. Not all fields of science would accept you criteria.
You are unwilling to have faith, so you can’t gather the evidence with which to believe. Insisting that God kowtow to you in your acedia without you bothering to have faith, that you might belief, is a non-starter.
But you can concieve of many unholy reasons not to bother looking for him. How convenient!
If people willfully hide themselves from God by means of and because of their disobedience to his will, I don’t know what God is supposed to do about it. Perhaps it is his way of letting us live with ourselves. It would be rather cruel of him to show up around every turn and pain the heart of the willfully unfaithful.
Right. The entire universe is ultimately subjective. But get your science journal friends working on this one too and I’m sure they will figure something out. 
I could say the same thing about greed. In what way do you mean there is evidence against Christianity? If you mean historically, I guess you are right there. Heck, some people don’t believe the holocaust either and that has only been 60 years ago.
Really?? Me too! Well, I only just started, but all the threads around here have inspired me. Good luck! (Don’t worry – mine is guaranteed to be weird – it is almost more of a play) The larger issue as to what you do with bad people, such as put them in a prison where they are not free is an interesting one. (You could say God does this with us here on earth as well, but the door is always open to us. Exit through the narrow gate?)
I don’t know about that. I mean, I can disbelieve that I won’t plummit to my death if I jump off a skyscraper. I could certaintly prove that wrong (I know – perhaps the only good idea I’ve had on this thread, but hold your endorsements till the end 
)
Well, I’m impressed. Come see everyone, here is someone who follows Christ’s teachings and has thus bears further witness to my experiment. About time you showed up. Unless of course, you are another liar who doesn’t actually follow Christ’s teachings, in which case I’m really in a rut here.
Well, just to give you the benefit of the doubt, you are right to some extent. Merely having faith by living the perfection of charity commanded by Christ of those who would be his disciples should be accompanied by works also. As Jesus said: “Whoever has faith in me shall do works.” But, I am more of the “throw a person in the lake and they will learn how to swim” way of thought on this. When these people witness the works God does through them, they will recognize his existence, then they may also decide to attempt to teach others as well.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along 
Absolutely, but some of the unfaithful would take immediate objection to what could easily be viewed as mumbo-jumbo.
I think the Catholics sum this up well:
But you just said… well, now I’m all kinds of confused.
Well, jmullaney, you are incredible, you have provoked me to post, yet again, in response to you even though I have lost almost all respect for your opinion. That little tiny bit of respect that I retain out of some hope that you may understand where I’m coming from keeps nagging at me.
First, I agree that some sciences have some subjectivity to them, like psychology. I also have some strong reservations about the validity of much of that, so called, science. But, when the results are predictable, repeatable, and consistent, I take it seriously. Some aspects of psychology have gotten that far. So, yes I am on the edge of throwing out much of pschology and sociology. Well, not quite. I think that the people who study those subjects have shown that they are at least worth further study. I think that many of theories have proved to be valuable. These studies are still in their infancy IMO, maybe pre-adolescence.
Your comments about me finding “convenient” excuses to not have faith is insulting. I have explained that I have gone through quite a lot of inconvenient experiences specifically in search of God. And, on my own initiative, I see value in all my fellow men (including women, there just isn’t a good way to say that in english). This value may not exactly equate to the Christian brotherly love concept, but it’s close. I think Christ’s sermon on the Mount was quite good and I agree with what he said there about how people should act (depending a bit upon interpretation). As I see it, I act more “Christian” than the great majority of Christians I know. Acting for the good of society and for the world we live in takes time and effort and I don’t see how you can call it convenient.
As I have stated, belief without evidence is not something I can just choose to have. The closest I can get is when someone tells me something that is easily (giving away everything I own and wandering for 6 weeks to life does not qualify as easy) verifiable, and I can think of no reason for them to be mistaken or intentionally lying. In this case, I will usually act as if what has been said is true. Is this a “convenient” excuse? It feels rather inconvenient to me. How nice it would be to have some higher power to lean on. How convenient to be able to be given forgiveness for my mistakes instead of carrying the guilt. How convenient to not have to work out an ethical system myself since a church has done it for me.
NOT BOTHER LOOKING FOR HIM???!!! Have you read anything I wrote? I have stopped looking, but that doesn’t mean I never did. Willfully hide from GOD? I wouldn’t know how to do that. Isn’t he, theoretically, omniscient? (the word not the poster) I go to church occasionally (10 times a year maybe) to be present for significant events in the lives of friends and relatives. Unless I were afraid of judgement, what reason would I have to hide? I don’t believe there is any judgement except that of myself and other humans.
I agreed that there is no conclusive evidence against Christianity. There is considerable evidence that evolution exists and a bunch of other stuff that many Christians say can’t be true because the Bible says different. This is evidence against some forms of Christianity.
My book on ethics, working title “Ethics for Atheists and Agnostics”, was inspired by a couple of Catholics and Lutherans claiming to me that their complete disregard for political causes having to do with environmentalism was due to there being no Commandment: “Thou shalt not litter.” I began to watch more closely, and repeatedly observed Christians of varied faiths performing acts that I consider unethical and justifying themselves by saying that the bible did not say anything about it. I have some connections in the local Lutheran Adult Education program (I play bridge with a couple of the directors), they have requested some advance chapters because word has gotten around in that community that I find the Christian ethic to be incomplete. Some of them agree. Some don’t. A dialogue has occured. I think it’s great. I think I am working for the advancement of ethics and morality. I have some doubts that I will ever be happy enough with my book to call it complete, but I will send them some essays.
One more thing, I keep Christ’s commandments for the most part, depending on how you read the “love the Lord thy God” thing. I love all people and I have had Christians on this board tell me that this qualifies. Does this mean I have faith? I slip now and then, but who doesn’t? (Actually, I have been loosening my code of ethics a bit as I see more and more shades of grey. On the other hand, I am less likely to break my own rules on a whim nowadays. My “sins” are much more premeditated than they used to be. When I was younger, things seemed so much more black and white.) If this means I have faith, by your definition, what does it mean that I have faith but no belief? (obviously this question is moot if you don’t think that I have faith)
I would so much like for you, jmullaney, to stop insulting my efforts and give me a reasonable answer. If I don’t get one this time, I will have to give up and label you troll. Has Gaudere finally given up?
me: «what miracle did God create for you to convince you of his existence?»
jmullaney: «I can’t say there was any one thing – more a string of highly improbable events. All of which could be written off as minor violations of macro-phyisics in favor of quantuum mechanics, or even mere coincidence or “sheer luck.”»
Does this mean that what you experienced were highly improbable events? Here’s the difference I see -
Wine turning into water -> miracle.
Me winning the lottery -> highly improbable event.
I don’t see how highly improbable events are proof of the existence of God. And how is a highly improbable event a “violation of macro-physics”?
To believe that Christ turned water into wine is…well, it’s assuming alot.
I’m getting lost on the references to quantum physics, and I’m not ashamed to admit it. I’ve seen references to it before regarding the existence of God,and using it as proof(?) or disproof (?). It usually appears well into a thread and I don’t quite get the point (someone help).
Seems to me an miracle must be defined and accepted by the debators:
Is a miracle a highly improbable event? OR, Is a miracle something that violates physical laws?
Seems to me that if you decide a miracle is a highly improbale event, then we’ve eliminated the assumption that there was divine intervention, and we (atheists) don’t have to give much credence to miracles.
Is this where mechanics and physics are involved? I would say a miracle would be something that violates physical law. Certainly wine into water qualifies, but I’m skeptical of the biblical account. Again…seems to me I would need to have faith in this event, removing scientific process from the equation, and stopping any discussion.
I appreciate what the theists propose, but I think the theist must concede this: Approached completely logically, it is understandable that atheists do not believe, for lack of a better phrase.
As an atheist, I think atheists must concede: Theists have faith, and presenting logical/scientific arguements does not reason away that faith. Inherent in their beliefs is faith, and even assumptions about certain events.
I don’t want to come off as too critical of either group, but in all fairness, theists must concede that their faith doesn’t hold up well when tested logically/critically. Why the hell would God require you to have faith if God’s existence could be proved and YOU could prove his existence? Pa-lease…don’t try to prove God’s existence.
Theists: You either have faith, or you have proof. I cannot concede both to you.
Atheists: If a theist argues on logic and faith, bail out, because it’s an oymoronic arguement.
Theists: You have to appreciate the atheists’ point of view! Think about it. Theism requires faith. Atheists approach things logically/critically. Don’t try and prove there is a God, because it’s not about proof, it’s about faith. Find me some former atheists who now “believe” in God and I’ll show you someone who tossed away reasoning and critical thinking in exchange for…faith.
Faith - the arguement killer.
Jack Daniels or Cutty Sark?
I’m trying VileOrb. I do understand where you are coming from. The heat does tend to rise when religious matters are at hand, but please bear with me and try to stay in the kitchen.
And I maintain that is the case here. But that is only a theory. I can back it up with scripture, the evidence of the lives of various holy people throughout western history, and the consistant teachings of the Catholic Church for the past 1500+ years. Even the ample evidence that less materialistic cultures throughout history have believed in various forms of divinity. And my own experience. All of which from your perspective would wisely be taken with a grain of salt and I don’t blame you for it.
I am sorry you feel insulted, but you have to see it my way. You spend a great deal of time searching for God in the basement. I come along and say God is in the attic. You say it is too hard to climb the stairs, thus God is not in the attic. You get upset that God isn’t in the basement, so don’t see any point looking in the attic, and get insulted when I say you have merely been looking in the wrong place, and maintain you really did look long and hard in the basement and claim that to your own credit that you have somehow done a thorough search. I hope this analogy shows why we are bang heads on this point.
Again, I know where you are coming from. I am sure you have had many poor teachers and come to understand many wrong interpretations. But, as we already agree, you don’t agree with this part of the sermon:
I doubt you know many.
See! And now I have to insult you again. “You are justifying yourself before men, but God knows what is in your heart. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight.”
You only think this is hard because you do not know the power of God. Me? I just don’t love my fellow man to lay down my life for them. I didn’t like being blessed because people hated me for being a Christian. I didn’t have roots deep enough to sustain my faith against all the scribes and pharisees of this age. And I don’t like doing anything half-@$$ed. So I quit, and didn’t give God a second thought for 3 1/2 years. Six months of actively hanging out here has done me some good though. But in a world this screwed up, where Christ has apparently failed (or, was just plain wrong), where everyone is happy with the status quo, it is hard to convince myself I shouldn’t just follow the lemmings off the cliff. But it is always possible that there are some souls out there who just don’t know any better, and who really do want to serve God. So I try to teach the truth anyway. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Twas nice while it lasted, I’ll concur.
Old Free Spirit saying: “Those who seek God in Churches and in Scipture are properly called jack-asses, for God is not in them.” That’s heavy out of context, but try to understand it anyway.
Well, that is one thing in history man has never had a problem doing!
I know that is only a parable of course, but the gloss on it is you hide yourself from God via “possessions” which are figuratively compared to clothing in the story.
Because you do not wish to be “naked.” That is “too hard.”
There are a lot of weak minded people out there and plenty of wolves in sheep’s clothing willing to make a buck of whatever snake oil they got. Initially, the Catholics did freak over the whole evolution thing, but they mellowed out in a reasonable amount of time. The every-word-of-the-Bible is-literal “fundies” are told to believe that because the last thing the wolf wants is for them to stop sending him their money. By making everything literal, you can make all verses co-equal, and with some twisted logic you can ignore roughly half of what Jesus taught based on a few obscure passages from Paul (which James corrects later on, but since everything Paul said is “true” you can see the advantageous nature of taking the path of least resistance). So you have to understand the background there, so that when a reasonably same person comes along and says Genesis 1 isn’t literal and Genesis 2-3 is just a parable, they aren’t really freaked out that maybe people did evolve from monkeys (although even I would defend the idea that people are souls based on what I know) they are ultimately forced to do things this way so they can deny Christ. That seems completely unintelligent on the surface, but you can see there is a convoluted logic in the background operating behind the scenes.
Tell me about it. I remember trying to get the beggars, punks, hippies, spirits, et. al. not to leave trash around these church steps because the church was ready to ban people sitting on their steps if it didn’t stop (it was a nice shady place to sit). It was a huge pain, and there were good arguments on both sides. But where’s an epistle from St. Paul when you need one?
If they kept the commandments, the Spirit would teach them all things of wisdom. Littering seems slothful to me, and being a bad steward of God’s gift if even in a minor way. OTOH, it might just come down to aesthetics. Is a lawn strewn with paper plates really bad? Could littering actually be an outward sign to the unfaithful that this world is ultimately a fleeting and decaying trash heap and that they are foolish for chasing after it’s false treasures and false promises, aesthetics be damned? Or are you ultimately violating the property rights of others? Too close to call in general, but since we’d been specifically asked not to litter, it seemed to me we should have been more obedient.
Neat.
Nope (he says, really wishing to change the topic ;)) If you fail in one commandment, you have failed in them all. Jesus’s commandments IMHO do tell us how to love our neighbor and yes all fail at that periodically. But many people ignore many of his teachings and really don’t have any true sucess from which to fail from. But having your own moral code which gives you something to strive for is important too.
I think you have a moral code to work from and that is a good start. I myself try not to screw over my fellow man too often. I’d say that having faith is putting your trust in God. Belief is just believing there is a God, and that perhaps if you put your trust in him you’d be OK (but usually, in addition: why risk it?). Of course, people here tell will tell me they do trust God, but then if that were so, why wouldn’t they keep Jesus’s commandments? Akin to trusting you have winning lottery numbers in advance but not buying a ticket, if they believe what they are saying. I have a really hard time relating to these people!
Well, that confirms it jmullaney. I can’t understand you and you , no matter that you think you do, can not understand me. I will, from here on, ignore you.
Water turning into wine isn’t impossible, just highly improbable. What is most likely to happen at any given time is a particle will obey macro-physical laws. But, all the time, particles don’t do so. The reason no one notices is the particles that act improbably are generally such a minority that from our perspective the objects we can see behave according to the macro-laws. For even one entire atom to act unexpectedly is highly unlikely. But that is as far as science can take this.
I never specifically saw anyone turn water into wine. I have seen other transubstantiations. Everything else could be plainly written off as luck or chicanery.
Alas, there are no physical laws. Or at least, laws can be bent and broken – what we call laws are only the most likely outcome for any given particle to do under certain conditions.
Just because that was two thousand years ago doesn’t mean the nature of the universe has fundamentally changed. If Jesus said anyone with faith in him would also do works such as these, there is an obvious test right there.
Depends on what axioms you start with.
You mean belief, not faith.
Ugh. You keep switching between the concept of faith and the concept of belief that I can’t keep up with the twists and turns of your argument. But, trying to divine what you are saying, I think the answer you are looking for is that God blinds the unfaithful so they do not suffer knowing how they have betrayed him. It is an act of mercy more or less. But I don’t know for sure.
No. If you live by faith you will have proof, and that will give you belief.
What is illogical about faith? Did you read any of this thread at all?
No, theism requires belief. Even the devil is a theist. I belief but do not have faith for example.
Sure, but if you don’t ask the right questions, you can’t get the right answers. You seem to be really confused about a lot of things but you probably have debated too many fundies. Come back when you’ve read my last few posts.
Jeez, after that last guy? I’ll take Captain Morgan’s.
Why is littering a sin? Because there are laws against it and Christians are compelled to obey earthly authorities under the claim that God has established them. Or so Paul wrote.
(BTW: one could argue that as abortion is legal, the people must go along with it or they would be disobeying God yet again. And people claim the Bible has no contradictions.)
No speaka de English, eh?
Well, I’m sure we’ll cross paths again. Ciao.
Describe them, in detail, to James Randi. He should be able to tell you if they were true transubstantiations or not. If he believes they are, he will give you a million bucks which you could selflessly donate to the poor.
Baloney. This would be news to virtually every reputable physicist working today. You obviously have a creationist’s understanding of physics. This is not a compliment.
**Which also means that if miracles do not happen today, then it follows they did not happen in the past either.
Right. I believe one of them is that you can safely handle deadly serpents without any protection but faith. Care to try?
Rational, logical people do it differently. First we get proof, then we believe. At no point does faith even enter the picture. (And I know that implies that those who have faith that there is a God are irrational. And I don’t care who that offends. It’s what I truly believe, and highly intelligent people can be just as irrational as those with lower intelligence.)
One could say the same to you. It has been stated here that faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. If that isn’t illogical, what is it?
If you don’t ask the right people the right questions, you won’t get the right answers. You obviously ain’t one of the right people.
Well, I think you might be putting the cart before the horse. The only legitimate authorities are the ones which God has established and the rest can be ignored (excepting that if your enemy asks you to go a mile, go two). Might make for an interesting thread though.
If I understand jmullaney correctly, he is distinguishing between belief in God and faith in God, with “faith” here meaning “trust in” God–i.e., not merely believing in God, but accepting that he keeps his promises and won’t screw you over. What he’s saying is that in order for the atheist to be given reason to believe in the existence of God at all, the atheist must first trust that God keeps his promises (and, incidentally, accept that jmullaney’s interpretation of those promises is correct).
The problem I see here isn’t so much that jmullaney’s “experiment” is unscientific but that his experiment is unethical. We’re being asked to perform an experiment which, if done properly, will cause irreversible and potentially very harmful effects to real human beings. I’m not just speaking of the loss of monetary and material things. Jmullaney has said that we must also leave our friends and family. Deserting one’s friends and family is not something you can just undo. Even if you later reconcile, you can’t take away what you has been done.
Imagine if someone says that he has invented an anti-gravity belt. Unfortunately, the only way it can be tested is for a real live human being to jump out of an airplane, sans parachute. Wait, you ask. We’re willing to test your amazing new anti-gravity belt–but can’t we just drop an anvil, instead? Or even a white mouse? Or how about just jumping off the lab table, or having a volunteer jump with the anti-gravity belt, and a back-up parachute, just in case. Nope, nope, nope, and nope. It’s gotta be a person, they can’t have any back-up, and it’s gotta be out of an airplane, at least a mile up. Oh, and did I mention this anti-gravity belt is invisible? Not only do you not know if the thing works, you don’t even know if the thing exists.
Now, maybe you could somehow make the case that the test of this magical anti-gravity belt experiment is “scientific”–after all, its existence and workability could certainly be falsified–but I don’t think that test would be ethical. (And why do I get this feeling that if the first volunteer does go “splat” the inventor will claim that somehow the poor sap didn’t “do it right”, so that’s not a valid test?)
Actually, jmullaney’s test is less reasonable than this, since I’m not sure how closely he’s even specified the outcome of a successful test. The results of a successful anti-gravity belt test are pretty obvious–you jump out of the plane and waft down, light as a feather (or maybe you just hover in mid-air). As far as I know, all we know about jmullaney’s test is that if we do it, “a miracle (type unspecified) will occur”. Someone else could demonstrate the anti-gravity belt with ease, whereas the people who have supposedly successfully carried out jmullaney’s “experiment” can only say “Yep, we believe in God now”–and anyone who’s jumped and splatted is summarily dismissed as having “done it wrong”. Now, if jmullaney, or someone, wants to go first, carry out the experiment, desert everyone they love, and then come back and turn water into wine for the rest of us, we’ll pay attention.
Let me just add this:
You say don’t believe in Huitzilopochtli, the Great Hummingbird-God of the Sun? Ah, you must have faith in Huitzilopochtli, you must trust Huitzilopochtli, and then you will believe in him. You can get proof of Huitzilopochtli’s existence quite easily, by this experiment: simply go and find a few suitable virgins and cut out their hearts on his altar. You will then assuredly be given miraculous proof of his existence.
What’s wrong with that? You don’t want to be willfully ignorant of the mighty Huitzilopochtli, do you? Why, that would be unscientific–downright irrational, in fact.
Give it up MEB. You do have some good points there but jmullaney will have convenient excuses why they are not valid. Or, he’ll change his story enough to make them invalid.
We’re in a large building. We’re looking for God. There are lots of people here with us and many of them claim to have found God. They all are shouting and telling us where God is. We have run all over the building screaming “GOD! GOD! Where are you?” and God has not answered. We’ve looked and looked and not found him. jmullaney says he’s in a particular room under a particular bed but we can not get in the room unless we know the code and can not get under the bed unless we are thin enough. He is trying to tell us the code but he is having trouble because his definitions of the words are different from ours. How convenient.
These are the types of arguments that make me think that maybe there is some truth to the idea that Atheists are smarter than believers. I kept hoping that an intelligent believer would step in and tell jmullaney where he was missing the the point, but it didn’t happen. Just like I keep hoping that more black people will stand up and try to teach their less intelligent cohorts to stop living up to the negative stereotypes. For some reason, it doesn’t happen.
Um… who? I doubt he would believe me. All I could offer him is an experiment by which he could see them for himself.
Well, that would be news to me per my understanding of the wave-partical duality of matter. But I must admit to not having kept up with the literature for the past 8 years or so and perhaps there have been new developments I am not aware of.
Agreed.
I saw a sister shoot up rubbing alcohol one time (she bored easily). No harm done. But I should point out the last half of Mark 16 was added many many years after the fact so this does happen to be a dubious scripture, FWIW.
That’s what I said – first you get proof, then you believe.
:rolleyes: I can do this all day people. I’ve already outlined an experiment by which one may live by faith. This does not require belief in God. If I say I have faith that the money in my bank account will still be there tomorrow, that doesn’t mean I suddenly believe in some “Bank God” or something. I have faith that if I drop something in mid-air, it will fall. That doesn’t mean I believe in some “Gravity God.”
Understand that I am using the word faith in the traditional Christian sense of the word. You are merely using the word faith as a synonym for belief, which is also happens to be in the dictionary, but you are really clouding the conversation by doing so. I agree that belief is belief in something for which there is no evidence, if that is what you mean. I suggest we come to an agreement on some common understandings of how we are going to use cetain pivotal words to our discussion, before we start arguing that cars have five wheels since the steering wheel is a wheel too and other such meaningless exercises.
Yep. Ignorance is rather pervasive.
You can’t leave your friends and family for six weeks? Exactly, what is the time limit of not being with these people does an unethical situation occur? Can you go to work for 8 hours? A two week vacation? A month sabattical? Is six weeks just over the limit or what?
The rest of your analogy is just silly. I’m not asking anyone to jump out of a plane.
Well, so far I have a zero percent failure rate.
(yawn) I did all this already, you here were simply not witnesses to it.
Now, just put down the knife Buckner. Murders unethical don’t you know?