Originally posted by lord xyz
If you religious people say "God can't be proven or disproven, you just have to believe." why do you debate it as fact? I mean, if you [b]know it to be a belief, why say/imply it's true? (And then use the ****ing bible as a reference?) [/B]
Re: A thought just came to mind.
Originally posted by lord xyz
If you religious people say "God can't be proven or disproven, you just have to believe." why do you debate it as fact? I mean, if you [b]know it to be a belief, why say/imply it's true? (And then use the ****ing bible as a reference?) [/B]
Congratulations on getting your first thought! Now all you have to do is learn how to formulate intelligent thoughts. Then string words together in proper syntax while observing good grammar and you will be able to express those thoughts to other people! 😄 I was obviously kidding. I don't mean a word of what I just said.
What religious people? I am not religious in the sense that you mean it but I know what you intended to say, so I will go along with this term. But true believers understand that what we have relative to Jesus is relationship with God through Jesus Christ--not religion. I had to quibble over that.
If you are referring to me among others, I don't recall ever saying that God could not be proven or unproven.
Re: Re: A thought just came to mind.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Congratulations on getting your first thought! Now all you have to do is learn how to formulate intelligent thoughts. Then string words together in proper syntax while observing good grammar and you will be able to express those thoughts to other people! 😄 I was obviously kidding. I don't mean a word of what I just said.What religious people? I am not religious in the sense that you mean it but I know what you intended to say, so I will go along with this term. But true believers understand that what we have relative to Jesus is relationship with God through Jesus Christ--not religion. I had to quibble over that.
If you are referring to me among others, I don't recall ever saying that God could not be proven or unproven.
1) You ARE religious....you center your ways of life on a religious text and a religious figure. Your peaching, your judgementalism, your praying, your belief system, and your actions being based on Christ all make you a religious person.
2) If God's existance can be proven, then PROVE IT...im still waiting for a reply via your PM
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Congratulations on getting your first thought! Now all you have to do is learn how to formulate intelligent thoughts. Then string words together in proper syntax while observing good grammar and you will be able to express those thoughts to other people! 😄 I was obviously kidding. I don't mean a word of what I just said.What religious people? I am not religious in the sense that you mean it but I know what you intended to say, so I will go along with this term. But true believers understand that what we have relative to Jesus is relationship with God through Jesus Christ--not religion. I had to quibble over that.
If you are referring to me among others, I don't recall ever saying that God could not be proven or unproven.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlivePractice what you preach.
Just because something contradicts what you believe that does not mean that it is untrue.
Originally posted by lord xyzBecause the devout think that their beliefs cannot be subject to skepticism
If you religious people say "God can't be proven or disproven, you just have to believe." why do you debate it as fact? I mean, if you [b]know it to be a belief, why say/imply it's true? (And then use the ****ing bible as a reference?) [/B]
Re: A thought just came to mind.
Originally posted by lord xyz
If you religious people say "God can't be proven or disproven, you just have to believe." why do you debate it as fact? I mean, if you [b]know it to be a belief, why say/imply it's true? (And then use the ****ing bible as a reference?) [/B]
Because these people treat the bible like normal people treat the encyclopedia.
Re: A thought just came to mind.
Originally posted by lord xyzTruth is truth regardless of proof. Beliefs about truth of almost any type is a stance on the nature of reality. Truth is a conclusion given one's personal understanding of the facts at hand.
If you religious people say "God can't be proven or disproven, you just have to believe." why do you debate it as fact? I mean, if you [b]know it to be a belief, why say/imply it's true? (And then use the ****ing bible as a reference?) [/B]
As to quoting the Bible to an individual that does not believe the Bible, this is a poor choice, and asinine imo.
Re: Re: A thought just came to mind.
Originally posted by Regret
Truth is truth regardless of proof.
Very True. However, for Truth to be labelled "Fact" there must be concrete proof. Otherwise, it is not Fact.
Originally posted by Regret
Beliefs about truth of almost any type is a stance on the nature of reality. Truth is a conclusion given one's personal understanding of the facts at hand.
Very logical stance, but this is where the problem lies:
What if what you beleive to be true isn't truth...what If what I beleive to be true, isn't true ?
Neither of us know for sure....so to argue that our beleifs are TRUTH when we have no evidense to back it up, is pointless.
Originally posted by Regret
As to quoting the Bible to an individual that does not believe the Bible, this is a poor choice, and asinine imo.
Very True....for all we know the Bible MAY very well be total Truth...somehow, i HIGHLY doubt that, but I can understand how and why a religious person will beleive it is flawless truth without proof...
It is STILL willful ignorance however...
I think I can bet that even YOU have found evidense to truths that contradict your own beliefs, yet choose to disregard it, in order to fit your favored beleif.
I am not insulting you, but that is what EVERYONE DOES...so don't worry. As long as you admit it, then you deserve respect of being open minded.
Re: Re: Re: A thought just came to mind.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Very True. However, for Truth to be labelled "Fact" there must be concrete proof. Otherwise, it is not Fact.
Fact and Truth are two separate things. Fact is something that leads to a conclusion on truth, or in other words the nature of reality. Fact is not truth, but evidence of some truth.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Very logical stance, but this is where the problem lies:What if what you beleive to be true isn't truth...what If what I beleive to be true, isn't true ?
Neither of us know for sure....so to argue that our beleifs are TRUTH when we have no evidense to back it up, is pointless.
An open mind is needed, scripture uses the term humble. To be humble is to admit that one does not know everything, and that another may be correct. This does not mean one must accept everything, only be open to the fact that one may be incorrect.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Very True....for all we know the Bible MAY very well be total Truth...somehow, i HIGHLY doubt that, but I can understand how and why a religious person will beleive it is flawless truth without proof...It is STILL [b]willful ignorance
however...I think I can bet that even YOU have found evidense to truths that contradict your own beliefs, yet choose to disregard it, in order to fit your favored beleif.
I am not insulting you, but that is what EVERYONE DOES...so don't worry. As long as you admit it, then you deserve respect of being open minded. [/B]
My belief is that scripture is not flawless, it is the record written by man, who is, and can be, flawed, of interaction between men and God.
I have not come into contact with evidence that contradict my beliefs. I have come into contact with interpretation of evidence that conflicts with my view, although severely infrequently. My beliefs do not speak to topics of science, I apply my beliefs to topics of science at times, but this is my doing, and not an integral part of my belief. The creation account can be interpreted very broadly, and so far nothing in science necessarily conflicts, it [science] only conflicts with narrow extremely literal interpretations of the Bible based on personal experience that may not be in line with the truth of the creation.
I do discount some things, but I attempt to insure that what I discount is not absolute, and little, if anything, is absolute. Most conflicts are due to interpretations of the evidence at hand, and not the evidence itself. The problem is when those that disagree are unwilling to admit that the evidence cited is not the source of the conflict, but that the interpretation of the evidence is the source of the conflict.