|
Post by Agent Syrup on Jan 27, 2013 12:06:13 GMT -8
My father made an article about Faith that I found quite interesting, and actually it gave myself some encouragment. I want to see what you guys think about it. Even if I have never met you personally I consider you friends so I value your opinion. Also this place does a good job of handling subjects like this with civility and maturity. Here's a link ---> livingaccordingtothegospel.blogspot.com/2013/01/matthew-2816-20-atheists-have-point.htmlAnd in case the site is maliciously destroyed by a Soviet-Super-Virus I'll copy and paste it down here. Matthew 28:16-20 - The Atheists have a Point. "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen." So the disciples are standing on the mountain, just before Jesus is to ascend into heaven. And when they were looking at them with their own eyes, some still doubted. It reminds me of a youtube video I saw where a very educated lecturer who was explaining to the audience why it is not rational to believe in the existence of God said, If he were to see a man standing before him, whom he knew to have been dead, instead of believing that person had been ressurected, he'd have to believe the 'logical' thought that something was wrong with his own senses. I marveled at this and, yet, in some ways, the man is correct. We can be deceived by our own senses. Surely, the devil masquerades himself as an angel of light. So is it wrong for a man to doubt his own senses? This reminds me of many teachings I have heard of late were the speaker said that Faith itself is actually an act of the will. People can wrestle within themselves about the matters of faith, whether they should believe or not, but it comes to a point where they simply must choose. It turns out the atheists are right; you can't prove in the existence of God. But I think God planned it that way. The witness of most people's heart is that He does exist. Is this just mass delusion? Is it an evolutionary device to give hope to the species- false though it be- so that we can prosper? I think not. I believe God wants us to learn to trust Him. And in my own life, to make this happen today, I must use my will to remember all that He has revealed in Christ and in the Gospel. I don't have to argue with others who disagree with me, I simply must believe. The funny thing is, it isn't until you exercise your will to have faith that faith actually makes sense and turns out to be the most logical thing to have. May God grant me the will to believe. Amen.
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Jan 27, 2013 15:19:14 GMT -8
Did an atheist read the text prior to publishing?
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Jan 27, 2013 15:28:41 GMT -8
No. Perhaps its a bit of an odd title, but its the one my dad picked.
|
|
|
Post by GGFan on Jan 27, 2013 20:35:20 GMT -8
Your dad needs a haircut and a shave.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Jan 28, 2013 5:30:58 GMT -8
My dad is bald....
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Feb 7, 2013 12:48:20 GMT -8
Everyone knows of God, but many choose not to acknowledge him.
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 men are without excuse.
|
|
|
Post by cheese on Feb 7, 2013 14:29:25 GMT -8
I don't believe that people can just "choose" what they believe. I've actually tried to get into Christianity before and it's just... well, to put it simply, I just don't believe it deep down, no matter how I try on the surface.
|
|
|
Post by lilith on Feb 7, 2013 15:41:53 GMT -8
Everyone knows of God, but many choose not to acknowledge him. 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 men are without excuse.forrealz though, it's 2013 and we can't just respect other people's spiritual beliefs without implying they're in some kind of massive denial?
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Feb 7, 2013 15:55:06 GMT -8
Well, 'choice' is a loaded term here. Augustine would say Adam 'chose' to disobey and now you really don't have a say in the matter. I think a non-believer who 'wants' to believe should read the word and ask for faith--it's a gift. And remember that you already believe a lot of things by faith. You have a number of baseless presuppositions with huge implications on your understanding of existence. Those other beliefs prevent Christian faith from fitting properly into your worldview. EDIT: Lilith, this sub-board is here for discussing more controversial topics; opposing views are bound to butt up against one another. I am not being mean, I am merely expressing my belief. Also, the belief that it is best to respect other people's beliefs and not express your own is not held by everyone. Please respect my disbelief.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 7, 2013 17:41:29 GMT -8
I'll be honest, that last sentence really confused me.
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Feb 8, 2013 5:36:27 GMT -8
Getting somewhat back on topic again, I suppose the original article was written by a believer for believers?
|
|
|
Post by longfellow on Feb 8, 2013 11:50:35 GMT -8
Yes, I think that's clear. Actually the post is barely about atheists per se; it uses an atheist lecturer as a launching point to make a broader statement by a believer to other believers.
This is a common argument and it has never convinced me (who am an atheist btw). Sure, I have "faith" that the trains will run on time and that my friends like me and that science is not a grand conspiracy and so forth, but I accept the uncertainty and I accept that my model of reality will always be conditional on things I can't know 100% to be true or false. Christian "faith" typically demands a devotion and a certainty that is very different from my kind of "faith". Same word, different meaning.
Instead of using that word I think it would be more fruitful to talk about how we evaluate claims When you hear someone say "I am seven feet tall" or "I have a brother named Andrew," how do you figure out how much you believe it? Is that different from how you evaluate such claims as "Jesus rose from the dead after three days" or "Muhammed is the prophet of God?" I think this line of discussion is a better way to getting to the issue of how/why we believe (or have faith in) what we believe.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 8, 2013 14:05:55 GMT -8
"...this sub-board is here for discussing more controversial topics..." -WW Please! This topic isn't nearly as controversial as Wrap is.
|
|
|
Post by cheese on Feb 9, 2013 8:31:22 GMT -8
I'm perplexed by this last sentence. Why would other beliefs that stem from faith prevent my from understanding/accepting a Christian faith? Unless we're talking about another religion of course.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Feb 9, 2013 20:31:17 GMT -8
Why would other beliefs that stem from faith prevent my from understanding/accepting a Christian faith? Van Tillian PresuppositionalismEDIT: Einstein would say that I don't fully understand this topic since I can't explain it well, and I think that's definitely a fair assessment. I have only spent at most a dozen hours reading and thinking about presuppositionalism in the last year or so. I should study it more. You should too! For now, I've linked you to the wiki, where you can get a much better explanation than I can provide at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 9, 2013 20:55:11 GMT -8
I started reading your link but stopped at the first sentence: "Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought." I am a Christian and I find that extremely narrow-minded and arogant. I believe in the truth of the Bible, but Christanity isn't about being right about every little detail of life... its about a relationship with, and submission to the Lord.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Feb 9, 2013 22:03:47 GMT -8
Syrup, I have to disagree with you.
Don't you believe that Christ IS the truth? He is quoted as saying he is the truth. Anything less than a full proclamation of the truth is a denial of him. Further, there is nothing arrogant about the truth. Any action done in love is good. That includes the action of proclaiming the truth. Christianity is an exclusive religion. We make exclusive assertions all the time, and many people think we're narrow-minded for doing so. For instance, Christ taught that he is the only way... "I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." That is a very unsavory claim for a lot of people. Is it arrogant for me to affirm it?
Also, what is the basis for rational thought?
|
|
|
Post by cheese on Feb 10, 2013 5:59:41 GMT -8
Looks interesting, I'll definitely give it a read. (Admittedly I'll start reading it with the presupposition that it's ultimately not true, but I'm sure I'll find it interesting none-the-less.)
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 10, 2013 11:06:52 GMT -8
WaterWizard: I believe that Christian faith is truth. But while the love of Christ should fill your whole life and being, on an intellectual stand point there are SO MANY things that Christanity has nothing to do with. Free market vs. controlled market, mathematics, whether or not wrap should be accepted in the rby metagame , and technolgical studies; just a few things that involve Christianity in no way whatsoever. But the bigger conern I have with Presuppositionalism is the idea that the entire world outside of the church has no rational thought. There are many ideas that a Christian could come up with that an atheist could also come up with as well (the goodness of charity, the importance of love, the need for forgivness, etc.). Also even if someone comes up with an idea that is wrong dosn't mean its not rational; they might not have the whole picture, or all the right information, its not the result of faulty logic. Just because Christianity is Truth, dosn't mean that accepting that Truth would give you the clearest perspective on every single matter in life. If that were the case then I'm sure there would be much less division and hersey in the church today. Christianity may be the one true religion, but it is not the only truth out there (Pythagrium theorum is in fact a truth, but that has nothing to do with Christ being THE truth). I think when Christ said He was the truth he was referring how He is the one true God and the only way to salvation. But to say that the religion of Christ is the only way to reach rational conclusions on any matter.... seems to be stretching it.
|
|
|
Post by lilith on Feb 10, 2013 16:42:23 GMT -8
There are many ideas that a Christian could come up with that an atheist could also come up with as well (the goodness of charity, the importance of love, the need for forgivness, etc.). actually all atheists are liek SOULLESS ROBOTS well ok, i know some who are. also all humans are quite far from perfectly rational actors and knowing the truth about various things often makes us moar crazy. so not only is it kind of a silly assumption, it's also the opposite of what happens in a lot of cases... you don't say!
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 10, 2013 17:32:17 GMT -8
"...so not only is it kind of a silly assumption, it's also the opposite of what happens in a lot of cases..."
That's the point I was trying to make. There IS a lot of heresy and division in the Church, despite the fact that Christanity (according to my belief) is the Truth.
|
|
|
Post by lilith on Feb 10, 2013 17:47:26 GMT -8
"...so not only is it kind of a silly assumption, it's also the opposite of what happens in a lot of cases..." That's the point I was trying to make. There IS a lot of heresy and division in the Church, despite the fact that Christanity (according to my belief) is the Truth. i wasn't trying to disagree with you if that's what you thought, sometimes it gets lost in the sarcasm
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 10, 2013 18:02:29 GMT -8
The idea of using faith to make someone believe in something is a classic logical fallacy.
It's illogical because if it was reasonable to believe a God exists then you wouldn't need faith. Just like how I don't need faith to believe that crows are black, because I have reason to believe it. Religions just use faith to justify things that you otherwise have no reason to believe. If claims in the Bible were scientifically proven (such as the Red Sea) being parted, Churches would be waving those facts in our faces as reasons to believe. They wouldn't be playing the 'faith' card anymore because they would now have much stronger reasoning and thus would no longer need to.
The method the OP uses to justify his beliefs could be used to justify any belief. In fact, that's why there are so many religious beliefs still in existence today. Any belief can be justified if you don't need an initial reason to have faith in it, or if you do what the source tells you to do (eg. place faith in it) before actually confirming it's truth.
Also, the fact that you said 'I think God planned it that way' assumes you already believe in God, which means you held an illogical bias to begin with. Your reasoning already assumed God existed to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Feb 10, 2013 21:11:09 GMT -8
Everyone knows of God, but many choose not to acknowledge him. I know of many gods, actually. Much the same way as I know of Darth Vader.
|
|
|
Post by cheese on Feb 11, 2013 11:03:16 GMT -8
The idea of using faith to make someone believe in something is a classic logical fallacy. It's illogical because if it was reasonable to believe a God exists then you wouldn't need faith. Just like how I don't need faith to believe that crows are black, because I have reason to believe it. Religions just use faith to justify things that you otherwise have no reason to believe. If claims in the Bible were scientifically proven (such as the Red Sea) being parted, Churches would be waving those facts in our faces as reasons to believe. They wouldn't be playing the 'faith' card anymore because they would now have much stronger reasoning and thus would no longer need to. Isn't the point about the parting of the Red Sea is that it was a miracle and an act of God? I don't think it would be much of a miracle if it was scientifically demonstrable.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Feb 11, 2013 11:12:11 GMT -8
Isn't the point about the parting of the Red Sea is that it was a miracle and an act of God? I don't think it would be much of a miracle if it was scientifically demonstrable. A miracle is defined by having no demonstrable cause but a demonstrable effect. If you can't show that the effect happened, you have not a miracle but a myth. What Dre is basically saying is that if the Pope were to go to Egypt tomorrow and order the Red Sea to part, and it did (which could easily be confirmed by satellites or cameras), then a miracle would have been demonstrated to occur and his claims of supernatural intervention would become much more credible.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 11, 2013 17:28:10 GMT -8
It doesn't even have to be that extreme.
If the sea was parted, you could still hypothetically verify that scientifically. You just wouldn't be able to replicate the parting by natural means.
The point is, religions rely on faith because there is no proper reason to believe them. No one ever uses faith to justify or demonstrate something if they can use proper reasoning or evidence instead. A detective doesn't ask people to trust his judgement on who the killer is based on faith, he demonstrates the reasoning and evidence. Scientists don't expect people to accept that the sun will most likely rise tomorrow on faith, they use evidence and reasoning to demonstrate it.
If you're using faith to justify a belief, then it's because there's no actual reason to believe it, meaning it's an illogical belief. Faith can be used to justify any belief, which is why it's the weakest form of justification.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Feb 11, 2013 17:54:58 GMT -8
If you're using faith to justify a belief, then it's because there's no actual reason to believe it, meaning it's an illogical belief. Faith can be used to justify any belief, which is why it's the weakest form of justification. Getting away from life-or-death issues just for a second, there can be logical reasons to "take things on faith". The main one is that can be logical to act as though an unlikely occurrence were certain in the situation where one's actions are otherwise irrelevant or at least far less relevant.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 12, 2013 2:56:03 GMT -8
If you're using faith to justify a belief, then it's because there's no actual reason to believe it, meaning it's an illogical belief. Faith can be used to justify any belief, which is why it's the weakest form of justification. Getting away from life-or-death issues just for a second, there can be logical reasons to "take things on faith". The main one is that can be logical to act as though an unlikely occurrence were certain in the situation where one's actions are otherwise irrelevant or at least far less relevant. But faith by definition is a lack of reason. Using faith as a means to justify belief is different to having reason to put faith into something. For example, I can have faith in a partner that they won't cheat on me. Despite the word 'faith' being used, what I'm actually doing is making a judgement based on probability. I'm technically saying "given what I know about my partner, it's highly improbable that she will cheat on me." The reason why the word "faith" is used in this context is because it's not deductively concrete that they will not cheat on me, there is that possibility, it's just highly improbable. So despite the word "faith" being used, it's actually a judgement from reason. The type of faith that religion employs is completely different however. The type of faith displayed in the OP is using faith to justify a belief that you have no reason to have. It is not demonstrated why it is probable that Christianity is true, or that it is reasonable to believe, we are just asked to accept it on faith. That is a straight fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 12, 2013 6:59:25 GMT -8
With everything that Dre is saying I think it's worth noted that the Bible actually cites the prophets as a reason to believe in Christ. "And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and would do well to pay attention to it..." 2 Peter 1:19 (the message of that verse is clearer in context... but I don't feel like post an entire passage on this comment...) There are some people who converted because of all the fulfilled prophesies concerning Christ. Also I know a man personally who said the book of Daniel is a big reason why he became a Christian. The book has a lot of prophesies concerning events not far off from when they were written that all came true (yes it is written poetically, but still...). The guy would mention that we have original copies of the book of Daniel that predate these prophecied events taking place. Another thing, many people look to much more personal reasons as to why they became a Christian: like the change of heart they seen in people they know when those people converted. As well as the change in their own hearts serving as a strengthening of faith. I would mention the experience of prayer and answered prayers, but that's a whole other can of worms that I'll leave closed for now.
|
|