I was at a funeral and part of the sermon was about jesus. There was a line along the lines of:
"What has risen from the grave can never die again"
when I heard it, I started thinking about zombies and then on to zombie jesus.
I nearly exploded from holding in the laughter, I had to cover my face and step outside.
I only hope the old biddies thought I was crying, though the chances are slim.
Topic: . - page 3. (Read 6553 times)
Faith is belief without evidence or proof. Belief is the acceptance of what you understand. Belief is not necessarily truth.
Scientists have faith that dark matter exists. Galaxies are held in place by mass they can't see. The so called mass holding galaxies in place is not necessarily dark matter.
Scientists have faith that dark matter exists. Galaxies are held in place by mass they can't see. The so called mass holding galaxies in place is not necessarily dark matter.
is being an atheist a religion?
My favorite youtube channel of all time:
http://www.youtube.com/user/nonstampcollector
Quote
If atheism is a "religion",...
then Not Collecting Stamps is a "hobby".
If atheism is a "religion", ...
then Not Playing Football is a "sport".
If atheism is a "religion", ...
then 'OFF' is a "TV channel".
If atheism is a "religion", ...
then "Abstinence" is a "sex position".
then Not Collecting Stamps is a "hobby".
If atheism is a "religion", ...
then Not Playing Football is a "sport".
If atheism is a "religion", ...
then 'OFF' is a "TV channel".
If atheism is a "religion", ...
then "Abstinence" is a "sex position".
Collecting stamps is only just a hobby? (Could be for profit)
Playing foot ball is "just a sport" (could be a hobby or for excersize)
"On" is a TV channel? (could be static playing)
"having Sex" is a sex position?
Sounds like fallacies
My conclusion is believing in only what you see is just as bad as believing in things you don't see or can't prove, There should be a balance.
We already disagree by the first sentence. You can't prove that God doesn't want me to kill your family. I can't prove that Jesus never came back to life. Take a logic class and learn about "burden of proof"If you tunnel vision any sentence you can make it sound illogical... I said Believing in only what you see is just as bad....
Maybe we should go to school together I'll take a logic class and you take a "how to listen" class.
I'm pointing out that burden of proof you know oh so much about.... I'm asking to proove what your eyes see then tell me about proof of all other reality. We don't know crap about how our brains work or how to reconstruct a biological eye(yet) but until this -- every theism(including atheism) or any belief or thought of true experience is just speculation and should be taken as of.
My conclusion is believing in only what you see is just as bad as believing in things you don't see or can't prove, There should be a balance.
We already disagree by the first sentence. You can't prove that God doesn't want me to kill your family. I can't prove that Jesus never came back to life. Take a logic class and learn about "burden of proof"
My conclusion is believing in only what you see is just as bad as believing in things you don't see or can't prove, There should be a balance.
And if you want to bring good or evil into this good luck that a whole another debate in it self. For an atheist that only believes in what he sees there is no such thing as good or bad -- its just what is there. lol Just because suicide bombers had a religious belief doesn't mean that all religious people are evil, just as if all those suicide bombers would have yelled "In the name of NO GOD I KILL YOU ALL" then blow up the place... would be equally as bad. Faith has nothing to do with actions, your actions have to do with actions.
True reality in your perspective says "We are just what science proves to be", with this kind of thinking in mind, I suicide bombers would even have a better excuse to kill people.... "WE ARE JUST ATOMS HERE IS THE PROOF!!!" -- BOOOM.
I'm asking you joelkatz whats the difference between faith and action or no-faith and action? Because the way i see it-- people are going to blow stuff up based on intentions of something not the belief of something. My intentions are to make everyone a happy person, those suicide bombers intentions (might have been) were to get to a better place(because their current situation doesn't allow for such enjoyment so its just more enjoyable to go die somewhere) yes maybe some suicide bombers "truly believe" they are pleasing their god. Or maybe some people are using a gods words to get other less educated people from their country to get them to blow shit up-- We really don't know the real situation, you say joelkatz that you only believe in only your perceptual experience...
Do you know any suicide bombers that surely believe in a faith that asks them to blow them selves up and they actually did it or is all your information on faith and suicide bombers based on what you read or hear about in the news or a friend? In my perspective, if you've never actually experienced the whole thing go down you are basing your "Scientific reality" on the faith of another person accuracy of reporting accurate news and concluding that those with faith are comparable to suicide bombers, if you've never experienced it your self then you are believing with your faith that what you are reading about suicide bombers are all true and accurate.
All im saying is if you push a mouse into a corner of a maze that has a piece of cheeese on a mouse trap-- its going to eat it regardless of its beliefs, it was forced into that situation to eat and die or eat and starve and die.. We must remember situations are more pressing on a persons intentions then anything.
And if you want to bring good or evil into this good luck that a whole another debate in it self. For an atheist that only believes in what he sees there is no such thing as good or bad -- its just what is there. lol Just because suicide bombers had a religious belief doesn't mean that all religious people are evil, just as if all those suicide bombers would have yelled "In the name of NO GOD I KILL YOU ALL" then blow up the place... would be equally as bad. Faith has nothing to do with actions, your actions have to do with actions.
True reality in your perspective says "We are just what science proves to be", with this kind of thinking in mind, I suicide bombers would even have a better excuse to kill people.... "WE ARE JUST ATOMS HERE IS THE PROOF!!!" -- BOOOM.
I'm asking you joelkatz whats the difference between faith and action or no-faith and action? Because the way i see it-- people are going to blow stuff up based on intentions of something not the belief of something. My intentions are to make everyone a happy person, those suicide bombers intentions (might have been) were to get to a better place(because their current situation doesn't allow for such enjoyment so its just more enjoyable to go die somewhere) yes maybe some suicide bombers "truly believe" they are pleasing their god. Or maybe some people are using a gods words to get other less educated people from their country to get them to blow shit up-- We really don't know the real situation, you say joelkatz that you only believe in only your perceptual experience...
Do you know any suicide bombers that surely believe in a faith that asks them to blow them selves up and they actually did it or is all your information on faith and suicide bombers based on what you read or hear about in the news or a friend? In my perspective, if you've never actually experienced the whole thing go down you are basing your "Scientific reality" on the faith of another person accuracy of reporting accurate news and concluding that those with faith are comparable to suicide bombers, if you've never experienced it your self then you are believing with your faith that what you are reading about suicide bombers are all true and accurate.
All im saying is if you push a mouse into a corner of a maze that has a piece of cheeese on a mouse trap-- its going to eat it regardless of its beliefs, it was forced into that situation to eat and die or eat and starve and die.. We must remember situations are more pressing on a persons intentions then anything.
lol so what you're saying is: people that don't believe what you do should be condemned?
No, I'm saying that people who believe what he believes should be condemned. And I not only said it but I presented a reasoned justification of it. There's plenty of room for reasonable disagreement among people. However, there is no room for "it's a virtue to believe that god wants you to do things, with no rational justification at all, and then to go do those things", because that justifies any imaginable evil.Yes you did, should have read further back before posting. My bad.
lol so what you're saying is: people that don't believe what you do should be condemned?
No, I'm saying that people who believe what he believes should be condemned. And I not only said it but I presented a reasoned justification of it. There's plenty of room for reasonable disagreement among people. However, there is no room for "it's a virtue to believe that god wants you to do things, with no rational justification at all, and then to go do those things", because that justifies any imaginable evil.xenland doesnt believe in good or evil , for him there is no such things as good or evil 
If so, then he deserves as much condemnation as honest men can heap upon him. I believe that giving people what they deserve is a virtue -- justice. So I will do my part.lol so what you're saying is: people that don't believe what you do should be condemned?
xenland doesnt believe in good or evil , for him there is no such things as good or evil
If so, then he deserves as much condemnation as honest men can heap upon him. I believe that giving people what they deserve is a virtue -- justice. So I will do my part. Our perception is 100% consistent with reality because reality is all there is. The idea of an "inconsistency" with reality is meaningless.
Is it? what if we are assuming we are walking forward yet we are walking left.
You stand with the suicide bombers and against reason. That's your choice, but I will condemn you for it as harshly as I can.
I'm sorry you feel that way but my beliefs and my actions are two separate things. Why do you condemn me instead of showing compassion for an open minded brother? Faith is what motivated suicide bombers. There is nothing good about it at all -- it's just an excuse to believe, and act on, whatever you want to believe and act on. It's like flipping a coin to decide whether to kill someone. There is no rational way to decide what to have faith in. If you can look this evil in the eye and say "Ahh, I'll stay neutral", then you deserve all the condemnation I can heap on you and then some.
Sorry, I'm just a very judgmental person. On the bright side, at least you think about these things. Most people don't even bother.
Our perception is 100% consistent with reality because reality is all there is. The idea of an "inconsistency" with reality is meaningless.
Is it? what if we are assuming we are walking forward yet we are walking left.
What if you are assuming that there is no flying spaghetti monster, but there is? What if your senses telling you that there is no FSM are wrong? What if he changes the results of science with his invisible noodly appendage?
Answer: nothing. What if...? nothing. It doesn't change how we live.
What if there is a deity urging me to become a suicide bomber? I'm assuming there isn't, but what if there is?
its just an idea or a suggestion if you will, i dont believe that we walk forward and we are really going left. Im simply concluding that with out the search of a higher power or conciousness , we will limit our selfs to a dull view of what could be maybe proven to be a wonderful and beautiful system of reailty we live in. But i guess i am getting a little too philosophical for an mind that runs on purely observation. I guess with my belif that we a brain in a vat(an infinite beings brain that is) there is no proving tome otherwise not to search or believe their is something bigger and more inteligent then me. In my persepctive with out the search for a more intelligent conciouness is just egotistical and self indulging that you as a human wouldnt consider a higher power or inteligent then the working universe or even bigger(or perhaps smaller). If reality is infinite everything is possible with out a doubt with out contradiction.
Our perception is 100% consistent with reality because reality is all there is. The idea of an "inconsistency" with reality is meaningless.
Is it? what if we are assuming we are walking forward yet we are walking left.
What if you are assuming that there is no flying spaghetti monster, but there is? What if your senses telling you that there is no FSM are wrong? What if he changes the results of science with his invisible noodly appendage?
Answer: nothing. What if...? nothing. It doesn't change how we live.
What if there is a deity urging me to become a suicide bomber? I'm assuming there isn't, but what if there is?
Our perception is 100% consistent with reality because reality is all there is. The idea of an "inconsistency" with reality is meaningless.
Is it? what if we are assuming we are walking forward yet we are walking left. Would this kind of inconsistency be relevant? Imagine complex math formulas being formed around our inconsistent perception? Would explain why we can't find a "Formula for everything" because our perception(could be) inconsistent.
You stand with the suicide bombers and against reason. That's your choice, but I will condemn you for it as harshly as I can.
I'm sorry you feel that way but my beliefs and my actions are two separate things. Why do you condemn me instead of showing compassion for an open minded brother? If our perception was wrong then we would have to (with trial and error) integrate with machines that can accurately translate true perception to our brains, and then at that point atheists, religious, spiritual people will have to start over with a true reality to perceive.
If you mean "wrong" in the sense that we may draw erroneous conclusions from them, then I agree that they are "wrong" in this sense. We *do* integrate with trial and error. We *do* use machines to augment our perception. Nobody needs to start over because this is what we've all been doing all along.Nobody, except perhaps an infant, assumes that because something looks small it must be small. We have all learned from trial and error that things can look small for a large number of reasons and are all fully open to the possibilities that we can draw the wrong conclusions from our perceptions.
Quote
I realise that our perception is usually 100% consistent with our waking reality but that doesn’t mean we are able to observe everything accurately(For example see every spectrum of light/sound, quantum world, other worlds that can possibly contain higher consciousness).
It is a fact that we cannot see outside the visible spectrum. Thus not seeing outside the visible spectrum is an accurate reporting of this physical limitation. If we saw outside our limited spectrum, that would be an error hiding from us the fact that our vision is limited in the spectrum it can see. And yes, we all know we have a limited spectrum. We've figured that out through a process of reason. Could there be other limits and errors, sure. Do we try to figure them out, yes. Of course.Quote
I'm not trying to prove faith is correct, I guess I'm just trying to point out that any way of life is flawed until we can prove that our perception is actually 100% consistent with math and science. For what its worth I am a solphist with technoshaminisic beliefs, In other words I can't prove I exist as a identity(Xenland) but I can prove that experience exists' through pain and psychoactive(Food, water, chemicals, everything is a psychoactive to me).
Our perception is 100% consistent with reality because reality is all there is. The idea of an "inconsistency" with reality is meaningless.Quote
I probably sound like a nut, but to me religion and science are the same they just haven't reached a human singularity of conclusions just yet.
You stand with the suicide bombers and against reason. That's your choice, but I will condemn you for it as harshly as I can.
My mind = Blown
I'm happy to see that I can be....mind-blowing
But my faith use the first rule of Fight Club, so I'll stop talking about it
I'm glad you mentioned science - science is limited to our limited observational perceptions (eyes, ears, touch, taste)
Basically, you've just said that science is limited to gathering information through all of the means we have of gathering information. That doesn't sound like a limit to me.Quote
don't we have to prove that our perceptions are exactly how we perceive them before we can prove science and all its decades of accumulative knowledge is truth?
Our perceptions are, by definition, how we perceive them. There's nothing to prove.An "erroneous perception" is an oxymoron. Say, hypothetically, I could actually have an erroneous perception. In that case, the erroneous perception would be accurately reporting to me the true fact that I'm actually having that particular erroneous perception. Hence it wouldn't be erroneous at all. An "erroneous perception" is a self-contradiction.
Quote
With this in mind, how can any worldview be established if you can't prove that your perception/experience/accumulative knowledge is real/truth/unbreakable axioms to begin with?
A "false perception" is impossible. If I had a false perception, it would be the actual truth that I was having a false perception. The false perception would accurately report this fact to me. The accuracy of perception is axiomatic and definitional.A mountain appears small when you are far away from it. But this is not a perceptual error, it is a perceptual fact. If a mountain appeared the same size no matter how far you were from it, then it would be in error, hiding from me the actual fact that mountains appear small when you are far away from them. Our perceptions are just as much a part of reality as everything else and how our perceptions work and what they mean are just as much subjects of study and analysis as everything else.
But let's assume you're right. Let's assume our senses are somehow fundamentally broken. Let's assume all of our reasoning is wrong. Let's assume everything we sense is somehow unreal and erroneous. What would that change? Would that mean anyone was perfectly justified in believing anything they want and acting on it? Would that make all actions, eating food or eating poison, equally good and valid?
If our perception was wrong then we would have to (with trial and error) integrate with machines that can accurately translate true perception to our brains, and then at that point atheists, religious, spiritual people will have to start over with a true reality to perceive. I realise that our perception is usually 100% consistent with our waking reality but that doesn’t mean we are able to observe everything accurately(For example see every spectrum of light/sound, quantum world, other worlds that can possibly contain higher consciousness).
I'm not trying to prove faith is correct, I guess I'm just trying to point out that any way of life is flawed until we can prove that our perception is actually 100% consistent with math and science. For what its worth I am a solphist with technoshaminisic beliefs, In other words I can't prove I exist as a identity(Xenland) but I can prove that experience exists' through pain and psychoactive(Food, water, chemicals, everything is a psychoactive to me).
and I could be an exception but growing up as a Christian in a Christian home with Christian (big) family, I can see how some people are prone to say "God makes it that way" and just not care about why it happens, and others like my self are prone to say "But why did god make it that way?" -- There all types of different people, i don't think the bible or religion keeps anyone under a persons finger, from my experience some people just don't want to learn why things work the way they do, some would rather leave it to god to deal with(Aka the quantum world to react with your intentions) and some like my self would rather leave it to god to deal with and learn why god deals with it that way(aka Ask why the quantum world reacts with our intentions).
I probably sound like a nut, but to me religion and science are the same they just haven't reached a human singularity of conclusions just yet.
That means we live in the time which Jeremiah was talking about. Jeremiah was warning us about the falsehoods that would be put into Gods Law by translators (scribes) not the writers of the original text of the Bible.
Indeed....
Google Translate
"How smart we say and law of the Lord with us here lie did indeed lie pen books:"
Reminds me of:
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense
I'm glad you mentioned science - science is limited to our limited observational perceptions (eyes, ears, touch, taste)
Basically, you've just said that science is limited to gathering information through all of the means we have of gathering information. That doesn't sound like a limit to me.Quote
don't we have to prove that our perceptions are exactly how we perceive them before we can prove science and all its decades of accumulative knowledge is truth?
Our perceptions are, by definition, how we perceive them. There's nothing to prove.An "erroneous perception" is an oxymoron. Say, hypothetically, I could actually have an erroneous perception. In that case, the erroneous perception would be accurately reporting to me the true fact that I'm actually having that particular erroneous perception. Hence it wouldn't be erroneous at all. An "erroneous perception" is a self-contradiction.
Quote
With this in mind, how can any worldview be established if you can't prove that your perception/experience/accumulative knowledge is real/truth/unbreakable axioms to begin with?
A "false perception" is impossible. If I had a false perception, it would be the actual truth that I was having a false perception. The false perception would accurately report this fact to me. The accuracy of perception is axiomatic and definitional.A mountain appears small when you are far away from it. But this is not a perceptual error, it is a perceptual fact. If a mountain appeared the same size no matter how far you were from it, then it would be in error, hiding from me the actual fact that mountains appear small when you are far away from them. Our perceptions are just as much a part of reality as everything else and how our perceptions work and what they mean are just as much subjects of study and analysis as everything else.
But let's assume you're right. Let's assume our senses are somehow fundamentally broken. Let's assume all of our reasoning is wrong. Let's assume everything we sense is somehow unreal and erroneous. What would that change? Would that mean anyone was perfectly justified in believing anything they want and acting on it? Would that make all actions, eating food or eating poison, equally good and valid?
Jump to: