An Apology Of Sorts..

[vbnautilus 48]

Which would make sense if God was just a scientific theory.

You're playing both sides of the fence on this one. It is not a scientific theory, but the evidence supports it. Which is it?

But you're implications are that all faith is equal, and dangerous. You degrade my faith by equating it to belief in FSM etc. I have faith in electricity even though I don't get out capicitors work, is my faith dangerous? Actually it's the opposite, because I don't mess with tasers because I have faith the capaciptors work.

Your faith is not equal to faith in FSM, its much less hilarious. You don't need to believe in electricity based on faith. You can test the existence of electricity. Faith does not refer to belief in those things which have been tested so many times that it is a waste of time to keep testing -- it refers to things believed in for an entirely different reason. Things you believe despite the fact that they cannot be objectively verified.

Although romantic and quaint, this idea only works on paper. In real life you would fail big time if you didn't have foundational truths that you use to see the world. Should we reprove gravity every morning in order to stay challenged?

Physicists are doing just that, and if a new theory comes a long with changes our understanding of gravity I will be open to accepting it.

You also assume I have come to my faith without effort to prove it or disprove it. If I have, then why do I need to do it again for you?

You don't need to do anything for me. We're talking about whether faith is a reliable way to arrive at the truth. I haven't yet seen any evidence that it is.

Yea, because moral relativism is such a better way to live your life.

I am not a moral relativist.

I am curious which of the tenants of faith will cause Lois more harm than the belief that that kid who was killed doesn't matter and has ceased to exist completely, AND the action that resulted in the babies death, although 'tragic' in the current societal opinion of things, is in fact only tragic if you take western thought on the value of life into play. Had Lois been born in Papua New Guinea and been of a different tribe than this child, he could instead view this as a good thing for reducing the other tribe's seed, in fact proof that God loves his tribe more than the other one..

First of all, if we are now choosing what to believe based on what causes Lois the most harm, we are once again using a method not likely to achieve truth more often than falsehood. That said, valuing life does not require Christianity.

The point you miss is that it wouldn't be much of a religion, if it was wrong in the past and had to be revised. Or if it changed it's view of right and wrong based on current political polling numbers. It would instead be a social club like the Elks.

But without the cool hats.

Without getting into the argument of whether or not the Bible was indeed written by God, if you grant that it 'could' be written by God, then it also 'could' be just as right as it was 2,000 years ago. Which gets back to my original point, in order for your thinking here to not be completely wrong, you have to hold that the Bible IS NOT God's Word. Yo haven't made the case, therefore you are arguing from a strawman position.

I agree that it could be just as right as it was 2000 years ago. My argument was that staying power for a belief that is not open to testing does not indicate anything about its truthhood. A scientific theory which stands for 2000 years only does so because it is constantly tested and is able to explain new evidence, so in that case longevity of the theory holds some weight (but does not guarantee truthhood). In the case of a religious belief which does not allow itself to be changed, the fact that it has been around a long time doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it is right.

[Balloon guy 158]

You're playing both sides of the fence on this one. It is not a scientific theory, but the evidence supports it. Which is it?

I never said evidence supports it, just that no evidence denies it.

You don't need to believe in electricity based on faith. You can test the existence of electricity. Faith does not refer to belief in those things which have been tested so many times that it is a waste of time to keep testing -- it refers to things believed in for an entirely different reason. Things you believe despite the fact that they cannot be objectively verified.

Yea, weak anaology,Lets say you have a boat...

Physicists are doing just that, and if a new theory comes a long with changes our understanding of gravity I will be open to accepting it.

Good use oif government grants right there.

You don't need to do anything for me. We're talking about whether faith is a reliable way to arrive at the truth. I haven't yet seen any evidence that it is.

Well now I see why you are so wrong.Faith isn't a reliable way to come to truth, it's a reliable way to live your life with regards to Truth.

I am not a moral relativist at the moment.

fyp

First of all, if we are now choosing what to believe based on what causes Lois the most harm, we are once again using a method not likely to achieve truth more often than falsehood.

So says you

That said, valuing life does not require Christianity.

Just makes it more likely

But without the cool hats.

Uh..this is embarressing, but you are thinking of the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes...they got the cool hats.

I agree that it could be just as right as it was 2000 years ago. My argument was that staying power for a belief that is not open to testing does not indicate anything about its truthhood. A scientific theory which stands for 2000 years only does so because it is constantly tested and is able to explain new evidence, so in that case longevity of the theory holds some weight (but does not guarantee truthhood). In the case of a religious belief which does not allow itself to be changed, the fact that it has been around a long time doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it is right.

Christianity is tested everytime an archeologist starts a new dig, or a college student takes a course by some idiot who can't get a real job. It's been tested everyday by some of the supposed brightest minds of their time, and it's still here. It's cool, we are okay with people trying to disprove it. Mainly beacuse we have faith in it's Author

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

i like how you turn to bad jokes when you're out of ridiculous analogies and blatant lies. that way you can claim you werent taking this serious to begin with.

[Balloon guy 158]

i like how you turn to bad jokes when you're out of ridiculous analogies and blatant lies. that way you can claim you werent taking this serious to begin with.

I guess you never take anything serious then

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I guess you never take anything serious then

only statutory rape.

[nutzbuster 7]

only statutory rape.

serious business...edit: dammit. I thought you said statuary rape. my bad...

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

sorry people, contest over. couldnt be helped.

[CindyLou 11]

only statutory rape.

That's good because there's nothing funny about rape.Well, there is, but you had to be there.

[brvheart 1,752]

putting those brackets around your nonsense doesnt fool anyone. we know you really believe that shit.

I think this is a joke post... but if not. What gave you the first clue?

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I think this is a joke post... but if not. What gave you the first clue?

i dont know, that picture of you humping a bible maybe.

[brvheart 1,752]

I agree that it could be just as right as it was 2000 years ago. My argument was that staying power for a belief that is not open to testing does not indicate anything about its truthhood. A scientific theory which stands for 2000 years only does so because it is constantly tested and is able to explain new evidence, so in that case longevity of the theory holds some weight (but does not guarantee truthhood). In the case of a religious belief which does not allow itself to be changed, the fact that it has been around a long time doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it is right.

This isn't necessarily true. The Koran states that the Earth is flat and I don't believe that is the case. The Bible claims nothing that has been proven untrue... only things that have been proven true. Especially in regards the archeological digs, as BG pointed out. Even non-Christian Archeologists use the Bible as a road map for finds, since it has been proven so reliable.

i like how you turn to bad jokes when you're out of ridiculous analogies and blatant lies. that way you can claim you werent taking this serious to begin with.

I love how you never have any point in any of your posts. You just know that [insert name] is not a liberal democrat so "I need to jump in here and throw some insults around before anyone finds out that I know nothing about the topic being discussed". But you're our little suitedaces and no one can take you from us.

[brvheart 1,752]

i dont know, that picture of you humping a bible maybe.

I was told that was deleted.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I love how you never have any point to any of your posts. You just know that [insert name] is not a liberal democrat so "I need to jump in here and throw some insults around before anyone finds out that I know nothing about the topic being discussed". But you're our little suitedaces and no one can take you from us.

Am I supposed to seriously debate you or Balloon Guy? We are starting so far apart, nothing will ever come of it. VB is obviously a masochist. I'm really just hanging around for the laughs.

[Loismustdie 0]

[starting crazy talk again]You need to quit trying to figure stuff out on your own and pick up your Bible.[/crazy]

Oh, that's absolutely no fun, and would not be me. I like the hard road. Builds character and all of that.

[irishguy 14]

That's good because there's nothing funny about rape.

You've obviously never been raped by a tickler

[vbnautilus 48]

The Bible claims nothing that has been proven untrue... only things that have been proven true.

I cannot tell if you are joking or not. Please be joking?

[brvheart 1,752]

I cannot tell if you are joking or not. Please be joking?

I'm ready for your list.

[vbnautilus 48]

I'm ready for your list.

What list? I'm not santa claus.

[brvheart 1,752]

pick up your Bible.

Oh, that's absolutely no fun, and would not be me.

Oh.

[brvheart 1,752]

What list? I'm not santa claus.

Your list of items from the Bible that have been disproven.

[CaneBrain 95]

Your list of items from the Bible that have been disproven.

you should at the same time list the items that have been proven. it shouldnt take long.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Oh.

i know. he'd rather think for himself. IT SICKENS ME.

[brvheart 1,752]

you should at the same time list the items that have been proven. it shouldnt take long.

Actually I shouldn't... and that's the point. You shouldn't quickly disregard something that hasn't been disproven. See the Koran and it's flat Earth claims.All anyone needs to do to disprove the entire Bible is to find one thing that isn't true. The Bible claims that it is the inspired word of God. If it's wrong about something then the entire thing can be thrown out.The problem is that some people will be like, ok... God didn't make the Earth, it evolved. But that's not provable. The latest edition of Astronomy magazine questions the Big Bang. Scientist have no clue how anything happened... only guesses.http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=ci&id=24

[BaseJester 1]

This isn't necessarily true. The Koran states that the Earth if flat and I don't believe that is the case. The Bible claims nothing that has been proven untrue... only things that have been proven true.

firmament?

[brvheart 1,752]

firmament?

I'm not sure what this means... does it mean I have to renounce my belief in Jesus? I hope not.