15 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThis is a not-so-subtle example of the secret decoder ring.
No, I'm asking you to identify the interesting parts of the article. What parts do you find interesting?
Basically here's the thinking:
The Bible is convincing proof of God.
If you read the Word of God and are not convinced that God is real, then you obviously never believed in God to begin with.
🙄
15 Oct 05
Originally posted by telerionWell, that's right. Understanding requires a leap of faith, or so they say. Better to say that leaps of faith lead to selective attention regarding evidence, and violations of abductive principles.
This is a not-so-subtle example of the secret decoder ring.
Basically hears the thinking:
The Bible is convincing proof of God.
If you read the Word of God and are not convinced that God is real, then you obviously never believed in God to begin with.
🙄
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterIf God is my creator, then He is the one responsible for imbuing me with whatever modest intellect I posess. I assume He would not have granted me this way of knowing the world without expecting me to use it appropriately. So, I doubt that if He exists, the rules you identify are His rules. But whatever gets you through the night, checkbaiter...
Those are His rules, not mine. Take it or leave it. I took it.
And found it to be true.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by bbarrDon't get me wrong here. I respect your decision. I am ever curious though. My dilemna is this. Why do people decide to believe?
If God is my creator, then He is the one responsible for imbuing me with whatever modest intellect I posess. I assume He would not have granted me this way of knowing the world without expecting me to use it appropriately. So, I doubt that if He exists, the rules you identify are His rules. But whatever gets you through the night, checkbaiter...
This is purely a rhetorical question by the way.
I know very intelligent people that believe and visa versa. I have yet to understand why.
Oh well, maybe some day.
I hear some say that only certain ones are called, but I know this is not true, because the bible says God desires all men to be saved.
You and Tel and others want evidence. I can understand that.
From that stance, I would hope you can understand why I thought the article was interesting.
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterI want evidence (or at the very least logical consistency) only because if I employ the same mental gymnastics/contortionism that these xian apologists do, I can believe almost anything.
Don't get me wrong here. I respect your decision. I am ever curious though. My dilemna is this. Why do people decide to believe?
This is purely a rhetorical question by the way.
I know very intelligent people that believe and visa versa. I have yet to understand why.
Oh well, maybe some day.
I hear some say that only certain ones are called, but ...[text shortened]... .
From that stance, I would hope you can understand why I thought the article was interesting.
I want a god that I can feel good to believe in, one that doesn't need Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, and the Discovery Institute. Basically, if I'm gonna believe in a god, it's gonna be one that can defend itself.
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterI looked under a cabbage and .... dirt and worms and slugs!
Those are His rules, not mine. Take it or leave it. I took it.
And found it to be true.
I guess we all suffer different hallucinatory visions of reality.
Maybe it all depends of what you're looking for - what you find, I mean and what is true about it 😉
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterif those are the rules, then i will leave it. given the lack of evidence, i don't see how my faith could ever be "sincere" anyway. how can one commit his intellect to beliefs that he perceives to be completely arbitrary? it would be the height of insincerity, like trying to feign love.
Those are His rules, not mine. Take it or leave it. I took it.
And found it to be true.
religion offers "answers" to the questions surrounding the seeming absurdity of life. the only thing i can see that many of these answers have going for them is the lack of solid proof against them -- which is to say, nothing at all. FYI, i have also yet to disprove the notion that there is a family of invisible elves that live in my left sneaker.
"At a certain point on his path the absurd man is tempted. History is not lacking in either religion or prophets, even without gods. He is asked to leap. All he can reply is that he doesn't fully understand, that it is not obvious....He is assured that this is the sin of pride....An attempt is made to get him to admit his guilt. He feels innocent. To tell the truth, that is all he feels -- his irreparable innocence....To a man devoid of blinders, there is no finer sight than that of the intelligence at grips with a reality that transcends it....To impoverish that reality whose inhumanity constitutes man's majesty is tantamount to impoverishing him himself. I understand then why the doctrines that explain everything to me also debilitate me at the same time. They relieve me of the weight of my own life, and yet I must carry it alone."
--Albert Camus