91
General Discussion / Re: Curious
Last post by Pete - July 18, 2020, 06:35:14 pmJust a quick comment;
Nothing was removed or censored here. I have no idea what may have happened to your post, but I am the only person that has the ability to edit or remove posts, and I can assure you that I did not.
Nothing was removed or censored here. I have no idea what may have happened to your post, but I am the only person that has the ability to edit or remove posts, and I can assure you that I did not.
92
General Discussion / Re: Curious
Last post by Bryan - July 18, 2020, 06:27:23 pmQuote from: JakeELee on July 18, 2020, 05:37:58 pmSorry but I am done here :
I posted the following reply about 2 hours ago and yet I see it has been censored which leads me to believe that you people aren't interested in conversation, just confirmation of your beliefs. O well time to move on and leave you all to fantasy :
Thanks for your reply - appreciate the time you took to write it. A lot to discuss and I believe you won't take offence if I offer an alternative :
"Faith without objective reasoning is presumption and not real faith at all. Faith is simply the superlative of belief. It is a belief so strong that you know that you know that you know."
Faith is not the superlative of belief. Faith is the reason that people give when they have no objective reason for the belief".
If "faith" can lead you to a belief in Jesus and can also lead a muslim to a sincere belief in Allah then it is no longer objective - it is subjective. Therefore "faith" is no longer a pathway to truth or reason.
We need some other mechanism to determine what is true and what is false.
You ask the question about how did I come to the conclusion that 1 + 1 =2. Because it is demonstrably true. It is not an assertion but is proven. "Faith" in a "God" is not demonstrably proven - it is an assertion. Logical reasoning demonstrates that assertions are meaningless and that the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.
I am NOT asserting that 1+1=2 : I am able to demonstrate that is it is true.
You bring into the argument that of evolution, and for some reason jump to the big bang and the assertion of the infinite regress - i.e. "I can't think of anything that would have created the universe ergo "God". That is an argument from incredulity and therefore a logical fallicy.
Whilst I agree that the universe deserves and explanation, to jump to "God" is rediculous. Why not Allah, or not Thor, or Imhotep. Yet I presume you are arguing that "I can't think of anything else other than "Yaweh" so therefore He created it all is a case of special pleading - again another logical fallicy.
Then you jump to pointing me to a book "Evidence that demands a verdict" - I have read it, and also read "Further evidence that demands a verdict" a number of times, both of which make assertions that are not backed up by science.
You sum things up by again confusing objective reasoning and faith. As your scripture asserts "Faith is the evidence not seen, the substance of things hoped for". Basic logic says that if you have empirical evidence then you do not need faith.
You are clearly confused about "objective", "subjective" and "faith".
"Faith" can NEVER be "objective" until there is a test for objective faith. The Hindu who claims that he has "faith" that his path is correct is no different from your claim of Christianity.
You have chosen the God that you want to, have agreed to the assertions but until you can demonstrate that those assertions are testable, empirical and investigatble then you are no different from any other faith claim.
Thanks for your reply btw - no offense intended, but I find the basic grasp of logic and reason sincerely disturbing. If your world view is correct then surely Yaweh could have bothered to provide more substantial proof?
Thanks
JEL
Has it ever occurred to you theres a reason its called faith? "Substance of things hoped for, evidence of what isnt seen." It wouldnt be faith if you had every waking detail laid out for you. Id encourage you to stay. Just find a different/better way to express yourself.
93
General Discussion / Re: Curious
Last post by JakeELee - July 18, 2020, 05:37:58 pmSorry but I am done here :
I posted the following reply about 2 hours ago and yet I see it has been censored which leads me to believe that you people aren't interested in conversation, just confirmation of your beliefs. O well time to move on and leave you all to fantasy :
Thanks for your reply - appreciate the time you took to write it. A lot to discuss and I believe you won't take offence if I offer an alternative :
"Faith without objective reasoning is presumption and not real faith at all. Faith is simply the superlative of belief. It is a belief so strong that you know that you know that you know."
Faith is not the superlative of belief. Faith is the reason that people give when they have no objective reason for the belief".
If "faith" can lead you to a belief in Jesus and can also lead a muslim to a sincere belief in Allah then it is no longer objective - it is subjective. Therefore "faith" is no longer a pathway to truth or reason.
We need some other mechanism to determine what is true and what is false.
You ask the question about how did I come to the conclusion that 1 + 1 =2. Because it is demonstrably true. It is not an assertion but is proven. "Faith" in a "God" is not demonstrably proven - it is an assertion. Logical reasoning demonstrates that assertions are meaningless and that the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.
I am NOT asserting that 1+1=2 : I am able to demonstrate that is it is true.
You bring into the argument that of evolution, and for some reason jump to the big bang and the assertion of the infinite regress - i.e. "I can't think of anything that would have created the universe ergo "God". That is an argument from incredulity and therefore a logical fallicy.
Whilst I agree that the universe deserves and explanation, to jump to "God" is rediculous. Why not Allah, or not Thor, or Imhotep. Yet I presume you are arguing that "I can't think of anything else other than "Yaweh" so therefore He created it all is a case of special pleading - again another logical fallicy.
Then you jump to pointing me to a book "Evidence that demands a verdict" - I have read it, and also read "Further evidence that demands a verdict" a number of times, both of which make assertions that are not backed up by science.
You sum things up by again confusing objective reasoning and faith. As your scripture asserts "Faith is the evidence not seen, the substance of things hoped for". Basic logic says that if you have empirical evidence then you do not need faith.
You are clearly confused about "objective", "subjective" and "faith".
"Faith" can NEVER be "objective" until there is a test for objective faith. The Hindu who claims that he has "faith" that his path is correct is no different from your claim of Christianity.
You have chosen the God that you want to, have agreed to the assertions but until you can demonstrate that those assertions are testable, empirical and investigatble then you are no different from any other faith claim.
Thanks for your reply btw - no offense intended, but I find the basic grasp of logic and reason sincerely disturbing. If your world view is correct then surely Yaweh could have bothered to provide more substantial proof?
Thanks
JEL
I posted the following reply about 2 hours ago and yet I see it has been censored which leads me to believe that you people aren't interested in conversation, just confirmation of your beliefs. O well time to move on and leave you all to fantasy :
Thanks for your reply - appreciate the time you took to write it. A lot to discuss and I believe you won't take offence if I offer an alternative :
"Faith without objective reasoning is presumption and not real faith at all. Faith is simply the superlative of belief. It is a belief so strong that you know that you know that you know."
Faith is not the superlative of belief. Faith is the reason that people give when they have no objective reason for the belief".
If "faith" can lead you to a belief in Jesus and can also lead a muslim to a sincere belief in Allah then it is no longer objective - it is subjective. Therefore "faith" is no longer a pathway to truth or reason.
We need some other mechanism to determine what is true and what is false.
You ask the question about how did I come to the conclusion that 1 + 1 =2. Because it is demonstrably true. It is not an assertion but is proven. "Faith" in a "God" is not demonstrably proven - it is an assertion. Logical reasoning demonstrates that assertions are meaningless and that the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.
I am NOT asserting that 1+1=2 : I am able to demonstrate that is it is true.
You bring into the argument that of evolution, and for some reason jump to the big bang and the assertion of the infinite regress - i.e. "I can't think of anything that would have created the universe ergo "God". That is an argument from incredulity and therefore a logical fallicy.
Whilst I agree that the universe deserves and explanation, to jump to "God" is rediculous. Why not Allah, or not Thor, or Imhotep. Yet I presume you are arguing that "I can't think of anything else other than "Yaweh" so therefore He created it all is a case of special pleading - again another logical fallicy.
Then you jump to pointing me to a book "Evidence that demands a verdict" - I have read it, and also read "Further evidence that demands a verdict" a number of times, both of which make assertions that are not backed up by science.
You sum things up by again confusing objective reasoning and faith. As your scripture asserts "Faith is the evidence not seen, the substance of things hoped for". Basic logic says that if you have empirical evidence then you do not need faith.
You are clearly confused about "objective", "subjective" and "faith".
"Faith" can NEVER be "objective" until there is a test for objective faith. The Hindu who claims that he has "faith" that his path is correct is no different from your claim of Christianity.
You have chosen the God that you want to, have agreed to the assertions but until you can demonstrate that those assertions are testable, empirical and investigatble then you are no different from any other faith claim.
Thanks for your reply btw - no offense intended, but I find the basic grasp of logic and reason sincerely disturbing. If your world view is correct then surely Yaweh could have bothered to provide more substantial proof?
Thanks
JEL
94
General Discussion / Fun story.
Last post by jiminpa - July 18, 2020, 02:27:58 pmHere's a story about me and my late wife. My grandparents used to own weekend/summer camp on the Allegheny River in the foothills of the Allegheny Mountains. Pete and Sarah, it's about a mile north of the north end of the Kennerdell tunnel. The normal depth of the river in the summer is about 9 feet at the deepest point with shallow whitewater downstream. One day I borrowed a canoe from a friend of my dad in Washington, Pennsylvania, about 2 hours from their camp, and we hauled it up tied to the top of a compact car. When we got to camp the river was high and fast. I knew better than to go out under those conditions, but we hauled the canoe up that far and I was determined to get it wet. That was not the best decision I ever made in my life, (also not the worst). My wife had never been in a canoe before in her life.
The current was fast enough that I had a hard time going straight across the river, but I was determined. I wanted to take Bess to an island in the middle of the riffles that were downstream from camp but with the current we had to be careful not to hit any large rocks. I had Bess watch for current patterns for the dangerous rocks, and this is actually important to the story because as we went along I realized that the rocks we were watching for were the ones that are usually about 6 feet above the water, but onward we went. I usually approached the island at it's point letting the current pull the canoe in while I paddle to stay inline with the point of the island. It was when the current was stronger than I could paddle that I realized we were in some real danger. My family is in the habit of carrying an anchor, even in a canoe, and, thankfully, I kept to that tradition this time. Even with the river high and the current swift the riffles can be waded, so when we got just below waist deep I grabbed the anchor rope, jumped out and pulled the canoe to the island. Bess and a walked around island, and did a few things, like examining some of the river mussels, for a little while. When it was time to go back I forded the narrow side, which is also the side our camp is on, and paddled up the eddy currents to camp. I could never talk Bess back into a canoe again, even under normal circumstances. The funny thing is that I could get her into a rowboat taking the same course, and I have a harder time with a rowboat in heavy current.
The current was fast enough that I had a hard time going straight across the river, but I was determined. I wanted to take Bess to an island in the middle of the riffles that were downstream from camp but with the current we had to be careful not to hit any large rocks. I had Bess watch for current patterns for the dangerous rocks, and this is actually important to the story because as we went along I realized that the rocks we were watching for were the ones that are usually about 6 feet above the water, but onward we went. I usually approached the island at it's point letting the current pull the canoe in while I paddle to stay inline with the point of the island. It was when the current was stronger than I could paddle that I realized we were in some real danger. My family is in the habit of carrying an anchor, even in a canoe, and, thankfully, I kept to that tradition this time. Even with the river high and the current swift the riffles can be waded, so when we got just below waist deep I grabbed the anchor rope, jumped out and pulled the canoe to the island. Bess and a walked around island, and did a few things, like examining some of the river mussels, for a little while. When it was time to go back I forded the narrow side, which is also the side our camp is on, and paddled up the eddy currents to camp. I could never talk Bess back into a canoe again, even under normal circumstances. The funny thing is that I could get her into a rowboat taking the same course, and I have a harder time with a rowboat in heavy current.
95
General Discussion / Re: Curious
Last post by jiminpa - July 18, 2020, 01:17:08 pmFixing a typo:
My pastor says that we should be followers of Jesus, be followers of Christianity, and I agree with that. So, I don't get much from Christianity, but I get everything from the God of the Bible. I get to know the maker of all thing as well as my human limitations will allow.
My pastor says that we should be followers of Jesus, be followers of Christianity, and I agree with that. So, I don't get much from Christianity, but I get everything from the God of the Bible. I get to know the maker of all thing as well as my human limitations will allow.
96
General Discussion / Re: Retirement Sucks
Last post by JohnDB - July 18, 2020, 12:46:09 pmI've been to two different orthopedic doctors.
I'm hoping that the silicone injections work and I can get back to work.
If not... well I'm going to have to try and get some sort of desk job...they won't pay as well as I'm accustomed to earning but it will be something.
Preferably not in customer service. I don't like people that much.
I'm hoping that the silicone injections work and I can get back to work.
If not... well I'm going to have to try and get some sort of desk job...they won't pay as well as I'm accustomed to earning but it will be something.
Preferably not in customer service. I don't like people that much.
97
General Discussion / Re: Curious
Last post by jiminpa - July 18, 2020, 11:38:20 amSee my next post.
98
General Discussion / Re: Curious
Last post by flaglady - July 18, 2020, 06:46:24 amQuote from: Bryan on July 17, 2020, 02:26:42 pmSo what do I get out of Christianity? I get the peace that comes from not having to be perfect all the time or even at all. I'm perfect because of Christ and my belief in him. That's real peace.Bryan, that's it in a nutshell! Well said.
99
General Discussion / Re: Curious
Last post by flaglady - July 18, 2020, 06:43:00 amQuote from: JakeELee on July 15, 2020, 03:19:51 pmIf I understand you correctly then there seems to be a very heavy reliance on "belief" in that the path you've chosen is the correct one.
My thinking is that (for instance) a devout Muslim could say the same things, or maybe a devout Jew, or a devout Wiccan. They might all say that they experience or think they experience the divine presence of their God surely?
No I never did, actually. And I spent an awful lot of my younger years being perfectly miserable, convinced I'd been 'infected' by my mother's mental health problems and never really feeling I was 'worth' anything. Then came God into my life and I found a sense of self-worth I had never, ever experienced before.
To be honest, I don't pay much attention to those other 'religions'. This one is plenty enough for me!
100
General Discussion / Re: Retirement Sucks
Last post by flaglady - July 18, 2020, 06:35:57 amQuote from: JohnDB on July 15, 2020, 07:14:51 amPatella Femoral issues. Excessive wear on one side of the patella groove on my femur.Sounds like that needs surgery. That shouldn't happen after a TKR. Have you sort specialist advice?