• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What events have shaken your faith?

It takes much more faith than it takes for me to believe in God, that's for sure...

And your position given your observation is a belief; same for mine... "the sky is blue" is a belief...

In conclusion, I just don't have as much faith as you do to not only believe that there's no reason behind why things happen, or why we are here on Earth to live life, etc. etc., but to completely rule out God as a possibility.
Click to expand...

Spartacus FPV said:
You make it sound like you consider a faith based position is a bad one, that if someone holds a position based on more faith than you have in your god then their position is weaker. What does that say about your faith?

Either we have good reasons for what we believe, or we do not.
Click to expand...
If you would have read and quoted my whole comment (the red text), ESPECIALLY the conclusion, instead of cherry picking a part of my whole comment out of context (the purple text), then you wouldn't be asking me this...

Obviously, given the whole context, I never asserted that a faith based position is a bad one. Everybody holds numerous things to be true based on faith. For example, if you believe that you exist in "reality" and are not a brain in a vat or a body in the Matrix, then you hold a faith based belief.

However, there are varying degrees of faith and varying justifications for faith... Believing that you exist in "reality" is a justified belief based on your sensory experience, given it's reliability. Believing that unicorns exist in "reality" takes much more faith because there's good reason to believe that unicorns are made up.

When we can observe that everything (or darn near everything) has a reason for why it happens (that it isn't true randomness), it leads one to believe that there is always (or darn near always) a "why" reason to explain something. Given that, it takes much more faith (and less justified faith at that) to believe in pure randomness than it does to believe in something more orderly, such as the Christian God.
 
veritas1 said:
If God sets up a game of follow my rules, I imagine following the rules would be a good idea.
Click to expand...

Yet it seems a strange thing for a perfect entity to do. Was this entity bored, so it created this game? Was it a power trip? What is god's motivation? In this fictional story, of course.
 
gfm7175 said:
The fact that you are quibbling over the "blue sky" shows not only that you are being contrarian, but that you are COMPLETELY missing the point... For starters, you and I are working off of MUCH different definitions of "belief"...
Click to expand...

Your definition of belief is too broad. It does not require belief to exist in reality. It is simply something we all do without consciously or unconsciously believing in it. You characterize everything as belief because when it comes to god all there is is belief. So you want everything to be based on belief because you think it strengthens your god claims. But in fact it weakens them, because it makes everything more uncertain.

We don't believe ourselves or reality into existence. If we did, who is it who is doing the believing?
 
devildavid said:
Your definition of belief is too broad. It does not require belief to exist in reality. It is simply something we all do without consciously or unconsciously believing in it. You characterize everything as belief because when it comes to god all there is is belief. So you want everything to be based on belief because you think it strengthens your god claims. But in fact it weakens them, because it makes everything more uncertain.

We don't believe ourselves or reality into existence. If we did, who is it who is doing the believing?
Click to expand...

And your definition of belief is too limited in scope... See post #127 for my response to the post you've made here.
 
devildavid said:
There isn't color other than as a property of something interacting with light.
Click to expand...

And as I stated, you knew exactly what he meant...yet you went into your obnoxious mode...
 
Elvira said:
And as I stated, you knew exactly what he meant...yet you went into your obnoxious mode...
Click to expand...

No, I pointed out the weakness of using color as a thing that exists independently of how things interact with light.
 
gfm7175 said:
And your definition of belief is too limited in scope... See post #127 for my response to the post you've made here.
Click to expand...

No, my definition is as precise as it needs to be for us to have an actual discussion where you don't get to define the terms.
 
devildavid said:
Yet it seems a strange thing for a perfect entity to do. Was this entity bored, so it created this game? Was it a power trip? What is god's motivation? In this fictional story, of course.
Click to expand...

We are in no position to question God's motivation. Goes does what He does.
 
zyzygy said:
Which god and where is the proof that it exists?
Click to expand...

You going to go around with this yet again? I think there is much that points to a creator since the universe forming itself is an impossibility. As for which God, I was referring to the Judeo-Christian God but for the purposes of the argument, that part doesn't matter. If there is an omnipotent creator God, of any type, then we are in no position to question that God. The idea that we can question God and find Him wanting, is a rather absurd one since we only know what right or wrong are because God put that ability into us.
 
veritas1 said:
You going to go around with this yet again? I think there is much that points to a creator since the universe forming itself is an impossibility. As for which God, I was referring to the Judeo-Christian God but for the purposes of the argument, that part doesn't matter. If there is an omnipotent creator God, of any type, then we are in no position to question that God. The idea that we can question God and find Him wanting, is a rather absurd one since we only know what right or wrong are because God put that ability into us.
Click to expand...

You don't preach and I won't question. Deal?
 
zyzygy said:
You don't preach and I won't question. Deal?
Click to expand...

That's not preaching. It's a rational statement of the pro-God position. I have no problem with people questioning whatever they want.
 
gfm7175 said:
Who gets to define the terms then... you?
Click to expand...

No. But if we can't agree on the nature of belief we can't come to any understanding. You are the one who wants to equate all beliefs. I do not. And it seems that the word knowledge means nothing to those who claim that all we can possibly have is belief. Without knowledge our ability to communicate on this forum would not be happening. But it is happening, and it is more than a belief it is happening.
 
SDET said:
For me the most memorable are when Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker got caught up in sex scandals. If these great leaders can fall, anybody can. I further see other respected leaders fall in the same manner. More recently Missouri Governor Greitens comes to mind. Then there's Newt Gingrich. I'm sure others can come up with more.

It's unconscionable that the Catholics would require their leaders to be celibate. Given how strong men's sex drives are, it's disappointing that it isn't recognized and made allowance for. Are Christian churches too demanding in this area? I'm not suggesting anyone call it "right". I'm just thinking it should be recognized how monumentally difficult it is and judge less harshly when lapses happen.
Click to expand...

* Being told at age nine by the pastor that the marriage of my father (A German Jewish refugee) to my mother (A Roman Catholic) meant I'd never get into heaven.

* Being labeled from the pulpit (along with my wife) as fornicators and adulterers because we decided to delay getting married (but living together AS husband and wife) in order to prevent her son from losing his S-CHIP medical benefits, and thus the three open heart surgeries that saved his life at age five.

Truth be told, those did not shake my faith, they just convinced me, first at age nine, then again as an adult, that organized religion is precisely the thing that makes God want to vomit.

I have an enduring faith in God. I have no use whatsoever for churches, even though if asked, I will attend services out of respect for those I care about. For instance, when my mother was still alive she would occasionally ask if I wanted to go to church with her. I went and did not complain, out of respect.

It was not my place to stand on ceremony, showing respect for Mom was the right thing to do, even if it might be inconvenient for me.
 
veritas1 said:
We are in no position to question God's motivation. Goes does what He does.
Click to expand...

veritas1 said:
That's not preaching. It's a rational statement of the pro-God position. I have no problem with people questioning whatever they want.
Click to expand...

It was preaching. Accepting the existence of imaginary beings without proof is not what I would call rational.
 
devildavid said:
No. But if we can't agree on the nature of belief we can't come to any understanding. You are the one who wants to equate all beliefs. I do not. And it seems that the word knowledge means nothing to those who claim that all we can possibly have is belief. Without knowledge our ability to communicate on this forum would not be happening. But it is happening, and it is more than a belief it is happening.
Click to expand...
When did I ever say that I want to "equate all beliefs"? Some beliefs are much more justified than others... But you want to claim that believing everything to be random is not belief (but rather observation)... that's just not true.
 
gfm7175 said:
When did I ever say that I want to "equate all beliefs"? Some beliefs are much more justified than others... But you want to claim that believing everything to be random is not belief (but rather observation)... that's just not true.
Click to expand...

I disagree that everything is reduced to beliefs with varying degrees of justification. Some things are known and require no belief.
 
devildavid said:
I disagree that everything is reduced to beliefs with varying degrees of justification. Some things are known and require no belief.
Click to expand...
Well, alright... I happen to disagree, and find properly basic beliefs to be the building blocks of knowledge/understanding. Without them, I wouldn't know where to begin...

Would you care to provide an example or two of a thing (things) that doesn't (don't) require belief in any way?
 
zyzygy said:
It was preaching. Accepting the existence of imaginary beings without proof is not what I would call rational.
Click to expand...

You don't know what preaching is, apparently. You also mixed together responses to two different posts. The first was to your comment about God so if you're going to comment about God, I'll respond accordingly. Surmising that God must exist is no more irrational than thinking He can't just because you haven't seen Him. It's no more irrational than thinking that inanimate matter popped into existence by itself for no reason.
 
gfm7175 said:
Well, alright... I happen to disagree, and find properly basic beliefs to be the building blocks of knowledge/understanding. Without them, I wouldn't know where to begin...

Would you care to provide an example or two of a thing (things) that doesn't (don't) require belief in any way?
Click to expand...

What makes a belief proper?
 
devildavid said:
What makes a belief proper?
Click to expand...

A "properly basic belief" is a belief that is justifiably believed (through experience) in absence of a defeater for holding that belief, even though that belief is not based upon another existing belief, nor can it be proven with evidence.

An example of such a belief would be my belief that I exist in reality; that I am not simply a brain in a vat being stimulated by a mad scientist, or a body lying in the Matrix. My belief of either one of those things is not based off of another belief, nor can I use evidence/science/etc. to prove that I exist in reality, but through my sensory experience (given the reliability of it), I can justifiably believe that I exist in reality (in absence of a defeater for holding that belief).

This, it seems to me, is the very basis of accepting the objectively true existence of "reality". This is also why everyone avoids directly answering gfm7175's unanswered question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom