• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why avoid considering God as noted?

On the contrary, you've made a rather large one. First the arbitrary division in the definition of faith originates around the time of Kant. Faith was separated into that which was rational, and that which was considered irrational. There were reasons for this that had to do with the Catholic Church at the time, and a host of others which have no bearing on this discussion. It's an exhaustive topic in and of itself. I would have no objection to such a delineation except that somehow the differentiation has become a spring board for denigration of religious faith.
I don't care where the difference came from. The fact is that there is a difference. And you arguing otherwise is insane. My knowledge that elevators are generally safe isn't "faith" and your belief in god is. You are trying to break down the work faith so that your views don't seem silly and so that you don't have to defend them and you aren't able to do it with me. I know the meanings and you are obviously wrong.


Science endeavors to uncover all of the truths of the universe to achieve complete lucidity. How's that coming?
Science says nothing about "complete lucidity". But if you want to know how it's coming, it's coming much better than any bull**** that you've been sold by a religion. Because science doesn't follow faith.

Looks like those supporting that view have a long way to go to produce the evidence that such can be achieved.
You are arguing that because science has not figured out every single thing that therefor it's the same as religion. That's complete bull****. You are making a false argument that it is all or nothing so that you can throw out all of the findings we have in science and act like it's the same as religion which has given us virtually nothing. That argument is so disingenuous it's not even funny. Is this really what you're going to resort to? You can't defend your faith therefor you're going to try to tear down science with the argument that it hasn't figured out everything? And by muddying the definitions of faith? Ridiculous.

It seems, then, that taken at face value today, faith in science has the very same attributes as faith in religion. As it stands, no empirical evidence exists that either one has offered it's stated objectives. As such, they are on equally bad footing by the very measure you claim.
You made up a stated objective. Science has never claimed that it's goal is to "uncover all truths". You are just plain making **** up and comparing things that aren't comparable.
 
I don't care where the difference came from. The fact is that there is a difference. And you arguing otherwise is insane. My knowledge that elevators are generally safe isn't "faith" and your belief in god is. You are trying to break down the work faith so that your views don't seem silly and so that you don't have to defend them and you aren't able to do it with me. I know the meanings and you are obviously wrong.

So, outside of calling it silly and insane, you have no concrete argument against my preferred definition.



Science says nothing about "complete lucidity". But if you want to know how it's coming, it's coming much better than any bull**** that you've been sold by a religion. Because science doesn't follow faith.

Science is all about the revelation of natural laws. I haven't bought any BS sold by a religion. I don't know why you would think that I have.


You are arguing that because science has not figured out every single thing that therefor it's the same as religion. That's complete bull****. You are making a false argument that it is all or nothing so that you can throw out all of the findings we have in science and act like it's the same as religion which has given us virtually nothing. That argument is so disingenuous it's not even funny. Is this really what you're going to resort to? You can't defend your faith therefor you're going to try to tear down science with the argument that it hasn't figured out everything? And by muddying the definitions of faith? Ridiculous.

Seems you can't defend your faith in science either. I said nothing about throwing any scientific discovery out. You just did. I have no interest in tearing science down. In fact, I'm an enthusiastic supporter. With regard to "muddying the definitions of faith", you'll have to talk to the original muddier. It wasn't me.

You made up a stated objective. Science has never claimed that it's goal is to "uncover all truths". You are just plain making **** up and comparing things that aren't comparable.

Well, if science isn't about discovering all the natural truths, then I guess it's just for the hell of it. The search for the "god" particle is just a fun game, and it's a damn good thing someone has the money to support the sport. I had no idea that finding the keys to existence was not a central objective of science.
 
So, outside of calling it silly and insane, you have no concrete argument against my preferred definition.
If you're definition offers no distinction between knowing that elevators are generally safe and faith in god, then it's obviously silly. The argument is just that. It goes against reality.



Seems you can't defend your faith in science either.

I have no faith in science. If you can't grasp that then there is no reason to move on to other topics. Science offers the best explanations thus far for our world through experimentation and observation. I trust in science only because it offers real and observable results. That is not faith. That is the opposite of faith.

You must not think very highly of your religious faith if you are so willing to lie about it.
 
If one were to say that Christ was just a man trying to get the Jews together against Rome by claiming some religious status, that would be another major point. That was not his message at all as can be clearly and easily discerned by reading the biblical accounts.

Or he was in it for attention and the message has nothing to do with the motive. I mean he gained a billion followers who never even met him.
 
Or he was in it for attention and the message has nothing to do with the motive. I mean he gained a billion followers who never even met him.

It's certainly a possibility, but not fitting his words and deeds.
 
It's certainly a possibility, but not fitting his words and deeds.

Plenty of people would say and do just about anything for such an unprecedented legacy, if his deeds could even be proven. Yeah, it would be kind and unselfish to cure the blind, but such a claim comes with added benefit of coming across as a god. His (very threatening) demands to believe in him as a god kind of reinforces this. Such a demand in 21st century would lead to the psych ward.

But really, people can have varied reasons. Some of his messages, like to show some respect for women, could gain attention thru being very rare for that time, and also he (or whoever wrote it) may have really wanted to effect change.
 
Plenty of people would say and do just about anything for such an unprecedented legacy, if his deeds could even be proven. Yeah, it would be kind and unselfish to cure the blind, but such a claim comes with added benefit of coming across as a god. His (very threatening) demands to believe in him as a god kind of reinforces this. Such a demand in 21st century would lead to the psych ward.

But really, people can have varied reasons. Some of his messages, like to show some respect for women, could gain attention thru being very rare for that time, and also he (or whoever wrote it) may have really wanted to effect change.

Obviously we can find alternate explanations for him. It's up to us. If we don't want to believe him, we can accept these alternate explanations and go about our own business.
 
Back
Top Bottom