snapperhead said:
Nothing is stopping you from believing that. That is the wonder of faith.
"Wonder" indeed, as for one to believe in something without any proof is a miraculous phenomenon of self-deception: if there is no reason for the belief, why would one have the belief? Answer with something more substantial than "faith", because what that really equates to is, "I don't have any evidence, I just believe it", which as I just discussed, is somewhat strange and unjustified.
snapperhead said:
Yes, I would be slightly skeptical but I fail to see the relevance of this analogy to the concept of the existence of God. In fact, this is an overused example to discredit the existence of God that has no bearing on the argument at all as they are in no way related. Just the same as saying, "I feel like having a {insert very unhealthy food here} now" but you disagree with the notion as you are a health freak (for arguments sake). What has it got to do with faith?
No, the analogy is relevant. Your example is about taste, something subjective. We are talking about a FACT, something true or false.
snapperhead said:
And by saying that "Belief without proof is pure foolishness.", you are contradicting yourself ie you said in post #2910: "Faith is belief in something without proof."
What is it? (I hope you do better than this in your chosen career! LOL) ANd plase dont say that faith and belief are separate as they are not (in a religious context)
It is very clear that I was not
defining faith as pure foolishness, I was simply saying that it is an act of pure foolishness to have said faith (believe without proof). The manner in which I expressed the act's attribute makes perfect sense, for example:
"Rap is a genre of music"
"Rap is silly"
It is obvious I am not setting the definition of rap as "silly" per se - clearly I am describing an attribute of rap.
snapperhead said:
As I have said, those that say they believe in God do so out of faith and their faith is their proof to the existence of God and the proof of the existence of God is in their faith.
No no no, I must stop you here. This is an atrocious fallacy of circular reasoning.
Firstly, you're going against the very definition of faith, as I said before. What is faith? The belief in something without proof. The faith of someone (ie. their lack of proof) is their proof? That does not make any sense.
Moreover, by saying "my faith is my proof," what you're really saying is "I dont have any proof, but I believe anyway."
snapperhead said:
As someone who obviously has no 'religious' faith (re to the existence of God which you are entitled to have), this would make no sense to you and arguing semantics means you will never understand it!
I understand logic and reasoning. I understand how to make decisions and how to form conclusions that are justifiable. I back up my arguments, and I think that is to be expected. You on the other hand are saying two very infuriating things:
1. I believe but I don't have any proof. I have faith.
2. Your reasoning is wrong because you just don't understand faith.
And yet you can't seem to explain faith as anything other than it is already defined as - lack of proof. It equates to saying:
"I dont have any proof but you don't understand my lack of proof."
Not very convincing. I would also note that I am not an atheist, I am agnostic.
snapperhead said:
Whilst this is true in the areas of science etc, those that believe/have faith/claim religion etc have their rational reasoning (egs outlined above from a Muslim context for eg). Just you dont understand or more to the point disagree with those rationalisations doesnt make them incorrect for that is saying that "your" logic is better than "ours" (for want of a collective term).
Oh you have your own divine logic do you? Let's see it, then we might get somewhere. And if you say the Bible is a form of logic I will scream.
snapperhead said:
Not only is that arrogance and hubris but who are you to say that you are better than me? (again as an example...nothing personal).
I never said I am better than you, express or implied.
snapperhead said:
Those that have faith have material facts, have logic and rationalisation but you (collective term) wont accept these (from our perspective) as being real. You (again as a collective term) think that our refinement of thought into well formed and justified decissions is wrong based upon your logic but to use an example that Im sure you could identify with, if someone chooses (through logic etc) to kill someone, are they wrong? If their logic formed their decission (law aside-but then the law is an outside factor dictated by other people much like some of the lines used in this thread), are they wrong?
Firstly, like I said before, show me this "logic" you have.
Secondly, we are not discussing morality here, but moral theory is highly complex and there are so many conflicting viewpoints. However upon a utilitarian approach, if it produced the greatest happiness to the maximum number of people to kill someone, then the person was justified in doing so.
in which the craft was orbiting the moon? I think it was Apollo 8 that did that, before any landing.