Do you believe in God?

[MatskiMonk]

touch (somatoception), taste (gustatoception), sound (audioception), sight (optiception) and smell (olfactoception) we have receptors for pain (nociception), balance (equilibrioception), heat (thermoception), pressure (mechanoception), "self" (proprioception) and even for specific chemicals (chemoception).

Seriously though, proprioception was the one that got my attention, the term "self" made me think it may have been something deeper, but no, it's more to do with putting your finger on the end of your nose, and convincing police that you are sober!

 

[Famine]

Proprioception is cool. It's your brain's map of your body - it's how you can catch or hit a ball that has passed your visual field and how you can still feel a leg that has been amputated...

And yes, how you can put your finger on the end of your nose when your eyes are closed.

 

[BobK]

There was an Egyptian text that described the 10 plagues that Moses brought to Egypt. The Purity of Jewish blood still exists to this day , and the bloodline of the Ancient Eyptians has now disappeared into the mix of various middle eastern people.

And you still have yet to provide any evidence for a million Jewish slaves in Egypt other than things like a list of names some of which sound like they might be Jewish.

How about actually backing up a claim for once, instead of just piling on more?

 

[Danoff]

Children to have faith in their parents to lead them, a marine has to have faith in his companions to fight in a battle, an employer has to have faith in his employees. Faith is not science, and it will never be scientific, to believe in God is not a scientific process, so no you can't prove the existence of God, you have to feel the existence of God.

Let me fix this for you.

Children have to have faith trust in their parents to lead them, a marine has to have faith in rely on his companions to fight in a battle, an employer has to have faith in expect his employees to succeed. Faith is not science, and it will never be scientific, to believe in God is not a scientific process, so no you can't prove the existence of God, you have to feel the existence of God.

All of your uses of the word "faith" in those examples are colloquial uses of it. This is the same meaning as one who says "I have faith that it will rain as soon as I wash my car". It is confusing, I know, but it comes from a lazy use of language, and from a desire to overstate one's opinion. In a way, it is very similar to saying something along the lines of "the smell was so terrible, I literally died". Obviously the person did not literally die (and it is a pet peeve of mine to say that), the person is trying to make sure that you're taking them seriously, and so they're using a stronger word than is appropriate. It is an exaggeration.

The word faith means to believe (another loaded word often misunderstood on this forum), without proof.

 

[huskeR32]

You neglected to add adulterer to his list of accomplishments (2nd Samuel Chapter 11)

Adultery is not an accomplishment.

I'm honestly not sure anyone has ever missed the point as badly as you did right there.

This word definition game you are playing is getting old.....

You mean that game where every time someone points out a fallacy in your arguments, you squirm out from under it by claiming your own definition of a word is equally valid? Yes, that is getting quite old.

The general consensus in this thread and in its context is belief without evidence.

And it take more than concensus on a thread on a Racing Video Game website to define the word faith.

Conversations don't really work all that well if those involved don't use words the same way, especially concerning words that are central to the discussion at hand. In this thread, "faith" is a fairly important word, and it simply won't do to have us all using it in different ways.

I get it; the easy thing is to shout about multiple meanings, and paint the rest of us a having a petty squabble about it.

However, the practical thing to do is to look around, notice that nearly everyone else here agrees on a meaning of the word that's different from yours*, and to adjust accordingly. If you want to go on using your own definition elsewhere, by all means do so. But while you're in this thread, I'd suggest using the consensus definition - otherwise the rest of us will continue to not be able to decipher what you really mean, and will continue to correct you in an attempt to get the conversation moving along.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*As an aside, I'm utterly baffled by this. I asked our dear old friend SCJ a similar question awhile back (of course, I never got an answer), and I'd like to ask you the same. When everyone else not only agrees that you're using "faith" incorrectly, but they also all agree on what the true definition is, how do you ignore that? It would be one thing if we all had our own unique definitions as well. But when we're all on the same page, and you're the only one flying solo? It just seems mind-bogglingly arrogant for you to continue to insist that you're right.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Well I trust the Lord, rely on His teachings and expect to meet Him in a couple of decades. Am I a faithful or am I not?

 

[Danoff]

Well I trust the Lord, rely on His teachings and expect to meet Him in a couple of decades. Am I a faithful or am I not?

D - not enough information.

Do you believe that it (God) exists? Do you do so despite a lack of proof? Then yes, you have faith. None of those statements determine whether or not you have faith.

 

[RalliArt/////]

How can you throw this stuff at people who would be interested in learning more about your God?

Be honest, you're hear to debate, not to learn.

I'm here asking you questions trying to get you to express your knowledge in a way that I can understand, and you call me a fool? Yeah, serves me right. Way to be a smart arse

(Proverbs 17:10) A single rebuke does more for a person of understanding than a hundred lashes on the back of a fool.

John 8:47 Anyone who belongs to God listens gladly to the words of God. But you don't listen because you don't belong to God.

(2 Thessalonians 3:2) ...for faith is not a possession of all people.

_______________________________________

I found your plain English 'translations' a lot easier to understand than the Bible quotes you posted, although they appear to be completely different quotes, and I am still struggling to see how they are relevant to the Douglas Adams quote I posted.

There not meant to be relevant. I think you've misunderstood the point of my second post.

The point of that quote was to say that it is possible to appreciate the wonders of nature without also having to believe unsupportable claims about it as well. A broader interpretation might be that it is possible to find meaning in one's own life without needing to resort to making stuff up or appealing to the supernatural, since the natural world is awe-inspiring and meaningful in its own right.

Yes, I understood the quote.

Here's another scripture relating to the Douglas Adams quote.

Romans 1:19,20 what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse.

 

[Danoff]

(Proverbs 17:10) A single rebuke does more for a person of understanding than a hundred lashes on the back of a fool.

...and yet, just because someone doesn't understand or agree with you, that doesn't make them a fool. It just might be that you're a terrible communicator, or just not persuasive. Or you could also be wrong.

John 8:47 Anyone who belongs to God listens gladly to the words of God. But you don't listen because you don't belong to God.
(2 Thessalonians 3:2) ...for faith is not a possession of all people.

Circular don't you think? Have faith in God and you'll be open to having faith in God.

 

[huskeR32]

Be honest, you're hear to debate, not to learn.

He asked one of the most interesting questions in this discussion recently...

How the hell does anyone get involved in this religion if NO ONE is prepared to actually share their experiences with God?

...and that's your response? What a bull:censored: cop-out.

This thread is full of people claiming to have personal, experiential evidence of god, and refusing to share it. I for one would very much would like to see a good answer to his question.

 

[Denur]

This thread is full of people claiming to have personal, experiential evidence of god, and refusing to share it. I for one would very much would like to see a good answer to his question.

Me too, but I'm afraid that they are just making it up.

 

[sems4arsenal]

He asked one of the most interesting questions in this discussion recently...



...and that's your response? What a bull:censored: cop-out.

This thread is full of people claiming to have personal, experiential evidence of god, and refusing to share it. I for one would very much would like to see a good answer to his question.

How can someone provide an example of experiental or personal evidence of god that will convince you that God does exist?

 

[Danoff]

How can someone provide an example of experiental or personal evidence of god that will convince you that God does exist?

They can't, one needs their own experience to convince their flawed brains to jump to the unsupported conclusion that (a specific) God exists.

That doesn't stop any of us from being interested in what persuaded others to have faith.

 

[huskeR32]

How can someone provide an example of experiental or personal evidence of god that will convince you that God does exist?

In all likelihood, they can't. But you're missing the point of Imari's question. He's not actually asking for people to share those experiences, he's questioning why nobody seems willing to share in the first place.

If people aren't willing to tell us about these experiences that led them to god, then what's the point of even popping into this thread to proclaim they've had them?

(At least that's how I interpreted Imari's question. If that's not what he was asking, then it's what I'm asking now.)

Also:

That doesn't stop any of us from being interested in what persuaded others to have faith.

 

[Touring Mars]

How can someone provide an example of experiental or personal evidence of god that will convince you that God does exist?

As Danoff has just said as well, they can't... but it does beg the question, if one's 'personal evidence of God' is so personal (and presumably unique), then how come followers of the same religion all must believe the same stuff (but that stuff differs from followers of different religions)?. Could it be that one's experience of God is, in reality, defined by the holy book of a religion, as opposed to one's own unique perception of God? It seems like a contradiction to claim that one's perception of God is completely personal while at the same time it conforms exactly to the beliefs of others who use the same religious text.

Here's another scripture relating to the Douglas Adams quote.

Sorry. I still have no idea what you mean... you can drop Bible quotes all day long, but unless you are prepared to explain what you are getting at, you'll be wasting your time.

 

[Hun200kmh]

It has been shared by many, problem with atheists is that they don't listen. In my case I think I already wrote why I believe in God at least TWICE (in this thread).

And, yes, of course, it is a spiritual experience, it is not and cannot be subject to proof and any atheist asking you for it is either a fool or not an honest debater.


PS - Touring Mars, you still mix the belief in GOD with particular religions. Though related, not identical issue.

 

[DQuaN]

It has been shared by many, problem with atheists is that they don't listen.

 

[Danoff]

It has been shared by many, problem with atheists is that they don't listen.

I think you mean they aren't convinced, that's not the same thing.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Also true, there are no exclusives here

EDIT - Above reply was meant to DQuaN.

Danoff, fair enough, but then don't say theists refuse to say why they believe. Our problem is not silence, it is unconvincing posting.

 

[Liquid]

And, yes, of course, [belief in god] is a spiritual experience, it is not and cannot be subject to proof and any atheist asking you for it is either a fool or not an honest debater.

You simply cannot make this assertion when, on balance, the atheists in this thread demonstrate tend to demonstrate a tendency for open debate and critical thinking while on balance theists tend to demonstrate a blind and seemingly all-knowing devotion without even considering for one second the possibility that doctrine, scripture and folklore could be wrong.

 

[Danoff]

Also true, there are no exclusives here

Allow me to rephrase more directly.

I think you're confusing disagreement with lack of consideration.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Don't agree with you there Liquid. Of course you have people of all kinds in both sides of the fence, but my general feel when I happen to come here and read the latest pages in this thread is the exact opposite of what you wrote. Theists, generally outnumbered by 15 to 1, keep answering to all questions and their answers are repeatedly dismissed or even ridiculed.

I use to get a free pass, maybe because you guys know English is not my native language so you don't push me too hard on "definitions". And I'm not a Bible holder, (something atheists particularly loathe, as I've learned here). The way I see it the Bible is like a walkie-talkie, you can use it and you should use it to get in touch with God (because I believe much of what's written there is indeed inspired by God), but there's some static there too so sometimes you need to focus, and to filter, to reach what you look for and to listen what indeed is important.

Whatever, a few mroe words and you guys will think I'm trying to convince yous

 

[sems4arsenal]

As Danoff has just said as well, they can't... but it does beg the question, if one's 'personal evidence of God' is so personal (and presumably unique), then how come followers of the same religion all must believe the same stuff (but that stuff differs from followers of different religions)?. Could it be that one's experience of God is, in reality, defined by the holy book of a religion, as opposed to one's own unique perception of God? It seems like a contradiction to claim that one's perception of God is completely personal while at the same time it conforms exactly to the beliefs of others who use the same religious text.


Sorry. I still have no idea what you mean... you can drop Bible quotes all day long, but unless you are prepared to explain what you are getting at, you'll be wasting your time.

You're going to have to elaborate on that ,are you talking about the differences between religion teachings or how say the Bible says something (Jesus died)and the Qaran contradicts it?

In all likelihood, they can't. But you're missing the point of Imari's question. He's not actually asking for people to share those experiences, he's questioning why nobody seems willing to share in the first place.

If people aren't willing to tell us about these experiences that led them to god, then what's the point of even popping into this thread to proclaim they've had them?

(At least that's how I interpreted Imari's question. If that's not what he was asking, then it's what I'm asking now.)

Also:

I see your point, maybe to them the experience or that moment that led them to God is something you have to live to understand or relate, for example one day I was just day dreaming and had a terrible thought that my best friend's mom had passed away (she had been struggling with illness for years) only to wake up the next day to the actual news.

To you it is just a random thought and a lucky(unlucky in that case) coincidence but to me it was something along the lines of say you better say your goodbyes.

 

[Exorcet]

Don't agree with you there Liquid. Of course you have people of all kinds in both sides of the fence, but my general feel when I happen to come here and read the latest pages in this thread is the exact opposite of what you wrote. Theists, generally outnumbered by 15 to 1, keep answering to all questions and their answers are repeatedly dismissed or even ridiculed.

A lot of the time, it's the same answers someone else has given and they're already refuted, so it makes sense.

Why is 15 to 1 significant?

I use to get a free pass, maybe because you guys know English is not my native language so you don't push me too hard on "definitions". And I'm not a Bible holder, (something atheists particularly loathe, as I've learned here). The way I see it the Bible is like a walkie-talkie, you can use it and you should use it to get in touch with God (because I believe much of what's written there is indeed inspired by God), but there's some static there too so sometimes you need to focus, and to filter, to reach what you look for and to listen what indeed is important.

Sounds reasonable, but then you need to figure out what's static and what's not. How you do this varies wildly from religion to religion or even between individuals, and worse than that some of it just isn't logical.

I see your point, maybe to them the experience or that moment that led them to God is something you have to live to understand or relate, for example one day I was just day dreaming and had a terrible thought that my best friend's mom had passed away (she had been struggling with illness for years) only to wake up the next day to the actual news.

To you it is just a random thought and a lucky(unlucky in that case) coincidence but to me it was something along the lines of say you better say your goodbyes.

There is perception, and then there is reality. You took an event a certain way, but you could be miles off what actually happened. Reality is what we'd be interested in here, and the way to find reality is the scientific method. So you would need to turn to science to confirm your feelings. Just going with your feelings won't get you anywhere.

 

[Touring Mars]

You're going to have to elaborate on that ,are you talking about the differences between religion teachings or how say the Bible says something (Jesus died)and the Qaran contradicts it?

Sort of... I'm saying that most religious people I know all say the same thing about God, which is that they know God via a personal relationship - a direct one-to-one connection. But, when it comes to their beliefs, they are lock, stock and barrel the same as everyone else from the same religion, because they accept that their holy book is the word of God and allow that text to define what they should and should not believe.

So, on the one hand they are claiming that God communicates with them directly, while on the other they take God's word from the same source as everyone else in that religion.

My point is that, if God (or Gods) really do communicate with people directly, then what do they need holy books for?

 

[dxld]

Sort of... I'm saying that most religious people I know all say the same thing about God, which is that they know God via a personal relationship - a direct one-to-one connection. But, when it comes to their beliefs, they are lock, stock and barrel the same as everyone else from the same religion, because they accept that their holy book is the word of God and allow that text to define what they should and should not believe.

So, on the one hand they are claiming that God communicates with them directly, while on the other they take God's word from the same source as everyone else in that religion.

My point
is that, if God (or Gods) really do communicate with people directly, then what do they need holy books for?

God chooses who he communicates directly with, sometimes it's in dreams, sometimes it's through life events, sometimes it's through patterns in life, but verbal communication one on one with God is very difficult. When Moses spoke to God in the burning bush, he had to turn his face away because his presence is too powerful. When Abraham spoke to God he fell down.

What God did was have Moses record his words on stone and in scrolls, that way the people could read his words without hearing them directly and without collapsing.

 

[Jet Badger]

What about the people that swear to have communicated with other gods? Is their communication line broken? Buddha is such a childish prank caller, isn't it...

 

[Exorcet]

What God did was have Moses record his words on stone and in scrolls, that way the people could read his words without hearing them directly and without collapsing.

Why are people falling over in the first place?

 

[Touring Mars]

God chooses who he communicates directly with

Right... so there are those with whom God does not communicate directly?

That makes sense to me, since clearly I am one of those people - but it seems astonishingly remiss for an all-powerful creator to simply not bother with some people. Also, this being the case, it is completely understandable that those who are not selected by God for direct communication might not believe he exists at all.

 

[BobK]

God chooses who he communicates directly with, sometimes it's in dreams, sometimes it's through life events, sometimes it's through patterns in life, but verbal communication one on one with God is very difficult. When Moses spoke to God in the burning bush, he had to turn his face away because his presence is too powerful. When Abraham spoke to God he fell down.

What God did was have Moses record his words on stone and in scrolls, that way the people could read his words without hearing them directly and without collapsing.

And you still have yet to provide any evidence for a million Jewish slaves in Egypt other than things like a list of names some of which sound like they might be Jewish.

How about actually backing up a claim for once, instead of just piling on more? Everything in your post quoted here is unsupported. Not to mention failing to address any of the things you've been questioned on before and ignored.

Theists, generally outnumbered by 15 to 1, keep answering to all questions and their answers are repeatedly dismissed or even ridiculed.

I respectfully suggest you review @dxld's history in this thread to see the refutation to that. The pattern is this:
1) Make wild claim.
2) Get called on it and asked to produce supporting evidence.
3a) Post something totally irrelevant in response or
3b) Ignore it and make yet another unsubstantiated claim (see above).