The Religion Discussion

[innovative audio]

Everybody has their own views on god but me being the most sceptical, i have learned that god is real, just because you dont see him that doesnt say that he isnt there. (like the wind). i have learnt that in one way or another you will see proof that he is real. u ever ask yourself why we are here and what is your purpose?
i must admit that i have personally denied that there wasnt a god but i have been convinced and all i can say is when he is ready for you to know him, He will!!!!!

[d spike]

what i write is 4 u to figure out
all great messages are all coded

GREAT messages????!?!? THIS??!?
Good grief. Talk about delusions of grandeur...
Absolute nonsense. This is the same errant and foolish belief that the Gnostics held. (As far as scripture is concerned, important "messages" are stated simply in order that it can be understood by all.)

good valuable information is never openly seen

(More Gnostic-sounding nonsense. Do you actually know what religion you are?) This discussion concerns religion. As far as religion is concerned, valuable information is written down for posterity - it goes by the name "scripture". Many religions encourage their adherents and prospective followers to read their scriptures.

u have not pm me

I see no reason to. I prefer to keep my public discussions public.

so u believe everything from an educated person

Of course not, don't be silly. I never said such a thing. However, an educated person has something to offer in a discussion - it is called "knowledge" and the acquisition of this is referred to as an "education" (hopefully, he would have acquired "wisdom" as well.) An uneducated person has no knowledge to offer, only experience... and his understanding of his experiences would be limited by the little knowledge that he has... so whatever he might have to offer in a debate (which is based on knowledge and rational thinking) could easily be likened to a man trying to quench his burning house by carrying water from a nearby river with his cupped hands.

i have posted some stuff some many not like i am sorry
any question hit me a pm

This is a public discussion. Why can you not answer the questions posed to you here? Clearly it has nothing to do with folks not liking what you might write - as in your mind you have done so already... and you certainly haven't gone half as far as others in annoying readers as others have done.

u have demons hunting u i may or try to help .

Wait a minute, this is you advertising your services?

i am no a voodoo man who go tell u go an buy albino skin and make mix it with lavender
oils and write what u want on a green candle
and read some psalm and hope d best
or try to help u get back your x girl nope

Aaalrighty then...


Why can't you answer this query? (Do I have to PM you for an answer for this too?)

my friend u are trying to bash the roman catholic church

Precisely WHERE did I bash (or try to bash) the RC Church???

[sMASH]

i remember the story about the changing of the focus of the location of prayer (quibla) but vaguely. i am trying to get the info from our perspective pertaining to it.

i appreciate the comment about islam trying to educate its members, but sadly this is not true. this religion is like the others in this regard. the only difference is that it emphasizes the importance of learning, retaining knowledge and analyzing that knowledge. the similarity is that it cannot teach its followers; the followers have to be willing to learn and verify to the best of their ability if they are learning what was intended. if u don't want to learn, nobody goin an force u, and if u being taught the wrong thing, u should put some effort to know if ur being misled.

there are many persons who follow this religion more closely than me ( i am a slacker), they recite the words, do the actions. they don't investigate it as sumting more with hidden messages, or even understand most of what they do, but they practise the routines more than me. i, on the other hand, try to analyze what i come across, compare it to other religions, in other words study it a lil more deeply. so, who is benefiting from this religion more? *rhetorical*



dtp, u is a more mad version of mega. u come off as a limited fanatic. u all for what u like, but don't know much about it, and understand even less.

[sweetiepaper]

'Knowing' and believing are two different concepts my friend.

Are they really? What is 'knowing'?

[d spike]

'Knowing' and believing are two different concepts my friend.

Are they really? What is 'knowing'?

'Knowing' is having knowledge, as compared to 'believing' which is having faith.
There is a big difference between the two.
Knowledge is facts that are accepted as being able to be proved.
Faith is the acceptance of that which cannot be proven.

It is unfortunate that the actual meaning of the word "know" is twisted by fervent neo-Christians, who claim to "know Jesus"... but despite their remonstrations, what they have experienced is firm belief , not knowledge - not unless they actually met him.

[dtp]

i am no a voodoo man who go tell u go an buy albino skin and make mix it with lavender
oils and write what u want on a green candle
and read some psalm and hope d best
or try to help u get back your x girl nope

Aaalrighty then...


u are clueless about evil my friend
the bible can b used in so many ways my friend
that's y i say don't put your faith into d bible

honestly take my words friend i no what i speak off
my grammar is not d best i admit

but my experience with dealing with spirits i no a lot about good and evil
god is their talk to him and praise him
and spread his name

[MG Man]

oh for fucksake man, use some proper fukking grammar

[sMASH]

hoss, your grammar is really bad. it is so bad that i try to figure out if the words u are using is the right word. i then get annoyed when the wrong word and spelling makes the sentence different from what u try to post.
e.g. when u type the word 'no' in the place of 'know' the meaning of the sentence is thrown off a lot, then i have to re-read the sentence and place it in a different context. keeping that same context in mind, i would read another of ur sentences and u use the word 'no' this time u actually mean 'no' but i thinking 'know'. so then realizing sum-ting-wong, i have to re read that sentence to get the proper intention.
if u substitute a shortened word like 'u' for the word 'you', the meaning of the sentence is kept the same, as the 'u' does not have another meaning so different from the word 'you'.
'no' cannot be used as a shortened form of 'know' because they have very different and specific meanings. 'knw' is accepted by some as a shortened form of 'know'. their and there are also words that should not be substituted for each other.

quite plainly, it is a chore trying to figure out the words that u are using and i get annoyed by the time i would have wanted to understand what u try to mean.

if you're trying to represent your side and spread the word, spread the correct word.for your own sake, if u want your posts to be read far less for taken seriously

[MG Man]

he's a fcuking moron

[d spike]

u are clueless about evil my friend

Precisely what makes you say this? Is it because of my focus on communication or logic? This is a public discussion, little one - not a prayer meeting.

This discussion was not about evil (re-read thread title). If you wish to discuss evil, then do so, by all means. Just don't talk a set of nonsense then get all defensive about it. I have worked in this field for a long time - long enough to be able to recognize the difference between a swell-headed lad who thinks far too much of a tragic experience and mistakes it for religion, and someone who has trod along a path and recognizes it for what it is.

I am far from "clueless" when it comes to evil... but my trials where these matters are concerned are not (in my opinion) for public consumption. I prefer my privacy.

If you had read my earlier posts - those written long before your "what if" bestiality scenario - then you would have gathered that my focus is on what is good in all of us, why we are here, the similarities that exist in the ways different folk approach that which they consider God. All this is linked directly to our purpose, and our relationship with God.
Focusing on evil tends to create two trends of thought:
a sense of "Battle-readiness" in those that think they know what they are dealing with;
a sense of "Fear" in those that don't know.
Try and remember that this is not behind closed doors, in the presence of like minds... this is a public discussion, where anyone can view. When hot-headed folk prepare for "battle", the first question they love to pose is: are you with us or against us? The first thing they do is take an aggressive stance! This automatically puts those who follow different ways of thinking and doing things in a defensive posture... How does this help them to see your point of view? Ask yourself also if "Fear" will ever positively encourage anyone.

So, as I have implied often before, if one is of the opinion that this thread can be used to encourage others to recognize that which is true and good, what sense is there in hitting some of your readers over the head with a stick?
In fact, if one believes in the devil, then certainly one would recognize that it is that very being who would encourage division among men, forcing them to focus elsewhere, rather than on their purpose as a creation. Stressing one's differences (and claiming superiority) just ensures fragmentation, pushing the goal of unity and charity further into the distance.

An old story goes that the devil and a friend are out walking. They spot a man some distance away reach down to the ground and pick up something, then run off joyfully with it. The friend says, "I wonder what it was that man found?"
The devil responds nonchalantly, "He found a bit of Truth."
"That doesn't bother you?" said his friend in surprise.
"Nahhh," said the devil, "I'll just let him make a religion out of it."

So, as far as evil is concerned, my friend, you seem to be doing a rather good job.
I would advise you to think before you post up a response.

[sweetiepaper]

'Knowing' is having knowledge, as compared to 'believing' which is having faith.
There is a big difference between the two.
Knowledge is facts that are accepted as being able to be proved.
Faith is the acceptance of that which cannot be proven.

It is unfortunate that the actual meaning of the word "know" is twisted by fervent neo-Christians, who claim to "know Jesus"... but despite their remonstrations, what they have experienced is firm belief , not knowledge - not unless they actually met him.

If i can prove something to Mr. A but not to Mr. B (he is not able to fully comprehend the info but he believes it anyways), what is this information representing? Knowledge or faith? Or is it dependent on the individual's reaction to it, that is, Mr. A knows but Mr. B believes it to be true?

[d spike]

he's a fcuking moron

Yuh see you?
If it wasn't fuh you an' yuh "Noah's Ark thread", I woulda nevah get myself into dis kinda discussion... but nooooo, not me... I nevah know wat good fuh meh...
Now I done get chain up (and yuh know how long it does take Ford engine tuh cool dong) an' all I have done since den is to quarrel like ah ol' fowl wit' all dem good n' holy fellahs, like Reverend mega and his exorcist pardnas...
When I should be encouraging dem so tuh take dey soap-box pulpit and go bombard the faithful and infidel alike from de street-corners wit' scripture, brimstone an' spit-boulders...

Poor megadoc... doing de Lawd's wuk, healin' de sick, (too busy to videotape any material to convince Duane) raising de dead, smiting de unrighteous (when last yuh hear from Illuminati, eh? Is smite he get smoted...)

Moron? Dat is me self.

[d spike]

'Knowing' is having knowledge, as compared to 'believing' which is having faith.
There is a big difference between the two.
Knowledge is facts that are accepted as being able to be proved.
Faith is the acceptance of that which cannot be proven.

It is unfortunate that the actual meaning of the word "know" is twisted by fervent neo-Christians, who claim to "know Jesus"... but despite their remonstrations, what they have experienced is firm belief , not knowledge - not unless they actually met him.

If i can prove something to Mr. A but not to Mr. B (he is not able to fully comprehend the info but he believes it anyways), what is this information representing? Knowledge or faith? Or is it dependent on the individual's reaction to it, that is, Mr. A knows but Mr. B believes it to be true?

That is an excellent question! (And here I was, daubing myself with the paint that misery provides... I owe you a bottle of wine for Christmas)
You are looking at the issue from the perspective of one of the "subjects" in the dilemma. This always tends to provide a skewed view, as each will have a different view.
Logic dictates that one must focus, not on someone's viewpoint of the matter, but on the matter itself.
If the information can be proven to be true, then it is "knowledge", such as "ice is frozen water".
Just because someone is not aware of this knowledge, doesn't lessen the fact that it is knowledge. (Did you know that the African tribesmen at the base of Kilimanjaro used to refer to the ice at the peak as "salt"? They had no word for "ice" - as they had no concept of ice.)

If you believe something to be true, but cannot prove it, then it is but a belief.

Look at the concept of the Earth's shape.
Pythagoras who lived about 600 BC, thought that all planets were round because the shape was more pleasing than flat ones.
Aristotle in 330 BC, provided more scientific reasoning that the earth and moon were round.
Who first proved the Earth was round is usually a toss-up between Aristarchus of Samos' proof using similar triangles in 300BC and Eratosthenes' use of spherical geometry in 200BC.
Magellan was the first person to "prove" the world was round by sailing around it - technically, he didn't sail around the world completely, as he used his anatomy to stop a few native spears somewhere in the Philippines, so it was the remnants of his crew on the only surviving ship of his fleet to reach back to Europe that proved the Earth was round.

So at which point did belief become knowledge?
However, you can appreciate that it was simply knowledge all the time - just unknown to man before a certain time.
In that same vein, theologians refer to this material existence (and its inhabitants of a similar nature) as "reality", while the awareness of God, heaven, hell and such are considered as "deeper realities". However, they are very clear on the concept of the awareness of deeper reality being based on Faith, as it cannot be proven at this time. One's awareness of the deeper reality, no matter the clarity, is still Belief... and thus it must be, for men must be drawn to goodness of their own free will and desire, not have it forced upon them by the sheer weight of fear.

One must choose, and be free to choose. If God could be proven to exist, then a man would have to be an utter fool to refuse to accept. Forgive the pun, but Damnation is a helluva thing.
Faith, belief, (not knowledge) is the key to choosing freely. (Knowledge is the key to choosing wisely, but that is for another time.)

Cheers

[morfire]

i can translate what dtp posted.

The bible can b use for both good and evil.

[sweetiepaper]

That is an excellent question! (And here I was, daubing myself with the paint that misery provides... I owe you a bottle of wine for Christmas)

Wonderful! I'll gladly welcome a nice chilled bottle of ice wine in time for Christmas Eve

You are looking at the issue from the perspective of one of the "subjects" in the dilemma. This always tends to provide a skewed view, as each will have a different view.
Logic dictates that one must focus, not on someone's viewpoint of the matter, but on the matter itself.

Isn't this type of logic sort of impossible for a human to obtain/have/practice? How can one focus on the matter itself without completely ignoring their own viewpoint? Any judgement one makes is going to be dependent on their past, education, experiences etc.

If the information can be proven to be true, then it is "knowledge", such as "ice is frozen water".

What constitutes 'proving' truth?

Just because someone is not aware of this knowledge, doesn't lessen the fact that it is knowledge.

Agreed.

(Did you know that the African tribesmen at the base of Kilimanjaro used to refer to the ice at the peak as "salt"? They had no word for "ice" - as they had no concept of ice.)

Learning something new everyday

If you believe something to be true, but cannot prove it, then it is but a belief.

So you are saying a belief can never be proven because if it could, it would be knowledge? Belief is completely ruled out of ever becoming knowledge when it's meaning states it can never be proven.

Look at the concept of the Earth's shape.
Pythagoras who lived about 600 BC, thought that all planets were round because the shape was more pleasing than flat ones.
Aristotle in 330 BC, provided more scientific reasoning that the earth and moon were round.
Who first proved the Earth was round is usually a toss-up between Aristarchus of Samos' proof using similar triangles in 300BC and Eratosthenes' use of spherical geometry in 200BC.
Magellan was the first person to "prove" the world was round by sailing around it - technically, he didn't sail around the world completely, as he used his anatomy to stop a few native spears somewhere in the Philippines, so it was the remnants of his crew on the only surviving ship of his fleet to reach back to Europe that proved the Earth was round.

So at which point did belief become knowledge?
However, you can appreciate that it was simply knowledge all the time - just unknown to man before a certain time.
In that same vein, theologians refer to this material existence (and its inhabitants of a similar nature) as "reality", while the awareness of God, heaven, hell and such are considered as "deeper realities". However, they are very clear on the concept of the awareness of deeper reality being based on Faith, as it cannot be proven at this time. One's awareness of the deeper reality, no matter the clarity, is still Belief... and thus it must be, for men must be drawn to goodness of their own free will and desire, not have it forced upon them by the sheer weight of fear.

Faith can be proven, but it depends on how much and what type of proof you need. And truly, people prove their faith everyday in all different things. When someone makes plans for the future, they have faith in a long life. You have faith in money which is why you have any at all. When you go to sleep tonight you have faith that you will wake up tomorrow. Living requires faith. I'm not sure if you have ever heard of people being clinically dead and visiting heaven and/or hell. The deepness of that reality, i'm assuming, would be all the proof one needs to have their belief become knowledge.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

merriam-webster.com/dictionary
faith noun \ˈfāth\
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Of course you can prove that someone has faith, however that is not what was being discussed. If there is no empirical evidence that something exists, then you need to have faith that it does exist if you wish to believe that it does!

if you could prove what someone believes in is true, then faith would no longer be needed.

On another note, as I stated earlier in this thread:
Believing something does not make it true.

[d spike]

You are looking at the issue from the perspective of one of the "subjects" in the dilemma. This always tends to provide a skewed view, as each will have a different view.
Logic dictates that one must focus, not on someone's viewpoint of the matter, but on the matter itself.

Isn't this type of logic sort of impossible for a human to obtain/have/practice? How can one focus on the matter itself without completely ignoring their own viewpoint? Any judgement one makes is going to be dependent on their past, education, experiences etc.

For the average human, most certainly yes! This is the reason why some folks spend their lives studying the writings of scholars (who in turn studied other scholars )
Seriously, here is the reason why schools of thought exist and debates take place, for one person's point of view can easily be skewed.
Generalization has to end here, in order for what I am saying to make sense. A church exists over time. Its teachings thread their way through people's lives and generations. Any religion that combatively opposes science in this day and age is one to steer clear of. The study of the creator (which is based on faith) should support and encourage the study of his creation (which is based on discovering proof, and therefore knowledge). Poor Galileo's treatment is proof of what nonsense can happen when this is not so.
Putting up a structure and then howling at people at regularly arranged meetings while pounding on scriptures (all the while passing the basket for tithes) is not what I am talking about.

If the information can be proven to be true, then it is "knowledge", such as "ice is frozen water".

What constitutes 'proving' truth?

Simply providing non-debatable proof (or nearly so - for you will always find the person who still believes that a snake will hold its tail in its mouth and roll like a hoop). Such proof must show that such a fact exists.

If you believe something to be true, but cannot prove it, then it is but a belief.

So you are saying a belief can never be proven because if it could, it would be knowledge? Belief is completely ruled out of ever becoming knowledge when it's meaning states it can never be proven.

Not so. "If you believe something to be true, but cannot prove it" refers to proving it at that point in time. Pythagoras lived with the belief that planets were round. He didn't know it, but he believed it.
For the sake of an argument, let us assume that the Christians are right.
At the end of time, man will realize that God is real. At this time "belief" will no longer exist, as the proof of God's existence will be plain for all to see - in other words, it will be common knowledge.

Hence the reason why it is stated of Faith, Hope and Love, that Love is the greatest. In the next life, Faith won't exist and neither will Hope. (Hope is the desire of things to come, and at that time, they will be present.) Love is the only one that will exist in the next life.

Faith can be proven, but it depends on how much and what type of proof you need. And truly, people prove their faith everyday in all different things. When someone makes plans for the future, they have faith in a long life. You have faith in money which is why you have any at all. When you go to sleep tonight you have faith that you will wake up tomorrow. Living requires faith. I'm not sure if you have ever heard of people being clinically dead and visiting heaven and/or hell. The deepness of that reality, i'm assuming, would be all the proof one needs to have their belief become knowledge.

It was never said that Faith can't be proven - Faith is intangible, abstract. The mere fact that one can claim to have faith, is proof of its existence. The question is not proof of faith, but proof of what that faith is focused on.
One's faith can make one believe in God, but the morons that assail us on every side - both the religious and irreligious ones - speak of proof of God, or "knowing" God.
Such proof does not exist. Do you say you believe in the existence of your mother? Of course not. You "know" her... No matter what certain people say about "knowing" God, they can show no such proof at this time.

As far as people recounting stories of visiting heaven and/or hell while being clinically dead, those experiences while being vivid, are just that... stories about personal experiences. They may seem quite real to the person, but they seem just as real to them as the little green man may seem to the junkie, or the snakes coming through the walls may seem to the madman.
Personal internal experiences are not proof, no matter how strongly one feels about them.

I am not knocking such experiences, just placing them in the right perspective. Faith is a fantastic gift, and if you have it and know how to develop it, it will make this singular experience of existence a most wonderful one for you. Each day is a repeat of a meaningless performance in survival for the faithless, but for the one with faith, it is yet another chance to get even closer in line with the glorious reason for our very existence.

Cheers

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

simply put: if there is proof then you would not need faith!

[sweetiepaper]

merriam-webster.com/dictionary
faith noun \ˈfāth\
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Of course you can prove that someone has faith, however that is not what was being discussed. If there is no empirical evidence that something exists, then you need to have faith that it does exist if you wish to believe that it does!

If you believe something exists, wouldn't this belief emerge from some sort of evidence/proof being experienced by you? Therefore, some type of evidence, which can be experienced by human senses, must exist for one to begin believing in something. It's not like you wake up and randomly decide to believe something is true or exists if you have no way of detecting it or knowledge of it's existence.


if you could prove what someone believes in is true, then faith would no longer be needed.
If something has been proven to you, but you are unable to communicate it to others, i can understand why the word faith would be used to describe your experience by those whom the experience cannot be proven to. eg. "He believes based on faith because we have no proof of this". But if it has been proven to you, then by you saying you believe in this something based on faith, wouldn't this be inaccurate since you have the evidence you need to believe? And hence,

simply put: if there is proof then you would not need faith!

[sweetiepaper]

Pythagoras lived with the belief that planets were round. He didn't know it, but he believed it.

Why did he believe it was round and not any other shape?

It was never said that Faith can't be proven - Faith is intangible, abstract. The mere fact that one can claim to have faith, is proof of its existence.

Can't the same be said about God? The mere fact that people claim to know God, is proof of His existence.

One's faith can make one believe in God,

Well, i don't think your faith makes you believe in God, your faith is the 'belief' that you have in God since He cannot be proven to everyone at this time.

As far as people recounting stories of visiting heaven and/or hell while being clinically dead, those experiences while being vivid, are just that... stories about personal experiences. They may seem quite real to the person, but they seem just as real to them as the little green man may seem to the junkie, or the snakes coming through the walls may seem to the madman.
Personal internal experiences are not proof, no matter how strongly one feels about them.
These personal experiences are not proof.

Then it comes back to how much proof is needed for something to become knowledge? How much people need to accept/ understand something in order for it to become knowledge?
Let's say over the next year, 95% of the world's population have these personal experiences which convince them God is real, that is, it is non-debatable proof among the 95%, yet they still cannot prove His existence to the remaining 5%. Wouldn't the majority say they have this knowledge of God's existence while the 5% have faith that God does not exist?

[d spike]

Pythagoras lived with the belief that planets were round. He didn't know it, but he believed it.

Why did he believe it was round and not any other shape?

Because he found round shapes more pleasing than flat ones. Seriously.

It was never said that Faith can't be proven - Faith is intangible, abstract. The mere fact that one can claim to have faith, is proof of its existence.

Can't the same be said about God? The mere fact that people claim to know God, is proof of His existence.

Simply put, faith is a feeling. So, once you feel it, it exists. I trust the concept of God is more to you than that of a feeling. This is a being you're talking about.

One's faith can make one believe in God,

Well, i don't think your faith makes you believe in God, your faith is the 'belief' that you have in God

Quite right! My phrasing was clumsy there. Yes, Faith IS the belief, not the causative factor.

Personal internal experiences are not proof, no matter how strongly one feels about them.

Then it comes back to how much proof is needed for something to become knowledge? How much people need to accept/ understand something in order for it to become knowledge?

You are confusing the acceptance of something as proof of that thing.
There is often a difference between the idiomatic use of a word and its actual meaning. Your use of the word "knowledge" involves applying it where its meaning is compromised.
(A simple example would be the meaning of "cool" or "bad" in everyday speech.)
Allow me to explain...
A fellow (let's call him Fred) believes in alien life on Mars. He truly believes that aliens live on that planet. Therefore, he accepts this as fact. That does not mean he has proof. Of course, Fred is so convinced of his belief, that he says, "I know they're out there."
While in chatting with friends, it's quite okay to use words loosely - informally, so to speak. (When you're liming, it's cool to slack off regarding the actual meaning of the words you use.) However, in discussions that involve the accurate use/explanation of concepts, one needs to be more precise in one's language.
(Back to the topic.)
No matter how many people accept something as truth, once there is NO proof, then it is just belief... it just happens to be a commonly held belief.

Regarding proof, it must be REAL. "Non-debatable proof" doesn't mean people don't debate it, it means that people find the proof so obvious or irrefutable that it doesn't warrant debate.

Let's say over the next year, 95% of the world's population have these personal experiences which convince them God is real, that is, it is non-debatable proof among the 95%, yet they still cannot prove His existence to the remaining 5%. Wouldn't the majority say they have this knowledge of God's existence while the 5% have faith that God does not exist?

Personal internal experiences are not proof, no matter how strongly one feels about them.

Their knowledge is the awareness of an experience, not the discovery of proof. (Remember what I said about accuracy.)

If you believe something exists, wouldn't this belief emerge from some sort of evidence/proof being experienced by you? Therefore, some type of evidence, which can be experienced by human senses, must exist for one to begin believing in something.

What may suffice as proof for you might not be sufficient for someone else... hence the use of the word evidence or irrefutable proof. (You don't have to convince anyone that the sky is blue, all they have to do is look up.) A woman who easily believes her son, just has to hear him say that he thinks a statement is right, and that's enough proof to convince her that the statement is correct. Clearly, there will be others who will need something more concrete.

It's not like you wake up and randomly decide to believe something is true or exists if you have no way of detecting it or knowledge of it's existence.

There you have it... the very essence of Faith! At some point you have to decide to believe without the presence of otherwise required proof or evidence!!!!
That is why I find those who are condescending towards atheists and agnostics very limited and immature in their thinking. They refuse to see the matter of faith from another person's view - a problem that will actually limit your faith's ability to develop.

But if it has been proven to you, then by you saying you believe in this something based on faith, wouldn't this be inaccurate since you have the evidence you need to believe?

I think you can now explain why this is wrong.

[sweetiepaper]

It was never said that Faith can't be proven - Faith is intangible, abstract. The mere fact that one can claim to have faith, is proof of its existence.

Can't the same be said about God? The mere fact that people claim to know God, is proof of His existence.

Simply put, faith is a feeling. So, once you feel it, it exists. I trust the concept of God is more to you than that of a feeling. This is a being you're talking about.

Yes, certainly much more than a feeling but one can feel God's presence or sense Him. While this may not be enough to prove His existence, wouldn't you say this is enough to at least entertain the thought that His existence is possible?

Personal internal experiences are not proof, no matter how strongly one feels about them.

Then it comes back to how much proof is needed for something to become knowledge? How much people need to accept/ understand something in order for it to become knowledge?

You are confusing the acceptance of something as proof of that thing. Regarding proof, it must be REAL. "Non-debatable proof" doesn't mean people don't debate it, it means that people find the proof so obvious or irrefutable that it doesn't warrant debate. What may suffice as proof for you might not be sufficient for someone else... hence the use of the word evidence or irrefutable proof. (You don't have to convince anyone that the sky is blue, all they have to do is look up.) A woman who easily believes her son, just has to hear him say that he thinks a statement is right, and that's enough proof to convince her that the statement is correct. Clearly, there will be others who will need something more concrete.

You are right in saying I am confusing acceptance of something as proof of that thing. This is because things are not always as simple and clear cut to prove as "the sky is blue". It would be impossible for someone to verify the proof for everything in life which is why the effort would not be made to do so and therefore, the reason it will be generally accepted as true. Some things would not be worth proving as well, depending on the individual's interest in the matter, since it has no significant impact on their lives. Other things will be too complex or be costly to go after.

Regarding your example of knowledge, you stated ice is frozen water. This fact is accepted as being able to be proved. Assume i don't know anything about this example, exactly what makes this example of fact reliable? I think you are suggesting a particular standard when it comes to construing what is fact and what is not. Your example is self evident and as such, if one were to focus on the example at a higher resolution level, it becomes clearer that the example itself does not show why this particular standard is true. My question is, what is this standard for proof regarding ice being frozen water? Can generalization of the proof from this specific example be teased out so that it can be reapplied in a broader context without compromising it's validity and reliability?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

merriam-webster.com/dictionary
faith noun \ˈfāth\
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Of course you can prove that someone has faith, however that is not what was being discussed. If there is no empirical evidence that something exists, then you need to have faith that it does exist if you wish to believe that it does!

If you believe something exists, wouldn't this belief emerge from some sort of evidence/proof being experienced by you? Therefore, some type of evidence, which can be experienced by human senses, must exist for one to begin believing in something. It's not like you wake up and randomly decide to believe something is true or exists if you have no way of detecting it or knowledge of it's existence.

if you could prove what someone believes in is true, then faith would no longer be needed.

If something has been proven to you, but you are unable to communicate it to others, i can understand why the word faith would be used to describe your experience by those whom the experience cannot be proven to. eg. "He believes based on faith because we have no proof of this". But if it has been proven to you, then by you saying you believe in this something based on faith, wouldn't this be inaccurate since you have the evidence you need to believe? And hence,

it depends on what you attribute that experience to be. A religious person would attribute good fortune as a blessing, and so they would believe that it was done because of God blessing them. they would then mentally assign this as proof that God exists according to you. A non-religious person would not see it as a blessing but a result of some other action based purely on logic.

In the end it was the exact same good fortune that happened to both people - none of which proved the existence of God though.

Believing in something does not make it true!

Taking it further, how would a Christian explain to a Hindu that is was not Lakshmi but Jesus who brought this blessing. how do they prove that?

That "feeling" you get in your heart is NOT proof. It is whatever you make it to be, consciously or unconsciously, in your head. Someone can feel strongly that aliens brought them great fortune, however it does not prove nor give empirical evidence that aliens even exist - though at times it may seem to be the more logical answer.

[d spike]

Yes, certainly much more than a feeling but one can feel God's presence or sense Him.

Due to your belief, the sensation you experience (hopefully often) might be described by you as "God's presence" - not the feeling itself. If you described the feeling to a doctor, he might ascribe it to specific chemicals (or some such wossnames) being released into your bloodstream - which I could point out to you that he could very well prove with a blood-test. A horrible old cynic like myself might point out to you that what you are experiencing is actually a lack of indigestion...

While this may not be enough to prove His existence, wouldn't you say this is enough to at least entertain the thought that His existence is possible?

Of COURSE!!!! Hence the reason why we have religion... Despite all my yakk, religion isn't based on intellectualism/rationalism (just supported by it )

It would be impossible for someone to verify the proof for everything in life which is why the effort would not be made to do so and therefore, the reason it will be generally accepted as true. Some things would not be worth proving as well, depending on the individual's interest in the matter, since it has no significant impact on their lives. Other things will be too complex or be costly to go after.

Regarding your example of knowledge, you stated ice is frozen water. This fact is accepted as being able to be proved. Assume i don't know anything about this example, exactly what makes this example of fact reliable? I think you are suggesting a particular standard when it comes to construing what is fact and what is not.

Quite right. After all the science books I have read as a child explaining the matter, I still cannot explain why the sky is blue (I would have to look it up). I have absolutely no idea how a computer works (I can explain an abacus, though) but I do understand how the motor-car works...
As a society, Man has accepted that when certain (acceptable) folks speak on a matter within their field of study, and they state that they have proof, then we are satisfied. However, it is when they rock the boat of accepted thinking (as poor Galileo found out) that their proof becomes heavily and closely scrutinized by all and sundry.
So, yes, a particular standard has been set by society as a whole. This goes for most aspects of society, acceptable clothing for example. If I walked down Frederick Street in my kilt, I would be the laughing stock of town! (Yet many fellows wrap their heads with panty-hose and no one makes a fuss - but I digress.)
A simple example is the difference between a sect and a religion. No matter how you dress it up, the response is the latter is accepted by one's society.

Your example is self evident and as such, if one were to focus on the example at a higher resolution level, it becomes clearer that the example itself does not show why this particular standard is true. My question is, what is this standard for proof regarding ice being frozen water? Can generalization of the proof from this specific example be teased out so that it can be reapplied in a broader context without compromising it's validity and reliability?

Self-evident examples are used to teach basic concepts. That way, one is certain for the concept to be understood.
Your query will take me back to my days of study (just as much as a child demanding of me to explain why the sky is blue) and I will have to go digging among my notes and other such mementos of a distant time (much fortified by brandy, of which I don't have any at this time - the saddest thing to see is an empty bottle)
Hopefully, somewhere between the acquisition of such a necessary supplement (accompanied by the mandatory quality testing) and the actual digging, Duane might answer your question...

[Kasey]

sweetiepaper,

If one didnt know of God, never heard any reference to a being even remotely similar to him (like the uncontacted tribes in the Amazon), how would they know him? Does a 'Godly feeling' come into them all of a sudden, and then they follow the path to Godliness?

On the other hand, you can bet ur life that they know, in their own language, that the sky is blue. You can bet ur life that they know that fire burns.

Proof of God, just because the masses believe, you say? I FEEL.....

[sMASH]

jehovia witness jam meh wit dis one dis mornin:

'u know satan was thrown out of heaven in 1942?'

'1942?'

'yeah, dais when the first world war started'

'u know the term "world war" is just a term used to describe a big war involving many nations, rite?'
'he geh throw out in 1942!!! and don't u think is coincidence that it have earthquake and famine and real wars, and jesus say so in the bible?'
well, with advancements of news media and instruments to measure plate tectonic activity, we can observe it better, and this info can be disseminated to more people, faster. so is not so much more, things goin on as we get to know about the things goin on more and faster.'

'any way, u know about jesus, spread de word'

'yeah, i'll spread it to those who would hear, and not be a bother to people.'


is like ah talking to a tape recorder,

[sMASH]

the quibla, or the focus of prayer.

at first it was the bayt al maqdas or jerusalem, then 16 months later and finally changed to the ka'bah in macca.

in most religions there is a focal point in worship, may it be an object of a geographical point. that of judaism and christianity, the two major monotheistic religions in the region at the time was jerusalem. the ka'bah was a focal point for the polytheistic religions at the time, housing many different idols. so that was enough to utilize jerusalem for islam.

the change to macca and the ka'bah came at a time islam grew stronger and its prominence could also afford it distinction, for muslims to have their own focal point.

there was another reason. many jews were in the folds of islam as spys. even though they pretended to follow the specifics of islam, they would not violate the cardinal act of praying towards a direction other than jerusalem
in changing the quibla, many false pretenders were removed.

the jews were very proud of belonging to the dominant religion at the time. they mocked that islam used their jerusalem as a focal point because they couldn't find one of their own. then the revelation was given to change to the ka'bah. the less faithful and the hypocrites did not change their direction of worship, saying that islam is weak an fickle and what not. so they were also made out, and islam's foot hold grew.

Surat Al-Baqarah 2: 142 The foolish among the people will say, "What has turned them away from their qiblah, which they used to face?" Say, "To Allah belongs the east and the west. He guides whom He wills to a straight path."
142 And thus we have made you a just community that you will be witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you. And We did not make the qiblah which you used to face except that We might make evident who would follow the Messenger from who would turn back on his heels. And indeed, it is difficult except for those whom Allah has guided. And never would Allah have caused you to lose your faith. Indeed Allah is, to the people, Kind and Merciful.

Surat Al-Baqarah 2: 177 Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah , the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous.

in trying to answer this, i got some insight into sumthing i brought up a while ago, that was performance of the formal structured prayer, compared to the performance of good deeds. and it is in surat al baqara 2:177 right there.

[mediahouse]

this ched still living?

non believers will keep on not believing and believers will keep on believing

simple as that

[Kasey]

^^^nope, not always. But that statement is understood coming from you.

[sweetiepaper]

it depends on what you attribute that experience to be. A religious person would attribute good fortune as a blessing, and so they would believe that it was done because of God blessing them. they would then mentally assign this as proof that God exists according to you. A non-religious person would not see it as a blessing but a result of some other action based purely on logic.

Not every experience leaves room for doubt. Some events are much clearer than you may be able to imagine.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but you are implying that religious people are illogical since their explanation involves God.
What then is logic?
Is it logical that water boils because enough energy is applied to it causing it to change from liquid to gas but illogical that water might be boiling because I want to have a cup of tea? Do you see that both reasons might be acceptable though at different levels? So too, while a religious person might attribute some fortune to be a blessing from God, they are not simultaneously denying the fortune as a playoff from natural causes. It's just that the perspective of the non-religious might be limited to natural causes.

Though religious people thank God for blessings, it is not to say that they ignore the causal factors responsible for a particular outcome. While at a mechanistic level it is plain to see an interplay of different factors as causal, it is equally possible to note that sometimes the interplay of these factors seem to work within a directed process-a process which, if parsed, still cannot reveal the very reason for that direction in which it seems to operate.

Believing in something does not make it true!
True that, but it is entirely equal that one can believe in something AND this belief also coincide with reality- to emphasize: one's belief does not MAKE that belief true, however one can have a belief in something that is totally congruent with reality- regardless of whether or not one knows how to prove it- we are learning more and more about reality everyday.

As i mentioned above, not all cases are unclear or leave room for doubt in that particular person's mind eg. near death experiences.

Taking it further, how would a Christian explain to a Hindu that is was not Lakshmi but Jesus who brought this blessing. how do they prove that?

To have such a discourse would to be to assume that one has already acknowledged the existence of God. I sense that you presently stand outside such a categorization and as such, any attempt at an answer will be appreciated by you as much as a blind man can appreciate the subtle changes in color of twinkling stars in the night sky. In other words, if you do not acknowledge God to begin with, neither will you credit any answer that subsumes His existence.

That "feeling" you get in your heart is NOT proof. It is whatever you make it to be, consciously or unconsciously, in your head. Someone can feel strongly that aliens brought them great fortune, however it does not prove nor give empirical evidence that aliens even exist - though at times it may seem to be the more logical answer.

Yes, a strong feeling is not proof. And as i asked d spike, what is proof? What is meant by proving something? Please explain what you mean by providing empirical evidence.