Author Archive for RobertPage 2 of 4

More Thoughts…

Published
by
Robert
on October 25, 2007
.
This will probably be a regurgitation of what others might have said, but it was something that hit me last night as I was pondering stuff while sitting in front of a nice little bond fire in the back yard last night and wanted to write it down.

I watched this debate between D'Souza and Hitchens and one of D'Souza's claims is that our morals came from christianity and that many of the great minds that founded science were also founded on christianity as well. Between this argument and a documentary that I watched on the History Channel called "A The History of God" got me thinking....

In the documentary they were showing how god evolved throughout the bible. The "Evolution" of god so to speak or if you prefer how our understanding of god changed through time. How the biblical patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc..) began the transition to a monotheistic religion and how god changed from knowable to unreachable or incomprehensible. They explained how the god started as El during the time of Abraham, then transitioned to a no name god when Jacob wrestled with him and won, then turned to a deliberate vague god with Moses by answering Moses's question as to what god's name is with Eyeh Asher Eyeh: "I am what I am"; A mysterious phrase, A Hebrew idiom of deliberate vagueness. Again this happen because in those days knowing a gods name gave you power over that god. I'm not going to do a full review of this show, but my point is there is clear evidence of how god changed over time to become what we know and don't know about god. This boils down to the simple concept that no one can grasp a new idea without growing it from the old ones. Something that we see when we look at the history of god. He started as El a knowable god and ended up unknowable as well as personal.

So, as I thought about this evolving of god I thought hey wait a minute. If the concept of god can evolve over time. Why can't the same be said of morals, and values? Not only that, but if new ideas and concepts must be grown out of old ones within the same confines of the current environment or belief systems, then surly the same is true with morals and values. Realizing that god is not going to provide all the answers, and is not THE answer to all unanswerable questions forces one to no longer rely on a god, but to rely on other people. The transition to this line of thought would then force people to admit they do not know everything and through communication with other people they would learn that other people can also have value. Not to mention the morals and values that developed around the same time in other religions.

And this leads me to contemplate other issues as well. If we ideas are grown from old ones, witch is very clear throughout history. In every field of science, math, philosophy, astronomy, even theology we can see how ideas and concepts were born then evolved to what we have today from within the confines of the idea's in their own times. So, when someone tells me Einstein was a believer it really does not shock me. I would not be surprised if Einstein used wording that was vague as to his beliefs. Look at the time in witch they lived. They were trying to breed new thought from existing idea's in order for those thoughts to be taken seriously they had to find common ground with the majority. In my opinion, if any of these excellent thinkers of their times were here today it would be very unlikely they would be theists at all.

I'm sure you've heard the old adage that great minds think alike. I disagree with that statement, I think great minds simply think.

More Thoughts…

Published
by
Robert
on October 25, 2007
.
This will probably be a regurgitation of what others might have said, but it was something that hit me last night as I was pondering stuff while sitting in front of a nice little bond fire in the back yard last night and wanted to write it down.

I watched this debate between D'Souza and Hitchens and one of D'Souza's claims is that our morals came from christianity and that many of the great minds that founded science were also founded on christianity as well. Between this argument and a documentary that I watched on the History Channel called "A The History of God" got me thinking....

In the documentary they were showing how god evolved throughout the bible. The "Evolution" of god so to speak or if you prefer how our understanding of god changed through time. How the biblical patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc..) began the transition to a monotheistic religion and how god changed from knowable to unreachable or incomprehensible. They explained how the god started as El during the time of Abraham, then transitioned to a no name god when Jacob wrestled with him and won, then turned to a deliberate vague god with Moses by answering Moses's question as to what god's name is with Eyeh Asher Eyeh: "I am what I am"; A mysterious phrase, A Hebrew idiom of deliberate vagueness. Again this happen because in those days knowing a gods name gave you power over that god. I'm not going to do a full review of this show, but my point is there is clear evidence of how god changed over time to become what we know and don't know about god. This boils down to the simple concept that no one can grasp a new idea without growing it from the old ones. Something that we see when we look at the history of god. He started as El a knowable god and ended up unknowable as well as personal.

So, as I thought about this evolving of god I thought hey wait a minute. If the concept of god can evolve over time. Why can't the same be said of morals, and values? Not only that, but if new ideas and concepts must be grown out of old ones within the same confines of the current environment or belief systems, then surly the same is true with morals and values. Realizing that god is not going to provide all the answers, and is not THE answer to all unanswerable questions forces one to no longer rely on a god, but to rely on other people. The transition to this line of thought would then force people to admit they do not know everything and through communication with other people they would learn that other people can also have value. Not to mention the morals and values that developed around the same time in other religions.

And this leads me to contemplate other issues as well. If we ideas are grown from old ones, witch is very clear throughout history. In every field of science, math, philosophy, astronomy, even theology we can see how ideas and concepts were born then evolved to what we have today from within the confines of the idea's in their own times. So, when someone tells me Einstein was a believer it really does not shock me. I would not be surprised if Einstein used wording that was vague as to his beliefs. Look at the time in witch they lived. They were trying to breed new thought from existing idea's in order for those thoughts to be taken seriously they had to find common ground with the majority. In my opinion, if any of these excellent thinkers of their times were here today it would be very unlikely they would be theists at all.

I'm sure you've heard the old adage that great minds think alike. I disagree with that statement, I think great minds simply think.

Wintessing and The Kirby Salesman

Published
by
Robert
on October 16, 2007
.
After my previous posts, I was doing some more thinking and it occured to me that the kirby salesman (or almost any door to door sales) and christian witnessing have a lot in common.
  1. They knock on your door at the most inconvenient times
  2. They are only there to sell you something to gain something in return
  3. They begin to present their case by showing you how it has helped them and others
  4. They will show you the dangers of not having their product
  5. They will sometimes measure their product against others to show how theirs is so much more powerful
  6. They attempt to use fear to ensure you side with them that their product is better
  7. They will offer you a reward by acting today
  8. They try to break your will to say no by continuing to stay long after they are no longer welcome.
  9. They will show plenty of documentation to back up what they are saying
  10. If by chance you do say no they attempt to influence you by saying something to the affect that your lifestyle and the way you live is completely filthy and maybe one day you will realize the benefits of their product and come back to them.
That was just a few that I had come up with in the last 20 or so min thinking about it. Quite humorous lol..

Wintessing and The Kirby Salesman

Published
by
Robert
on October 16, 2007
.
After my previous posts, I was doing some more thinking and it occured to me that the kirby salesman (or almost any door to door sales) and christian witnessing have a lot in common.
  1. They knock on your door at the most inconvenient times
  2. They are only there to sell you something to gain something in return
  3. They begin to present their case by showing you how it has helped them and others
  4. They will show you the dangers of not having their product
  5. They will sometimes measure their product against others to show how theirs is so much more powerful
  6. They attempt to use fear to ensure you side with them that their product is better
  7. They will offer you a reward by acting today
  8. They try to break your will to say no by continuing to stay long after they are no longer welcome.
  9. They will show plenty of documentation to back up what they are saying
  10. If by chance you do say no they attempt to influence you by saying something to the affect that your lifestyle and the way you live is completely filthy and maybe one day you will realize the benefits of their product and come back to them.
That was just a few that I had come up with in the last 20 or so min thinking about it. Quite humorous lol..

Atheist Conversions

Published
by
Robert
on October 16, 2007
.
I absolutely love these stories. Read this today from "Kill The Afterlife: Atheist Turned Christian" The claim of a christian saying they were just like me an atheist! My initial knee jerk reaction is "Oh really? Apparently you were not just like me otherwise you would not have been converted?" It's always so interesting to hear their testimony on how they used to be atheist but the found god. Most of the time there was some traumatic event or instant revelation personally that suddenly caused them to loose all sense of reason thus proving god was working in their lives personally. It reminds me how kirk cameron uses this same ploy to try to convert people. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what is or is not an atheist. What kills me is the thinking that being an atheist means we automatically share some type of bond. No offense to the other atheists out there, but if we ever met out somewhere in the real world and it came out that you were an atheist as well. I seriously doubt it would change how I perceive you. Sure knowing that would tell me we could probably have some healthy conversations, but I'm sure we would have probably already been into some type of good conversation by the time that information came to light :) Again my point is this is just another strategy of winning souls for god. It's no different than the Rainsoft salesman that walks in the door. Within the first few minutes you have to find some camaraderie, something that will identify with the "target" in order for them to let their guard down. This makes it easier to persuade them to your thinking, maybe even play on some emotions. Basic sales and persuasion techniques 101.

Atheist Conversions

Published
by
Robert
on October 16, 2007
.
I absolutely love these stories. Read this today from "Kill The Afterlife: Atheist Turned Christian" The claim of a christian saying they were just like me an atheist! My initial knee jerk reaction is "Oh really? Apparently you were not just like me otherwise you would not have been converted?" It's always so interesting to hear their testimony on how they used to be atheist but the found god. Most of the time there was some traumatic event or instant revelation personally that suddenly caused them to loose all sense of reason thus proving god was working in their lives personally. It reminds me how kirk cameron uses this same ploy to try to convert people. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what is or is not an atheist. What kills me is the thinking that being an atheist means we automatically share some type of bond. No offense to the other atheists out there, but if we ever met out somewhere in the real world and it came out that you were an atheist as well. I seriously doubt it would change how I perceive you. Sure knowing that would tell me we could probably have some healthy conversations, but I'm sure we would have probably already been into some type of good conversation by the time that information came to light :) Again my point is this is just another strategy of winning souls for god. It's no different than the Rainsoft salesman that walks in the door. Within the first few minutes you have to find some camaraderie, something that will identify with the "target" in order for them to let their guard down. This makes it easier to persuade them to your thinking, maybe even play on some emotions. Basic sales and persuasion techniques 101.

Incompreisible, Unfathomable, Unknowable

Published
by
Robert
on October 16, 2007
.
I'm sure everyone at some point has encountered this situation when discussing god with a believer. Especially after you've made a very compelling case against them that they are not able to ignore. Their typical reply? You just don't understand, god is beyond our comprehension, beyond our understanding, beyond our imagination. We simply can't even know who or what he is. I find this funny as hell honestly. I liken this to those discussion when you were 3.. you know the ones.. "Oh yea, well I say yes times infinity" then the friend would reply "Oh yea, well I say times infinity times infinity!" aaahh such fun..
The problem is most religions have already defined what god is and what god is not. Therefore they have already built the construct for what god must be. I'm sure it is convenient when faced with obvious facts to the contrary to say god is all things unknowable, and yet still be everywhere, know everything, yadda yadda. By bringing spirituality into the mix they are able to convince themselves that there is "More than Meets the Eye" to god. Personally, I think spirituality is nothing more than another emotional state.
To duplicate this what if I told you last night I was lying on the ground star gazing and saw the most indescribable view of the universe. The stars were unimaginably bright, the constellations were unfathomably vivid. The view literally took my breath away and at that moment I felt connected to the entire universe. In this instance you know the parameters of what was viewed, and seen, so the construct is there. The rest could be embellishment, or simply the emotional state I was in when viewing the sky. My point is together we could view a thousand other night sky's and with this definition I just gave, I could always say that this particular night could never be duplicated and you would never be able to fully comprehend it.
This may be an over simplification when it comes to god, but I don't think so. Instead of something tangible and viewable they simply replace the night sky with nothing and add stuff that we are aware of. For example relating god to the ether to explain his ability to be omnipresent etc.
My thought is that religion is simply a tool of persuasion that plays on emotions in order to bring people together for a goal. The men who created the first religions wanted to ensure their powers over others by use of something greater. Unfortunately, I think this is still the case with religion. It's a measure of control over people. Goto any church, and I guarantee you a majority if not all of the parishioners will show submission to that pastor. For that matter check out the definition of reverend when used as an adjective: worthy of adoration or reverence

Just some more of my thoughts for today... ;)

Incompreisible, Unfathomable, Unknowable

Published
by
Robert
on October 16, 2007
.
I'm sure everyone at some point has encountered this situation when discussing god with a believer. Especially after you've made a very compelling case against them that they are not able to ignore. Their typical reply? You just don't understand, god is beyond our comprehension, beyond our understanding, beyond our imagination. We simply can't even know who or what he is. I find this funny as hell honestly. I liken this to those discussion when you were 3.. you know the ones.. "Oh yea, well I say yes times infinity" then the friend would reply "Oh yea, well I say times infinity times infinity!" aaahh such fun..
The problem is most religions have already defined what god is and what god is not. Therefore they have already built the construct for what god must be. I'm sure it is convenient when faced with obvious facts to the contrary to say god is all things unknowable, and yet still be everywhere, know everything, yadda yadda. By bringing spirituality into the mix they are able to convince themselves that there is "More than Meets the Eye" to god. Personally, I think spirituality is nothing more than another emotional state.
To duplicate this what if I told you last night I was lying on the ground star gazing and saw the most indescribable view of the universe. The stars were unimaginably bright, the constellations were unfathomably vivid. The view literally took my breath away and at that moment I felt connected to the entire universe. In this instance you know the parameters of what was viewed, and seen, so the construct is there. The rest could be embellishment, or simply the emotional state I was in when viewing the sky. My point is together we could view a thousand other night sky's and with this definition I just gave, I could always say that this particular night could never be duplicated and you would never be able to fully comprehend it.
This may be an over simplification when it comes to god, but I don't think so. Instead of something tangible and viewable they simply replace the night sky with nothing and add stuff that we are aware of. For example relating god to the ether to explain his ability to be omnipresent etc.
My thought is that religion is simply a tool of persuasion that plays on emotions in order to bring people together for a goal. The men who created the first religions wanted to ensure their powers over others by use of something greater. Unfortunately, I think this is still the case with religion. It's a measure of control over people. Goto any church, and I guarantee you a majority if not all of the parishioners will show submission to that pastor. For that matter check out the definition of reverend when used as an adjective: worthy of adoration or reverence

Just some more of my thoughts for today... ;)

Join a Church??

Published
by
Robert
on October 15, 2007
.
Presbyterians grapple with question: who should be allowed to join the church?

What a cool idea... I've often thought about picking a church and attending. I've joked about this with the wife often, usually on a Sunday morning around 10am I'd roll over in the bed and say "Honey, why don't we go to church this morning" .. Usually, the reply is "I'd rather stay here in bed." or just as sarcastically as I said it she will say "Sure, I'll get dress.." hehe.. Anyway, I've considered going just for the socialization.. But then I realize it would not last very long. The first time someone asked me a question, or the pastor started asking me about my salvation things might get interesting. I would find it difficult for me to respond in the manner they expect, not to say that I couldn't, but if I did it would simply be to pacify them and I'm not one that condones agreeing with someone just to keep the peace or the "Status Quo". On the other hand it would be interesting to see what types of conversations could be brought up...

I give this guy some kudos.. Apparently, not only did he attend the services regularly, but he became a member (I wonder if there was a fee?) Anyway, I was just curious if anyone else considered attending a service strictly for the social interaction? Or have you considered joining a church just to be the inquisitive mind asking the questions no one else in the congregation would dare to ask the (Sheep in wolves clothing)? And I'm not talking about the just visiting various churches, I'm mean attending regularly, partaking in the social events, etc. Where I live there is little hope of starting a successful "Free Thought" group, but there are plenty of religious organizations around here to proselytize I mean attend :)

Join a Church??

Published
by
Robert
on October 15, 2007
.
Presbyterians grapple with question: who should be allowed to join the church?

What a cool idea... I've often thought about picking a church and attending. I've joked about this with the wife often, usually on a Sunday morning around 10am I'd roll over in the bed and say "Honey, why don't we go to church this morning" .. Usually, the reply is "I'd rather stay here in bed." or just as sarcastically as I said it she will say "Sure, I'll get dress.." hehe.. Anyway, I've considered going just for the socialization.. But then I realize it would not last very long. The first time someone asked me a question, or the pastor started asking me about my salvation things might get interesting. I would find it difficult for me to respond in the manner they expect, not to say that I couldn't, but if I did it would simply be to pacify them and I'm not one that condones agreeing with someone just to keep the peace or the "Status Quo". On the other hand it would be interesting to see what types of conversations could be brought up...

I give this guy some kudos.. Apparently, not only did he attend the services regularly, but he became a member (I wonder if there was a fee?) Anyway, I was just curious if anyone else considered attending a service strictly for the social interaction? Or have you considered joining a church just to be the inquisitive mind asking the questions no one else in the congregation would dare to ask the (Sheep in wolves clothing)? And I'm not talking about the just visiting various churches, I'm mean attending regularly, partaking in the social events, etc. Where I live there is little hope of starting a successful "Free Thought" group, but there are plenty of religious organizations around here to proselytize I mean attend :)

Good Deed/s…

Published
by
Robert
on October 13, 2007
.
Just the other day the family and I went to SAM's to pick up some supplies, as we were leaving I heard a very familiar sound.. (I tend to always drive with the window down) Anyway, it was the sound of an engine failing to have enough juice to ignite the fuel. Immediately, I stopped the truck and began looking around. Then threw the truck in reverse, slowly backing up to see if I could spot this sound and verify my suspicions. Sure enough "bingo" I noticed a red ford ranger with 2 people in it. The man already a cell phone to his ear attempting to find someone to help. I waved to the gentleman and asked if he could use a jump. His facial expression changed from disparity to excitement instantly. Since I always carry jumper cables in the truck I was more than happy to help this man and his wife. I mean hell it takes me what 5 or so min to pull up, jump out of the truck, connect the cables and BAM he and I are both on our merry ways.
In all honesty this is not really a rarity for me. Anytime I see someone on the side of the road, hood up, or someone walking down an isolated road with a gas can in hand.. I will usually give them a lift or see if they need help. What is shocking to me is the fact that so few other people put forth this simple gesture of concern for others. What is quite humorous, is that when I mention this gesture of kindness to others to those I know personally of a religious faith, their response is usually surprising. Instead of seeing the "Good Samaritan" side of this act, their initial reply would be something like, "Well, you just never know.. They might have a gun, or want to rob you". How pathetic, so they don't help people because they are afraid it's a muse? You would think their "god" would protect them... Of all the various people I've helped, I've yet to find one that was "faking" being broken down. So, if you see someone in need take the 5 or 10 min to see if you can help. I'd be willing to bet if everyone did just a little something to help others as cliché as it might sound the world truly would be a better place. We shouldn't be fearful of doing something kind.... Just some thoughts for today...

Good Deed/s…

Published
by
Robert
on October 13, 2007
.
Just the other day the family and I went to SAM's to pick up some supplies, as we were leaving I heard a very familiar sound.. (I tend to always drive with the window down) Anyway, it was the sound of an engine failing to have enough juice to ignite the fuel. Immediately, I stopped the truck and began looking around. Then threw the truck in reverse, slowly backing up to see if I could spot this sound and verify my suspicions. Sure enough "bingo" I noticed a red ford ranger with 2 people in it. The man already a cell phone to his ear attempting to find someone to help. I waved to the gentleman and asked if he could use a jump. His facial expression changed from disparity to excitement instantly. Since I always carry jumper cables in the truck I was more than happy to help this man and his wife. I mean hell it takes me what 5 or so min to pull up, jump out of the truck, connect the cables and BAM he and I are both on our merry ways.
In all honesty this is not really a rarity for me. Anytime I see someone on the side of the road, hood up, or someone walking down an isolated road with a gas can in hand.. I will usually give them a lift or see if they need help. What is shocking to me is the fact that so few other people put forth this simple gesture of concern for others. What is quite humorous, is that when I mention this gesture of kindness to others to those I know personally of a religious faith, their response is usually surprising. Instead of seeing the "Good Samaritan" side of this act, their initial reply would be something like, "Well, you just never know.. They might have a gun, or want to rob you". How pathetic, so they don't help people because they are afraid it's a muse? You would think their "god" would protect them... Of all the various people I've helped, I've yet to find one that was "faking" being broken down. So, if you see someone in need take the 5 or 10 min to see if you can help. I'd be willing to bet if everyone did just a little something to help others as cliché as it might sound the world truly would be a better place. We shouldn't be fearful of doing something kind.... Just some thoughts for today...

Religion and Politics…..

Published
by
Robert
on September 24, 2007
.
....And why they should not be intermingled, even in a small town. This incredible display of "chrisitan" character absolutely disgusting!

City Commission Meeting Turns Ugly

They should make excellent commissioners! I just hope the citizens remember this later, and if they don't... you can be damn sure I'll still have this post around to remind them.

One of the great things I did notice about this election, is that the "Good ole Boy" network is loosing strength in this town. The final tally for mayor was only a difference of 15 votes.. 49% to 51% at least that shows that the town is growing closer to becoming more progressive. Hopefully, in another 4yrs, enough new people might move in and finally wipe out the old school of thought and actually bring about the much needed change in this area.

Religion and Politics…..

Published
by
Robert
on September 24, 2007
.
....And why they should not be intermingled, even in a small town. This incredible display of "chrisitan" character absolutely disgusting!

City Commission Meeting Turns Ugly

They should make excellent commissioners! I just hope the citizens remember this later, and if they don't... you can be damn sure I'll still have this post around to remind them.

One of the great things I did notice about this election, is that the "Good ole Boy" network is loosing strength in this town. The final tally for mayor was only a difference of 15 votes.. 49% to 51% at least that shows that the town is growing closer to becoming more progressive. Hopefully, in another 4yrs, enough new people might move in and finally wipe out the old school of thought and actually bring about the much needed change in this area.

I’ve got mail (Feedback Welcome)

Published
by
Robert
on September 12, 2007
.
I'm posting this because I'd like to hear how others might have responded.

I recently received this in my inbox:
I found your site. Your definition of faith is flawed, because it assumes that all faith is flawed. Emotion about an irrational notion or a false notion is certainly a problem. But faith is something that you use all the time whether you are rational or not to find truth about things that are true.

For example, I have faith in the future. The future is something that hasn't happened yet, because I cannot yet see it. But that doesn't mean that it isn't real, because it will shortly present itself. And from past experience, I know that it is real, because it has presented itself previously. And it takes faith for me to believe that it will continue to present itself. And wait, what is that? Woah, the future just became the present, and I believed it would, and hey, I was right! And I just proved it. Because the future just became the present. See the mental exercise there? Faith is useful when based on the truth. A hypothesis is faith, because its hope in that which is not seen, but which might be true, and if proven, then it is true. A natural law is a proven fact that started out with a hypothesis that is now proven. Therefore your definition of faith is fundamentally flawed, because the principle of faith is interwoven with science. You just have just dismissed it entirely in the realm of religion, because you have dismissed religion entirely. If you don't believe in religion, you should just say so, but don't trash on faith. Faith is something that you can't do away with, because it is fact when it is used with something that is true.

Faith, or the HYPOTHESIS, opened the way to every discovery in science. Faith is the CREATIVITY that brought about the reason for doing the EXPERIMENTATION, that let to the DISCOVERIES in science. Therefore, I challenge your fundamental definition of faith. If you hate religion, just say so. If you don't believe in God, because you don't believe in something that the scientific method can't touch, then just say so. But you can't trash on faith, because it is the core principle behind the scientific method.

Now, how do you get to know God? Not through the experimentations of science, but through spiritual experimentation. If you don't believe in that, then it is simply because you haven't done the experimentation, and you haven't had the true desire to experiment to get the result that would yield fruit. Therefore I challenge your notion that God and religion is something deluded or irrational, because you haven't used the principles of the scientific method to prove that your assertion is so. And you can't use the tools in your lab to scientifically prove God is there. You have to scientifically pray.

A believer and knower of a scientific and rational God,
XXXXXX

I pondered over this email for awhile and decided to respond as follows:

Hello XXXXXX,
Thanks for visiting my site, and taking some time to send an email. I appreciate your input, however, all you have really done here is prove your lack of understanding not only in the definition of faith, but in your definition of a hypothesis and your complete disregard for the scientific method.
You are attempting to integrate faith into logic and the 2 are mutually exclusive. Time or "The Future" does not require faith. The mental exercise you so sarcastically presented really proves nothing. Why not attempt to prove this with some evidence? How could we possibly do this without faith? To begin with we would have to create a hypothesis based on observable repeatable evidence (A hypothesis is simply an educated guess based on observable evidence it is not faith) from there we could make a prediction and based on the results we should be able to share this evidence with others to verify our observations in order to validate our initial hypothesis. I'm sure you can figure the rest out.... We could use our rising sun as the basis, the fact that we grow older, etc.. So, you see no "faith" is required. Faith is never based on "Truth". It is however something required to believe in something that has no evidence.

PS. "You have to scientifically pray" is probably the funniest thing I've heard in awhile... Thanks!

I'm providing you with a few links that may clear up your understanding of the scientific method..
Sincerely,
Robert

And now for his reply:

You sound a bit overconfident in yourself. Let me quote from dictionary.com since you reject the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith ):

14 results for: faith

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
faith

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

The relevant results here for a secular definition of faith (outside of a religious context) are 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9, and all back up my points in my original email.

Therefore, this refutes your argument on faith, and shows that my definition was perfectly fine. Further, reference #2, specifically backs up the fact that having confidence in the ultimate result of a hypothesis, and the proposal of a hypothesis, is indeed an act of faith. Therefore you are simply wrong. Faith is a HOPE of truth. Faith is always based on something that you hope turns out to be true, and is useful when that which is hoped for does turn out to be true, just as a scientist hopes that his hypothesis turns out to be true once tested. Therefore you are plain wrong.

Faith is a principle of reality that is based upon a guess that you hope for might turn out to be true, and if it does turn out to be true, then the faith was useful. This principle can be used in a secular context just as easily as a religious context. Just because you reject the religious context out of hand doesn't justify dismissing its usefulness in a secular context. Therefore, the fact that it is used in conjunction with a hypothesis means that it is a core piece of the scientific method and you are now refuted. Don't argue with me. Go argue with the dictionary.

Now, in a religious context, if you don't believe something to be true, and it does turn out to be true on judgment day, then you are damned because you didn't care to attempt to find out if it was true before judgment day.

Now, in the scientific method, facts are found out by the use of observation of observable phenomena. The problem with spiritual things is that they are not observable phenomena, and are usually only discernible by their effects, not unlike dark matter and dark energy. How do you use the scientific method with spiritual things? By spiritual experimentation. First, you must have a desire to know if spiritual things really do exist, and if they do, then you must want to know if God exists. If you don't care, then don't bother. But you should know first of all why it would be useful for you to know why God exists.

Many Christians are absolutely wrong about the reason for existence. Is it really to serve God as the religious people that originally indoctrinated you tried to drill into you? No. That is only something that you end up doing because you want to, that is, if you end up being happy in the state you end up being in. Happiness is the design and purpose of our existence. Misery is not.

What makes you happy right now? And what is lasting happiness? What if you die and then you haven't prepared to be happy after death? Let's say for the sake of argument that your mind is an immortal thing that cannot be destroyed, just as light is, or matter is. If your mind is indeed going to outlive your body, and is actually an independent entity that cannot be destroyed, doesn't it make sense to find out ahead of time before you can't do anything about it, and haven't prepared for the eventuality?
My last reply was as follows:
Interesting argument. In your honor, I will rename my "Definition for Faith" on my website to "A Religious Definition of Faith".

I still have my doubts as to your conclusion and your use of the term faith, but i have read where this argument has been made before.

Thank you for your feedback.

Robert

Now, if you happen to make it through all of that... What do you think? He brought up truth, yet I don't recall mentioning anything about truth. Any hypothesis has an equal chance of being true as it does being false prior to being verified who says the one hypothesizing wants it to be true or false? Anyway, I had so many thoughts on this that I simply didn't know where to begin, so i figured I'd share and see what others thought as well.

I’ve got mail (Feedback Welcome)

Published
by
Robert
on September 12, 2007
.
I'm posting this because I'd like to hear how others might have responded.

I recently received this in my inbox:
I found your site. Your definition of faith is flawed, because it assumes that all faith is flawed. Emotion about an irrational notion or a false notion is certainly a problem. But faith is something that you use all the time whether you are rational or not to find truth about things that are true.

For example, I have faith in the future. The future is something that hasn't happened yet, because I cannot yet see it. But that doesn't mean that it isn't real, because it will shortly present itself. And from past experience, I know that it is real, because it has presented itself previously. And it takes faith for me to believe that it will continue to present itself. And wait, what is that? Woah, the future just became the present, and I believed it would, and hey, I was right! And I just proved it. Because the future just became the present. See the mental exercise there? Faith is useful when based on the truth. A hypothesis is faith, because its hope in that which is not seen, but which might be true, and if proven, then it is true. A natural law is a proven fact that started out with a hypothesis that is now proven. Therefore your definition of faith is fundamentally flawed, because the principle of faith is interwoven with science. You just have just dismissed it entirely in the realm of religion, because you have dismissed religion entirely. If you don't believe in religion, you should just say so, but don't trash on faith. Faith is something that you can't do away with, because it is fact when it is used with something that is true.

Faith, or the HYPOTHESIS, opened the way to every discovery in science. Faith is the CREATIVITY that brought about the reason for doing the EXPERIMENTATION, that let to the DISCOVERIES in science. Therefore, I challenge your fundamental definition of faith. If you hate religion, just say so. If you don't believe in God, because you don't believe in something that the scientific method can't touch, then just say so. But you can't trash on faith, because it is the core principle behind the scientific method.

Now, how do you get to know God? Not through the experimentations of science, but through spiritual experimentation. If you don't believe in that, then it is simply because you haven't done the experimentation, and you haven't had the true desire to experiment to get the result that would yield fruit. Therefore I challenge your notion that God and religion is something deluded or irrational, because you haven't used the principles of the scientific method to prove that your assertion is so. And you can't use the tools in your lab to scientifically prove God is there. You have to scientifically pray.

A believer and knower of a scientific and rational God,
XXXXXX

I pondered over this email for awhile and decided to respond as follows:

Hello XXXXXX,
Thanks for visiting my site, and taking some time to send an email. I appreciate your input, however, all you have really done here is prove your lack of understanding not only in the definition of faith, but in your definition of a hypothesis and your complete disregard for the scientific method.
You are attempting to integrate faith into logic and the 2 are mutually exclusive. Time or "The Future" does not require faith. The mental exercise you so sarcastically presented really proves nothing. Why not attempt to prove this with some evidence? How could we possibly do this without faith? To begin with we would have to create a hypothesis based on observable repeatable evidence (A hypothesis is simply an educated guess based on observable evidence it is not faith) from there we could make a prediction and based on the results we should be able to share this evidence with others to verify our observations in order to validate our initial hypothesis. I'm sure you can figure the rest out.... We could use our rising sun as the basis, the fact that we grow older, etc.. So, you see no "faith" is required. Faith is never based on "Truth". It is however something required to believe in something that has no evidence.

PS. "You have to scientifically pray" is probably the funniest thing I've heard in awhile... Thanks!

I'm providing you with a few links that may clear up your understanding of the scientific method..
Sincerely,
Robert

And now for his reply:

You sound a bit overconfident in yourself. Let me quote from dictionary.com since you reject the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith ):

14 results for: faith

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
faith

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

The relevant results here for a secular definition of faith (outside of a religious context) are 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9, and all back up my points in my original email.

Therefore, this refutes your argument on faith, and shows that my definition was perfectly fine. Further, reference #2, specifically backs up the fact that having confidence in the ultimate result of a hypothesis, and the proposal of a hypothesis, is indeed an act of faith. Therefore you are simply wrong. Faith is a HOPE of truth. Faith is always based on something that you hope turns out to be true, and is useful when that which is hoped for does turn out to be true, just as a scientist hopes that his hypothesis turns out to be true once tested. Therefore you are plain wrong.

Faith is a principle of reality that is based upon a guess that you hope for might turn out to be true, and if it does turn out to be true, then the faith was useful. This principle can be used in a secular context just as easily as a religious context. Just because you reject the religious context out of hand doesn't justify dismissing its usefulness in a secular context. Therefore, the fact that it is used in conjunction with a hypothesis means that it is a core piece of the scientific method and you are now refuted. Don't argue with me. Go argue with the dictionary.

Now, in a religious context, if you don't believe something to be true, and it does turn out to be true on judgment day, then you are damned because you didn't care to attempt to find out if it was true before judgment day.

Now, in the scientific method, facts are found out by the use of observation of observable phenomena. The problem with spiritual things is that they are not observable phenomena, and are usually only discernible by their effects, not unlike dark matter and dark energy. How do you use the scientific method with spiritual things? By spiritual experimentation. First, you must have a desire to know if spiritual things really do exist, and if they do, then you must want to know if God exists. If you don't care, then don't bother. But you should know first of all why it would be useful for you to know why God exists.

Many Christians are absolutely wrong about the reason for existence. Is it really to serve God as the religious people that originally indoctrinated you tried to drill into you? No. That is only something that you end up doing because you want to, that is, if you end up being happy in the state you end up being in. Happiness is the design and purpose of our existence. Misery is not.

What makes you happy right now? And what is lasting happiness? What if you die and then you haven't prepared to be happy after death? Let's say for the sake of argument that your mind is an immortal thing that cannot be destroyed, just as light is, or matter is. If your mind is indeed going to outlive your body, and is actually an independent entity that cannot be destroyed, doesn't it make sense to find out ahead of time before you can't do anything about it, and haven't prepared for the eventuality?
My last reply was as follows:
Interesting argument. In your honor, I will rename my "Definition for Faith" on my website to "A Religious Definition of Faith".

I still have my doubts as to your conclusion and your use of the term faith, but i have read where this argument has been made before.

Thank you for your feedback.

Robert

Now, if you happen to make it through all of that... What do you think? He brought up truth, yet I don't recall mentioning anything about truth. Any hypothesis has an equal chance of being true as it does being false prior to being verified who says the one hypothesizing wants it to be true or false? Anyway, I had so many thoughts on this that I simply didn't know where to begin, so i figured I'd share and see what others thought as well.