| 
"Well, assuming God exists-seen as how you do not have sufficient evidence and dont understand or know, you cannot take or use this argument."
What are you saying I don't know or understand.
"Apparently, he does mention this..but it is for the faithful to understand and apply. Not for someone like you who is against scripture as evidential support."
Boy are you wrong. In more ways than one. One being that I can understand, apply, critique, and scrutinize anything I like, and because of my past I may know more about faith and the faithful than you have any idea, but keep making an assumptive ass of yourself if you like. And besides that, I can specifically challenge or promote any claims fantastical events that anyone is claiming others must believe in order to avoid eternal torture and or damnation, or just general unpleasantries.
Another way you are wrong is about my opinion of scripture as evidence, but your on a roll so I'm not surprised. Scripture is as much evidence as eye witness or first, second, third hand etc. information. Second hand and beyond becomes hearsay, and if I'm not mistaken, most if not all of the bible is beyond first hand eye witness testimony. And such testimony (testament) is as subject to such scrutiny as any other. Including factors of bias, motive and intent, and all the myriad of factors I do and don't know.
Again, people can believe what they want, however, when they claim something a reality, it becomes information subjectable to my interpretation and investigation.
"You do see our ability to choose as hard evidence, to support why God would'nt give physical or substantial evidence of his existence-if in fact he did exist?"
Not at all, that is simply speculation on your part.
"thats my point. I believe the truth within skepticism..is an enveloped fear."
If skepticism is a loaded word, critical thinking applies as well, not believing everything you read, something I've been told many times. As for fear, it is a natural survival instinct and is not a derogatory term, the Bible and religion teach of fearing God, not me.
"If anything, those truly in accord with his will, will respect and love him, not fear him. "
But for this to even be possibly one must know who "HE" is and what "HIS" will is. Which is what the bible and religion claims to do which is why I question its validity as it even says to do.
"If God doesnt exist, why do you get so pissed at the fact that some believe him to?"
Ah but I don't, I argued ones point that God's existance was obvious, I challenge those who claim the Bible to be completely factual, and I challenge those who make contradictory statements of the God they believe in, as well as those who proclaim any specific religions interpretation of God being the only or true God. And then ask how and why they think that.
"you assume their stupid and blind..searching for a way out..or filled with fear dying for an answer. God does not demand faith, or belief. If you truly wish to know why i have an overwhelming faith, i can only give my first-hand accounts. Which matter nothing, and would appear to lie in the opinion of my interpretations. When i say they mean nothing, they mean nothing to you. Especially when you uphold empirical method over any other."
Oh dear, I called no one stupid, I did call blindly faithful people blindly faithful, and if that is overly assumptive of me, I'm terribly sorry.
"..searching for a way out..or filled with fear dying for an answer."
I never said that in these posts, but I do believe it highly likely. Its exactly what you were saying about skepticism, hypocricy is indeed a common factor in this discussion so I appreciate you bringing it up.
"God does not demand faith, or belief."
You would of course be speaking of your interpretation of God, because many others believe that is the only reason we exist, for us to believe in and worship God.
As for your first hand experiences and your ever continuing assault of hypocritical assumptiveness on my opinions and beliefs, I would love to hear your accounts, and I would not skoff at them as you so think, because I have a strong head does not mean I am without compassion and understanding, if you knew me you would understand, however, I feel this an appropriate point to remind you that I only argue what people claim to be true that they DON'T have personal accounts of, I will question a persons account but only to obtain information and offer perspective.
"Especially when you uphold empirical method over any other."
Are you going for an assumption award or what? Not to mention, again, that the bible is supposedly a collection of empirically gathered knowledge by those claiming the bible not metaphorical.
""what does that have to do with questioning the Bible? And what was your point?"
please read.....what i write. I do the same for you^"
Excuse me? My replies have been fairly thurough, as have yours, possible because I'm guessing we both read these posts, and I was asking honest questions, your paragraph I question was in response to one of my own but had nothing to do with my point of questioning the Bible.
"My point was that choice is the reason we cannot have sufficient evidence to Prove his existence- especially a being much greater than ourselves who transcends empirical method. So thus, you choose to believe everything lies in opinion, and if this is true-then it is obvious we choose. Meaning choice does exist, and acts as evidence on Gods behalf. Sufficient enough for our brain..maybe not..but evidence non the less."
Choice is not evidence of God, that makes no sense, the only way it even fits in context is by religious claims of a selectively omnipotent God.
"..your only emphasizing choice for me. Your making my points...because some cant discipline themselves, and choose to act only in their own accord-we must impose some kind of physical law to prevent these people from imposing on others freewill. This is mainly where the Golden Rule was derived."
So are you assuming that people are born able to discipline themselves to societies standards, I know a lot of parents, including myself, who would disargree with such a statement.
And free will is always imposed and influenced upon by all outside and inner forces, and especially by social contructs.
I take it you don't think every act is selfish by default, all actions are for either survival and or pleasure in the broadest of terms, survival includes helping others or restricting one's self from certain activities for the sake of self and or social standing, to the survival of the colony or species, or because it feels or is considered right or good, regardless of whether it truly is or not.
Not to mention, if balance is necessary then all rights and wrongs are both necessary and then by default are good. But balance isn't what is being discussed.
I never said choice does not exist, I said complete control over self does not exist.
"Maybe we cant control our emotions, but we can choose how we act on them, or express them. So everything works toward our final consent.(at least for us) Whether universally Right or Wrong."
This is a baseless claim that flies in the face of tons of evidence against it. Your simplified version of man's behaviors and abilities let alone the affect of all outside and even inner influence (especially any deception or misunderstanding) is both niave and unsurprisingly assumptive.
Just going off of religious points, posession.
"I dont think i'll share my faith with you-but i can say i do have it. My accounts are not sufficient evidence, and it seems this is what you want."
Well, there's the twist that wins you the assumption award, you assumed the same thing twice in one post, congratulations  .
Hopefully I cleared that up earlier but I'll reiterate by saying I desire knowledge, and any personal experiences no matter how bizarre are of great interest to me, far more than a dusty old text of questionable origin, not that it isn't important in my quest for knowledge, its just that first hand accounts are more important to me.
Please don't assume that I am against people because they, like myself, are prone to say silly things which I call them on, or rational things which I question because perhaps I don't understand or lack information on.
I respect and associate with people who want and promote love and peace, understanding and knowledge, but simply question those with claims beyond their possible knowledge, so as to learn not to just argue over.
"I can give you a reason as to maybe, why there is no sufficient evidence...but anything beyond that is beyond me.
..and also beyond all. including you"
I agree and appreciate the conversations, or else would not have continued them.
Sorry for the monster post, kinda tired.
"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"
[ Edited by Ironwood at
]
|
??? 