Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

[amariselle]

Then you realise that science doesn't fit under the definition.

I already defined faith earlier:

I also highlighted ways in which my trust in the dentist was not like faith:

As noted, my confidence in the dentist's abilities is based on their expertise, as evidenced by their credentials and board certification, which means that their knowledge and skills have been assessed and deemed sufficient to practice dentistry.

Nor do I need to know everything about her life. What an absurd demand! All I need to do know is whether she is competent to practice medicine, and I do know that because her expertise has been demonstrated.

Why would that warrant absolute certainty?

Are you claiming that religion has something similar to peer review?

Historically, what happened to those who dared to challenge dogma?

It seems we are only going around in circles now. Clearly your definition of faith and trust is not the same as mine. Fair enough. We well have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It seems we are only going around in circles now. Clearly your definition of faith and trust is not the same as mine. Fair enough. We well have to agree to disagree on this.

It seems to me that your entire argument can be summed up as follows: "I have faith in that which I wish to have faith in." This is broadly commensurate with the definition of faith I gave earlier. It seems that it doesn't matter to you whether your reasons for belief are good or not; you'll believe regardless. Would that be correct?

 

[amariselle]

It seems to me that your entire argument can be summed up as follows: "I have faith in that which I wish to have faith in." This is broadly commensurate with the definition of faith I gave earlier. It seems that it doesn't matter to you whether your reasons for belief are good or not; you'll believe regardless. Would that be correct?

No, that would be incorrect. It would also indicate a complete disregard for much of what I have said here regarding what I believe. You are welcome to your opinions and your summaries of my faith of course, however overly simplistic they may be. I highly doubt you can honestly summarize anyone's faith and beliefs in such a basic statement. People are far more complex and life is far more complicated than that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, that would be incorrect. It would also indicate a complete disregard for much of what I have said here regarding what I believe. You are welcome to your opinions and your summaries of my faith of course, however overly simplistic they may be. I highly doubt you can honestly summarize anyone's faith and beliefs in such a basic statement. People are far more complex and life is far more complicated than that.

I'm only going by what you have presented so far. When asked for evidence, you invoked faith, and you continually emphasise that it is a choice. So it seems fair to summarise your argument as I have: "I have faith in that which I wish to have faith in." If it is not that, then what else is there?

 

[KWCrazy]

I was a believer at the time. I was also a teenager and my parents were very superstitious then. Everything that went wrong was attributed to a demon. Eventually, I "saw" them everywhere; they were behind everything. You cannot imagine the fear that accompanies that; waking up from a nightmare and being terrified of that shadow on the wall - a demon surely!

Okay, so you thought you had demons because your parents had instilled a paranoia about them, but you never actually saw them.
I've actually seen them, which is why I asked.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Okay, so you thought you had demons because your parents had instilled a paranoia about them, but you never actually saw them.
I've actually seen them, which is why I asked.

You think you've actually seen them, just as I thought I could "see" them everywhere. So why is my experience attributed to paranoia, but yours is somehow treated as genuine?

 

[amariselle]

I'm only going by what you have presented so far. When asked for evidence, you invoked faith, and you continually emphasise that it is a choice. So it seems fair to summarise your argument as I have: "I have faith in that which I wish to have faith in." If it is not that, then what else is there?

Actually, I did not simply "invoke faith", perhaps you need to go back and re-read what I wrote.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually, I did not simply "invoke faith", perhaps you need to go back and re-read what I wrote.

I did. Unless I've missed something, you had no other evidence to offer except your own faith.

 

[amariselle]

I did. Unless I've missed something, you had no other evidence to offer except your own faith.

Yes, if that is all you think I did, you did "miss something."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, if that is all you think I did, you did "miss something."

What? What did I miss?

 

[amariselle]

What? What did I miss?

The "evidence" I referred to.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The "evidence" I referred to.

Which is what exactly? What evidence?

 

[amariselle]

Which is what exactly? What evidence?

Once again, I do not just depend on "faith". I have come to my faith through the word of God and the Holy Spirit. Through this I have made a choice to accept Jesus as my Saviour, to admit and acknowledge that I need Him and to then to have faith in His sacrifice for my salvation (and the salvation of all who turn to Him and confess Him as Lord).

I have chosen to follow Jesus because, first of all, I have the word of God, the Bible, which is evidence that is available for those who honestly seek Him. And in the Bible, we are promised the Holy Spirit as Christians.

 

[Veera Chase]

The "evidence" I referred to.

There is no evidence because if there was you would not need faith, you can not have it both ways, either there is evidence and you don't need faith or there is no evidence that's why you need your faith.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Once again, I do not just depend on "faith". I have come to my faith through the word of God and the Holy Spirit. Through this I have made a choice to accept Jesus as my Saviour, to admit and acknowledge that I need Him and to then to have faith in His sacrifice for my salvation (and the salvation of all who turn to Him and confess Him as Lord).

I have chosen to follow Jesus because, first of all, I have the word of God, the Bible, which is evidence that is available for those who honestly seek Him. And in the Bible, we are promised the Holy Spirit as Christians.

If you have evidence sufficient to warrant belief in the Bible's claims, then what need have you for faith? And what evidence do you have that the Bible's claims are true?

 

[Veera Chase]

Which is what exactly? What evidence?

Once again, I do not just depend on "faith". I have come to my faith through the word of God and the Holy Spirit. Through this I have made a choice to accept Jesus as my Saviour, to admit and acknowledge that I need Him and to then to have faith in His sacrifice for my salvation (and the salvation of all who turn to Him and confess Him as Lord).
I have chosen to follow Jesus because, first of all, I have the word of God, the Bible, which is evidence that is available for those who honestly seek Him. And in the Bible, we are promised the Holy Spirit as Christians.

You say, 'I do not just depend on "faith", but we still don't see any evidence being produced.

 

[Veera Chase]

Once again, I do not just depend on "faith". I have come to my faith through the word of God and the Holy Spirit. Through this I have made a choice to accept Jesus as my Saviour, to admit and acknowledge that I need Him and to then to have faith in His sacrifice for my salvation (and the salvation of all who turn to Him and confess Him as Lord).

What is obvious to anyone who reads what you have to say is that you simply believe what you believe because you want to believe it and for no other reason, you try to rationalise it to yourself and others but you fail at every turn.

 

[rjs330]

Irrelevant.

If all Human knowledge of science, literature, etc were to vanish - if we were like children growing up, with no one to teach us how things worked or our history, but living with no knowledge other than what we could figure out for ourselves, we would never develop Christianity again. We would develop flight, medicine, electricity, alloys, solar power and all sorts of other stuff again, but we would never recreate any religion that we have today.

Do you deny this?

I do, because Christianity is God's way to save humanity and allow us to have access to a relationship,with him. If we suddenly forgot about all this God would reach out to us again.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

So you assume that God created everything to show that God created everything. Doesn't work that way. If you want me to believe that God created things, you need to prove that he did. You can't just start with it as a presumption.

Try again.

Sorry that's my answer. No further discussion is coming.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[KWCrazy]

You think you've actually seen them, just as I thought I could "see" them everywhere. So why is my experience attributed to paranoia, but yours is somehow treated as genuine?

No, I actually saw them. They actually entered my brother's room. We actually brought in a minister and we actually did an exorcism. The thing is, I never saw anything I didn't believe existed, and I never denied the existence of anything I've seen. That's why I asked about your mental state. I'm not the one who claims all such sightings are hallucinations.