What makes the bible true

[racrguy]

Hmm, I'd say that your idea of atheism is more in line with agnosticism. Agnostics are fence-sitters, so to speak. Neither disavowing the existence of deities or supernatural influences, nor accepting them at the point of faith. They want proof.

The atheists I've met pointedly reject all theology and supernatural anything, which is pretty absolute in terms.

In general, atheists will believe if there is proof given. The reason they reject it is because of a lack of evidence, I am of the same thought processes. Atheism doesn't deny the possibility of a deity, just that there isn't enough "meat and potatoes" there to justify belief.

Anything is possible. Unlikely, without a doubt. But still possible.

Agnosticism/gnosticism is a modifier for Atheism and Theism.

Gnostic Atheists=Doesn't believe in a god and sure that god doesn't exist
Agnostic Atheist=Doesn't believe in a god but also believes that it can't be known either way
Agnostic Theist= Believes in a god, but also believes that it can't be known either way
Gnostic Theist= Believes in a god, and is sure of their belief.

Everyone falls into those 4 categories somewhere.

Edit: FUCK YOU Maddhattter! Bastard beat me to it.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

In general, atheists will believe if there is proof given. The reason they reject it is because of a lack of evidence, I am of the same thought processes. Atheism doesn't deny the possibility of a deity, just that there isn't enough "meat and potatoes" there to justify belief.

Anything is possible. Unlikely, without a doubt. But still possible.

Agnosticism/gnosticism is a modifier for Atheism and Theism.

Gnostic Atheists=Doesn't believe in a god and sure that god doesn't exist
Agnostic Atheist=Doesn't believe in a god but also believes that it can't be known either way
Agnostic Theist= Believes in a god, but also believes that it can't be known either way
Gnostic Theist= Believes in a god, and is sure of their belief.

Everyone falls into those 4 categories somewhere.

Edit: FUCK YOU! Bastard beat me to it.

I laughed. You two are weasels.

I chose 'atheist' because I thought that the definition alone is pretty absolute, but I'll rescind and substitute gnostic Atheist. Happy?

[Maddhattter]

I laughed. You two are weasels.

I chose 'atheist' because I thought that the definition alone is pretty absolute, but I'll rescind and substitute gnostic Atheist. Happy?

I think we're good. So, without further ado....

Welcome to the Pastafarin Cafe. We have beer volcanoes and stuffs.

[BlackSnake]

John 3:16 states this:

(King James Version)
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


I forget the Greek word here for "believeth" in this passage, but its a poor translation to the English language, but proper in the way you guys have stated. The better translation is, "whosoever has faith in him". See, you believe or come to a belief when reading the scripture, but its faith put into action to salvation. Every Christian knows that believing is knowledge, but faith is the act to except the truth and move foward. Faith without works is dead. I can believe and do nothing and its still belief.

[Maddhattter]

John 3:16 states this:

(King James Version)
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


I forget the Greek word here for "believeth" in this passage, but its a poor translation to the English language, but proper in the way you guys have stated. The better translation is, "whosoever has faith in him". See, you believe or come to a belief when reading the scripture, but its faith put into action to salvation. Every Christian knows that believing is knowledge, but faith is the act to except the truth and move foward. Faith without works is dead. I can believe and do nothing and its still belief.

Maybe this will help clear up that Faith and Truth are not connected. You are not required to have faith in the truth, absolute or subjective.


Faith
When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it.

There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.

The result of using faith consistently is the complete inability to think. Without any criteria for accepting a statement as true, every random idea, whether true or false, would be just as likely to be accepted. Contradictions would exist. No higher level abstractions could be made. Faith nullifies the mind. To the degree ideas are taken on faith, the process of thinking is subverted.

Are there any ideas we take on faith? As a friend once asked, if we've never been to Afghanistan, how do we know it actually exists? Even if we were to meet people from Afghanistan, they could always be lying. This is taken to be an act of faith, since we have no direct evidence for the existence of Afghanistan.

This is mistaken, though. The evidence we have for accepting the existence of Afghanistan does exists. The evidence is based on the knowledge that other people have shared. First, there is universal acceptance of the fact that it exists. It is possible that everyone on the planet is lying, but there is no evidence for that claim. Also, there is reason to believe that if Afghanistan didn't exist, people from the bordering countries would say so. And since satellite imagery shows that there is land there, and the area around it is occupied, it is reasonable to assume that land is occupied as well. Furthermore, there is absolutely no known evidence that it doesn't exist. There is no known motive for the entire world to try to trick us. So in fact, the evidence we have suggest it does exist. Acceptance of it is an act of reason.

There's an important distinction here, though. When we accept the evidence from others, we must have reason to believe that they know the truth. In the case of Afghanistan, I mentioned bordering countries. But there are people who claim to have been there, or that lived there.

Other cases are fundamentally different. When someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that you are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid. If someone claims to be able to speak to their god, and tells you what god demands, you have no reason to accept it as true. In fact, it should be rejected. If he claims to have knowledge which you are incapable of achieving, his beliefs must be rejected. If one has to accept the knowledge of others, he must use reason in order to decide which others to listen to. Again, if there is no evidence or contrary evidence for accepting a person's beliefs, it is not an act of reason. It is an act of faith.

Faith is an act of mental destruction. If there is no evidence for a claim, then accepting it is irrational. It is more likely to be false then true (since there are more false ideas then true ones, being that their is only one reality). Building a structure of knowledge on such a flimsy foundation will leave it shaky and unstable. Eventually, even if confronted with evidence against it, one's mind will be so dependent on the belief that fear of one's world view collapsing will encourage one to reject the evidence. When this happens, one acts against reality. This is an act of destruction.


Copyright © 2001 by Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands

[racrguy]

You keep going back to the bible and equating faith to knowledge, when faith, by definition is the opposite of knowledge. And no where do the definitions of faith does it even mention truth. In order to be true, there must be evidence to support it. You cannot change the definition of words to suit your needs, if the meaning of the word (in the dictionary or other respected source) does not fit your meaning, find the word that does.

You are using the same argument that has been proven in this very thread to be fallacious. Do you have any evidence, aside from the bible, that the bible is true? If the answer to this very simple question is yes, post your evidence so it can be reviewed. If the answer is no, simply say it.

I'm going to let you slide on the fact that you already made this same post then decided to delete it and repost it where you see it now.

[Maddhattter]

I'm going to let you slide on the fact that you already made this same post then decided to delete it and repost it where you see it now.

Your going to let it slide? What was the possible repercussions of not letting it slide? A strongly worded post? lol

[racrguy]

Naaah. Just point out the fact that he's done it twice now. Maybe "let it slide" wasn't an accurate statement.

[BlackSnake]

Naaah. Just point out the fact that he's done it twice now. Maybe "let it slide" wasn't an accurate statement.

Deleted one and deleted a 2nd to bring it to the next page. There was no responce, so I thought it might have been lost on the second page.

Oh, and thanks for not mentioning it. I was hoping you'd let it slide.

[BlackSnake]

I believe that one of the problems here is trying to translate the Greek language to modern English.

Simply put...Believe IN or INTO is faith

To believe is not faith.

[Maddhattter]

I believe that one of the problems here is trying to translate the Greek language to modern English.

Simply put...Believe IN or INTO is faith

To believe is not faith.

Your right in stating that faith and belief are not the same, they are not mutially exclusive, as faith is a type of belief. The two words are not, however, interchangable. Racrguy's definitions detailed this, as they all basically said that faith is belief without evidence.

You said that you can believe in something and not have faith. That is true. You cannot have faith in something but not believe, as faith is a type of belief.

This still does not resolve the problem. A belief is not truth. You can believe something that is not true. You can have faith in something that is not true. You can have faith in something that is true, and you can believe in something that is not true.

Whether the word is believe, or have faith does not change that belief =/= truth and faith =/= truth.

Just so I can be as precise as possible, would you say that the KJV is the most accurate english translation of the bible? I ask, because if I'm looking up the NIV or the LTB, we'll be talking past each other.

[VaderTT]

One christmas, I asked god for a dirtbike. Guess what? That fucker didn't get that shit for me! Moral of the story,...........There is no god/invisible man in the sky.

[BlackSnake]

Your right in stating that faith and belief are not the same, they are not mutially exclusive, as faith is a type of belief. The two words are not, however, interchangable. Racrguy's definitions detailed this, as they all basically said that faith is belief without evidence.

You said that you can believe in something and not have faith. That is true. You cannot have faith in something but not believe, as faith is a type of belief.

This still does not resolve the problem. A belief is not truth. You can believe something that is not true. You can have faith in something that is not true. You can have faith in something that is true, and you can believe in something that is not true.

Whether the word is believe, or have faith does not change that belief =/= truth and faith =/= truth.

Just so I can be as precise as possible, would you say that the KJV is the most accurate english translation of the bible? I ask, because if I'm looking up the NIV or the LTB, we'll be talking past each other.

I guess its my comprehension that fails me.

The KJV to me and most that I talk to say its the better English translation. With a good Greek and Hebrew Interlinear Bible and Strong's Concordance.

[mustangguy289]

Those stupid scientist keep saying there is Oxygen in the air... but I can't see it. Therefore they are wrong.

[racrguy]

Those stupid scientist keep saying there is Oxygen in the air... but I can't see it. Therefore they are wrong.

Are you being facetious, or are you serious? I hope you're being facetious.