Faith & why you shouldn't have it

[frogboy]

i think that's pretty simplistic, you can't exactly blame germany for not thinking when they've been completely fucked over by hyperinflation and the french

[nub]

The recession of 1928 surely helped, but it's quite a bad apology for hatred which already existed for centuries before 1933. The Nazis have neither invented pogroms nor the hate towards Jews. The difference was that they put up a whole industry of killing. And it's not like the Germans didn't know what happened in the camps. Sarcastic jokes circulating at that time about the camps show that everyone very well knew what was happening. And everyone who attended the auctions of Jewish possessions knew where the stuff came from.

[Smegma]

I dont think nubs gets the frame of reference.

[nub]

Your frame of reference is too narrow.

[Smegma]

Your frame of reference is too narrow.

Thats quite odd, considering most points are from the broadest one.

Edit: Or at least broader than yours.

[nub]

I was giving an example for what I meant when I said that faith and lack of thinking can help instrumentalizing people. When this example wasn't accepted, I went into detail.

Try to follow the discussion if you'd like to contribute, and stop throwing in statements you don't back up with arguments.

[Smegma]

I was giving an example for what I meant when I said that faith and lack of thinking can help instrumentalizing people. When this example wasn't accepted, I went into detail.

Try to follow the discussion if you'd like to contribute, and stop throwing in statements you don't back up with arguments.

You don't back up statements with arguments, and argument is made up of claims/statements. Not only that, but your previous statement shows your lack of reference on the subject. I wasn't declaring your points were false, merely that they focused on something that you have not even yet to back up. I assume you take certain freedoms which you should, in some form, verify.

If you cannot see the claims you take for granted, then you possibly won't even back them up.

Take a step back, empiricism isn't set in stone. Before you start calling other's too stupid to construct an argument, maybe you should understand what one is.

[nub]

Well ok, I mixed that argument/ statement stuff... still my point is, that most of the time you just throw in statements in the form of single sentences and don't back up your statements and don't even tell what exactly you mean.

What claims do I have to back up? Everything I said is historically proven. Well maybe I could give references to sources but this would take too much time for a forum where most people don't even bother to have a serious discussion.

[Smegma]

What claims do I have to back up? Everything I said is historically proven. Well maybe I could give references to sources but this would take too much time for a forum where most people don't even bother to have a serious discussion.

I fail to believe that you even gave my previous post some meaningful consideration. As such, this quote, is my damn proof.

[nub]

So you admit that your posts are meaningless... good to finally know.

[Smegma]

So you admit that your posts are meaningless... good to finally know.

No, I merely showed you the evidence that you don't have the right frame of reference, or you don't even read what I say. I'm inclined to believe its both.

As well, showing that you'd just as soon give up to trying to understand my points doesn't help.


Edit: Words mean shit, learn them.

[nub]

Edit: Words mean poo, learn them.

Ah thank you for providing me with a formula to translate your posts.

So your posts must translate to something like:

poo poo poo poo poo, poo poo? poo poo poo.

[Smegma]

Edit: Words mean poo, learn them.

Ah thank you for providing me with a formula to translate your posts.

So your posts must translate to something like:

poo poo poo poo poo, poo poo? poo poo poo.

Amazing, look at those "references and sources". If you paid attention and tried to understand what I've been saying, you might not spam.

[Mangled*]

How you believe that there isn't a superior being, is just as much as how religious people believe that there is one. There is not enough evidence to prove whether there is or isn't a god. Thus, you have as much faith that there isn't a god as someone who does. With that being said, your faith is just as empty as theirs. Everyone has faith, whether or not you want to show it.

Here's some food for thought: Things which exist can be proven with tangible and copious evidence. Things which do not exist can neither be proven nor disproven. God can neither be proven nor disproven. Fact is, there is enough real evidence stacked up against what is in the vast majority of scripture to determine that it is false, whereas there is not a crumb of evidence to suggest that it is true.

When it is genuinely and undeniably self-evident.

Really?!
Yes, I know, but when is that?!

You already know so I see no need to explain.

It's not faith to say "I haven't seen sufficient evidence to confirm that."  But the flip side of that is that most Christians HAVE seen enough evidence of God to confirm his existence, so arguably, it's not faith for us to believe in God (using Mangled's definition, of course).

I would really really love to know what that evidence is.

Can't have faith?  I feel sorry for ya.

That's like saying "Never had heroin? I feel sorry...."

hahahahaha

Faith is a tool used by people to trick lesser minded people into doing their dirty work.

Taking a gun from a killer doesn't stop him from going on another rampage.

That's right. I'm glad you've seen the light.

Welcome to the unremarkable, planet Earth.

...... This is a reason why long time ago, people created a weapon called crossbow/bow, so it can still kill people from distance, and it is as dangerous as a gun, except the range is shorter and power is a little weaker.

I think you will find that crossbows are more powerful than guns, even large caliber guns. However, crossbow bolts are bulky and rapid fire can't be achieved without extensive and bulky modifications to the standard crossbow design.

[Smegma]

You already know so I see no need to explain. Smiley

I know its tautological when its a tautology, but I'm asking you for specific definable conditions of a self-evident truth.

Please explain.

If you are trying to self-reference it, you'll just open up a new can of worms. If you cannot see the cycle, then we can talk.

If you do, Mangled, then please show that axioms exist. Or if you don't wish to take that approach you can prove that empiricism is certain.

[Graham]

That's right. I'm glad you've seen the light.

Welcome to the unremarkable, planet Earth.

God you such a douchebag. Do you have to eat or does your ego supply you will all the essential nutrients?

I have been saying that since the beginning.

I am not saying faith is a bad thing and never will... if you are AGAIN missing the point.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

It's not faith to say "I haven't seen sufficient evidence to confirm that."  But the flip side of that is that most Christians HAVE seen enough evidence of God to confirm his existence, so arguably, it's not faith for us to believe in God (using Mangled's definition, of course).

I would really really love to know what that evidence is.

Well, I won't go too far into my own experience, as it's a personal matter, but let's just say that my attitude towards certain things has changed, and that there's no particular reason that I as a person and as a human would have wanted that attitude to change.  I've felt God working in my life, and that's enough evidence for me.

Also, it may be interesting to note that the changes didn't actually occur until I admitted to God (and to myself) that I couldn't do it on my own.  Let me repeat that: I didn't actually change until I decided that I COULDN'T.  Take that however you will.

[excruciator]

In my opinion, science is facts based on prof and god is classified as everything else that can yet be proven by science.

Now we might have the prof that faith=trust=oxytocin, and religion and god is controlled by the broca's area of your brain, we still can't prove that god can't exist.


and lawgamer, when you have faith in the oneness, you naturally classify all chances as act of God.
but before that, you would still think chances as chances. So what makes chance and act of God so different?

Also, religious people usually classify something that has least chance of happening as Act of God.
If you find a penny on the ground, that would be classified as chance. Again, who desides what is chance and what is an Act of God?

[Smegma]

God cant act.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

God cant act.

Correction: God by your definition can't act.