to the atheists on the board
- Thread starter kungfoofighting
- Start date
Me:
>Are you pointing out the obvious irrational nature of the
>need to have a relationship 'sanctioned' by an external
>entity, or are you pointing out something more inherent
>to the relationship?
ART:
>I am pointing what is a fact for many married men.
Yes, I gathered that was what you thought the first time.
Would you care to address the question or do you just delight in the construction and publishing of politician like non-answers?
JB
>Are you pointing out the obvious irrational nature of the
>need to have a relationship 'sanctioned' by an external
>entity, or are you pointing out something more inherent
>to the relationship?
ART:
>I am pointing what is a fact for many married men.
Yes, I gathered that was what you thought the first time.
Would you care to address the question or do you just delight in the construction and publishing of politician like non-answers?
JB
First of all, I want you to know that I'm not knocking you or your belief.
But what you've described isn't a 'leap of faith'. The 'leap of faith' you describe is no more than what anyone must be convinced of when given eyewitness testimony, if you think about it. They have to know that the witness is credible. Just like a jury. What the jury decides based on credible testimony and evidence given them isn't construed as a leap of faith. It's called a 'finding'.
Most people believe Julius Caeser existed, yet any evidence we have of his existence today comes only through first hand eyewitness accounts recorded that mention him. I believe there are about only 7 or so ancient documents that actually mention Julius Caeser, and it is commonly accepted that he existed, because those documents are credible. That's not a leap.
Conversely, if the person giving me a movie review isn't credible, then my trusting him would take a leap of faith.
But what you've described isn't a 'leap of faith'. The 'leap of faith' you describe is no more than what anyone must be convinced of when given eyewitness testimony, if you think about it. They have to know that the witness is credible. Just like a jury. What the jury decides based on credible testimony and evidence given them isn't construed as a leap of faith. It's called a 'finding'.
Most people believe Julius Caeser existed, yet any evidence we have of his existence today comes only through first hand eyewitness accounts recorded that mention him. I believe there are about only 7 or so ancient documents that actually mention Julius Caeser, and it is commonly accepted that he existed, because those documents are credible. That's not a leap.
Conversely, if the person giving me a movie review isn't credible, then my trusting him would take a leap of faith.
You continue to ask either or questions.
Try a direct one concept question rather than compound if want clarity.
Try a direct one concept question rather than compound if want clarity.
Eye witness accounts having undergone multiple translations would not hold up too well in court.
There are plenty of living people who have eye witness accounts of their own faith to sample and then draw a conclusion on the reasonableness of deciding to begin a practice faith.
These living people were not necessary for me to begin a practice of faith in God, but they do exist for those who are willing to "see a movie" that others have seen and report is worth seeing in order to find out for themselves.
Whatever someone needs to get started on a path, just get started.
A path of atheism, a path of theism, doesn't matter to me. Just get started, and then decided for yourself on the basis of your own personal experiences in life if it is right for you.
Simple.
Deciding if your path, or your failure with a path is right for others is a different story.
There are plenty of living people who have eye witness accounts of their own faith to sample and then draw a conclusion on the reasonableness of deciding to begin a practice faith.
These living people were not necessary for me to begin a practice of faith in God, but they do exist for those who are willing to "see a movie" that others have seen and report is worth seeing in order to find out for themselves.
Whatever someone needs to get started on a path, just get started.
A path of atheism, a path of theism, doesn't matter to me. Just get started, and then decided for yourself on the basis of your own personal experiences in life if it is right for you.
Simple.
Deciding if your path, or your failure with a path is right for others is a different story.
Me:
>Are you pointing out the obvious irrational nature of the
>need to have a relationship 'sanctioned' by an external
>entity, or are you pointing out something more inherent
>to the relationship?
ART:
>Try a direct one concept question rather than
>compound if want clarity.
Ahhh...I apologize, I was being too complicated. Alright.
Are you pointing out the obvious irrational nature of the need to have a relationship 'sanctioned' by an external entity,
JB
>Are you pointing out the obvious irrational nature of the
>need to have a relationship 'sanctioned' by an external
>entity, or are you pointing out something more inherent
>to the relationship?
ART:
>Try a direct one concept question rather than
>compound if want clarity.
Ahhh...I apologize, I was being too complicated. Alright.
Are you pointing out the obvious irrational nature of the need to have a relationship 'sanctioned' by an external entity,
JB
Me:
>Are you pointing out the obvious irrational nature of the
>need to have a relationship 'sanctioned' by an external
>entity, or are you pointing out something more inherent
>to the relationship?
ART:
>Try a direct one concept question rather than
>compound if want clarity.
Ahhh...I apologize, I was being too complicated. Alright.
...or are you pointing out something more inherent to the relationship?
JB
>Are you pointing out the obvious irrational nature of the
>need to have a relationship 'sanctioned' by an external
>entity, or are you pointing out something more inherent
>to the relationship?
ART:
>Try a direct one concept question rather than
>compound if want clarity.
Ahhh...I apologize, I was being too complicated. Alright.
...or are you pointing out something more inherent to the relationship?
JB