Who's Been Running The United States?
News1 min ago
Faith
97 Answers
The Bible says that
//Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen//
How is that any different from saying that faith is
unsupported assertions of impossible absurdities with no good evidence?
Why is ''Faith'' promoted as a good thing?
The 9/11 high-jackers had faith.
So did the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh.
//Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen//
How is that any different from saying that faith is
unsupported assertions of impossible absurdities with no good evidence?
Why is ''Faith'' promoted as a good thing?
The 9/11 high-jackers had faith.
So did the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
vulca, //Khandro, it's you that's coping out.
\\ My personal view of God is entirely confidential - //
Yet you insist mibn2 must give you an answer.//
The two stances are not comparable at all, If I say I love some thing/body, I don't have to explain why, or even give a detailed description of what that object of my affection is, but if a person asserts that, that object doesn't even exist, isn't up to them to explain to me why they think so?
And adding further to what Distinguished writes above; Charles Darwin wrote on the origin of the species, not on the origin of life itself.
\\ My personal view of God is entirely confidential - //
Yet you insist mibn2 must give you an answer.//
The two stances are not comparable at all, If I say I love some thing/body, I don't have to explain why, or even give a detailed description of what that object of my affection is, but if a person asserts that, that object doesn't even exist, isn't up to them to explain to me why they think so?
And adding further to what Distinguished writes above; Charles Darwin wrote on the origin of the species, not on the origin of life itself.
The usual shuffling of feet from the atheists when asked a direct intelligent question!
naomi, may I remind you that a few days ago on another thread you were positing, not only the Dawkins absurdity that life originated by the chance combining of several chemicals on Earth, but that it had happened (now amino acids have been found in space) somewhere outside of it.
naomi, may I remind you that a few days ago on another thread you were positing, not only the Dawkins absurdity that life originated by the chance combining of several chemicals on Earth, but that it had happened (now amino acids have been found in space) somewhere outside of it.
You can remind me of anything you like. Khandro. That life may have originated elsewhere doesn't invalidate the theory that it emanated from a combination of chemicals. Furthermore, your question isn't intelligent because you refuse to define your notion of 'God'. Other people have different ideas. What about Allah? Or Brahma? Or if I said I think it likely that 'God' was an alien from another planet? That renders my idea of God and yours entirely at odds - and that is why, if you want an answer to your question, you must define your concept of 'God'.
Here's a thought. Could the notion that life began beyond earth go some way to supporting my theory? After all, if the Earth was 'seeded' from space why not other planets? Hmmmm … are you sure you want to crow about the latest findings? I know how much you despise Dawkins but he won't mind the news one bit. He's quite happy for science - and knowledge - to progress.
Here's a thought. Could the notion that life began beyond earth go some way to supporting my theory? After all, if the Earth was 'seeded' from space why not other planets? Hmmmm … are you sure you want to crow about the latest findings? I know how much you despise Dawkins but he won't mind the news one bit. He's quite happy for science - and knowledge - to progress.
naomi, More feet shuffling:
You call yourself an atheist;
a·the·ism (ā′thē-ĭz′əm)
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
You then list 'different' gods. but your atheism rejects them all by definition, so why do you need a description in order to assert that none of them exist, why can't you say, yes or no "God does not exist".?
If you can't do that, you will have to self-define differently than 'atheist'
You sound to me somewhat confused.
You call yourself an atheist;
a·the·ism (ā′thē-ĭz′əm)
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
You then list 'different' gods. but your atheism rejects them all by definition, so why do you need a description in order to assert that none of them exist, why can't you say, yes or no "God does not exist".?
If you can't do that, you will have to self-define differently than 'atheist'
You sound to me somewhat confused.
Khandro, no confusion on my part - and no feet shuffling either. I don’t need to self-define differently. Read my post. I said others have ideas that are at odds with yours - and that is why, if you want an answer to your question, you must define your concept of 'God'. After all, it wasn't so long ago that you were telling us you were Buddhist. Who's confused? Not me.
Zacs, //Naomi, then why did you write ‘ life may have originated elsewhere’. Where’s the ‘elsewhere’?//
Somewhere other than on earth. See Khandro's post at 09:25 Sat.
Zacs, //Naomi, then why did you write ‘ life may have originated elsewhere’. Where’s the ‘elsewhere’?//
Somewhere other than on earth. See Khandro's post at 09:25 Sat.
But that viewpoint (that Earth is somewhere other than the universe) colours your view of how and where life could start. It’s well established that for life to happen on this planet, it required catalysts from ‘space’ to hit / land here (specks of dust / meteorites which contained frozen water with organic compounds within).
Zacs, //But that viewpoint (that Earth is somewhere other than the universe) //
No one said that or anything like it. Khandro read that the building blocks of life have been found in space and is ridiculing Dawkins for saying that life on this planet began on this planet.
https:/
No one said that or anything like it. Khandro read that the building blocks of life have been found in space and is ridiculing Dawkins for saying that life on this planet began on this planet.
https:/
naomi; There is no conflict between Buddhism & Christianity, - or with several other religions as well for that matter, if you had studied more you would understand that.
You & others want a clear description of God, but if St Thomas Aquinas no less, said that God was 'unknowable' -in the strict sense of the word - how should I be able to do so?
But no matter, you're an atheist, so why don't you have the courage to say that you can confirm that God does not exist?
Would it not make more sense to simply say, "There probably is no God" & leave it at that ?
You & others want a clear description of God, but if St Thomas Aquinas no less, said that God was 'unknowable' -in the strict sense of the word - how should I be able to do so?
But no matter, you're an atheist, so why don't you have the courage to say that you can confirm that God does not exist?
Would it not make more sense to simply say, "There probably is no God" & leave it at that ?
Khandro, //There is no conflict between Buddhism & Christianity, - or with several other religions as well for that matter,//
Who's shuffling now? If that were true you wouldn't have a 'personal view of God' that 'is entirely confidential'.
//Would it not make more sense to simply say, "There probably is no God" & leave it at that ?//
I've never said anything else - but I won't leave it at that when you are demanding answers but are unwilling to define what you want answers to. 'Sense' and your questions are at odds with one another.
Who's shuffling now? If that were true you wouldn't have a 'personal view of God' that 'is entirely confidential'.
//Would it not make more sense to simply say, "There probably is no God" & leave it at that ?//
I've never said anything else - but I won't leave it at that when you are demanding answers but are unwilling to define what you want answers to. 'Sense' and your questions are at odds with one another.
