The scariest thing I've read in a while.

[bleed4m3]

So what you are saying is that he purposely made all evidence point to an old Earth just to see if some would reject scientific evidence in favor of myth?

Why does the Christian god need you have faith in his existence? Why does he simply not prove his existence instead of fabricating evidence against his existence? He is basically leading people astray, knowing that they will burn in hell forever.

If such a god really does exist, I cannot worship him when he does such seemingly awful things.

I could understand if he wanted people to discover him on their own, rather than telling people of his existence outright, but he fabricates evidence that leads people astray.

Just to let you know, if there is a God he is not the one fabricating anything. People are. People are the ones writing and saying what to believe. If you believe what they write/say, that's your choice. But if it leads you astray, it is not God's fault but your own.

God didn't write the Bible. We are told by the writers that he inspired it. Now you can believe it was divinely inspired, or you can choose not to believe it. Either way, if you're wrong, it wasn't God's fault.

That, in my opinion, is the real problem with the faithful/faithless. They use "God" as a scapegoat, when really there is no one to blame but themselves.

Please note, I am not bashing religious people or non-religious people, merely pointing out that it is foolish to blame a higher power for "being led astray" and such.

 

[popemobile]

and of course, this:

Yah, that's kinda the problem... he has changed the world's appearance on purpose... so that faith can be used. After all, if we were just able to 'prove' things, we wouldn't have any reason to use faith.

is a baseless claim. Can't tell you how many different forms of these I've heard so that someone can justify their belief in a god without evidence. Same thing as the claim "the bible isn't meant to be interpreted literally", or any number of similar claims. There is no reason to believe any of them.

 

[bleed4m3]

and of course, this:



is a baseless claim. Can't tell you how many different forms of these I've heard so that someone can justify their belief in a god without evidence. Same thing as the claim "the bible isn't meant to be interpreted literally", or any number of similar claims. There is no reason to believe any of them.

Just because you have no reason to believe any of it doesn't mean that there is no reason. Some people enjoy the thought of a higher power, some people actually NEED it in their lives. You have no such need, so you don't feel the urge to find such a higher power. But some people do have that urge. That's what religion is for, the search for that higher power. Can you prove that there isn't one? No you can not, neither can I. Can they prove there is? Nope. That's why it is called FAITH, though.

You have faith that there is no God, they have faith that there is. Neither can be proven, neither can be dis-proven, they can only be believed. Choose to believe what you will, but do not bash or look down upon someone because they believe something else.

 

[Obsessed]

You have faith that there is no God, they have faith that there is. Neither can be proven, neither can be dis-proven, they can only be believed. Choose to believe what you will, but do not bash or look down upon someone because they believe something else.

I'm pretty sure he lacks a belief in a god. A lack of belief in something is not faith that that thing does not exist.

I do not believe in a god. I don't believe that a god does not exist. I lack faith in a god. I don't have faith that one does not exist.

Not believing in (P) is not the same as believing in not (P).

Also in response to your response to me:

Relactivity was implying god made the Earth 6000 years ago, but made it look older simply so people couldn't prove that it was created 6000 years ago. In which case, it was god falsifying the evidence, and not people.

 

[Relictivity]

So what you are saying is that he purposely made all evidence point to an old Earth just to see if some would reject scientific evidence in favor of myth?

Why does the Christian god need you have faith in his existence? Why does he simply not prove his existence instead of fabricating evidence against his existence? He is basically leading people astray, knowing that they will burn in hell forever.

If such a god really does exist, I cannot worship him when he does such seemingly awful things.

I could understand if he wanted people to discover him on their own, rather than telling people of his existence outright, but he fabricates evidence that leads people astray.

Na, what I am saying is that faith is one of the 'trials' that we were required to go through on Earth in order to recieve our final reward, thus, it is necessary that he insure that he is not 'proven' at any time by logical means. Instead, he has asked us to search for him in our hearts, and if we ask him with a sincere heart, and real intent, then he will reveal himself unto us.

Na, not fabricates to lead astray, but simply, allowing us to have free agency - if we were able to see that he exists, we would have no free agency to make our own choices. And that is another requirement of life.

Also... ummm.... it says in several places in the Bible and elsewhere that one day in God's time isn't one day in ours... so yah.... one place it says that is in Peter I think...

*Reply to popemobile*

Sure there is, as said, it's stated in the Bible and elsewhere.

And lol, that's the point, he wants us to use our hearts, and not evidence. That's why he doesn't want to provide proof.

*Reply to obcessed*

Hmm... saying that one doesn't believe there is a God IS the same things as saying one believes there isn't a God. However, saying one is not sure there is a God, is not the same. It's kinda the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

Erm... this is what I am saying: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_pet/3/8#8, http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/3/4#4

 

[Obsessed]

Hmm... saying that one doesn't believe there is a God IS the same things as saying one believes there isn't a God. However, saying one is not sure there is a God, is not the same. It's kinda the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

No they aren't. As I already said: not believing in (P) is not the same as believing in not (P).

You clearly don't know what atheism is. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. The two are not mutually exclusive.

An agnostic atheist is one who does not believe in a higher power, but realizes there is a possibility that a higher power exists.

Atheism is simply that. A lack of theism, or the lack of belief in a god. Atheism can be agnostic, or gnostic, just like theism.

I make no claims about the existence of a god. For all I know there could be one. I don't have faith either way. I simply refute bad arguments that try and prove the existence of one. I'd refute bad arguments that tried to prove on didn't exist too.

I do not "have faith that a god does not exist."

 

[Relictivity]

No they aren't. As I already said: not believing in (P) is not the same as believing in not (P).

You clearly don't know what atheism is. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. The two are not mutually exclusive.

An agnostic atheist is one who does not believe in a higher power, but realizes there is a possibility that a higher power exists.

Atheism is simply that. A lack of theism, or the lack of belief in a god. Atheism can be agnostic, or gnostic, just like theism.

I make no claims about the existence of a god. For all I know there could be one. I don't have faith either way. I simply refute bad arguments that try and prove the existence of one. I'd refute bad arguments that tried to prove on didn't exist too.

I do not "have faith that a god does not exist."

Ah, then that's just agnosticism lol.... I realize that the definitions may be a bit skewed, but that is how it is in today's society, what you would be considered is an agnostic. And thus unsure.

Lol, I am definately not trying to argue, simply trying to answer one of your questions, if that was one.

 

[popemobile]

Ah, then that's just agnosticism lol.... I realize that the definitions may be a bit skewed, but that is how it is in today's society, what you would be considered is an agnostic. And thus unsure.

Lol, I am definately not trying to argue, simply trying to answer one of your questions, if that was one.

no, you are completely wrong. Theism is defined as a belief in a god, Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. Being an atheist in no way requires one to believe that there is no god. Theism refers to beliefs, gnostic/agnostic refers to knowledge, they are not the same thing. Which is why the labels agnostic theist and agnostic atheist exist.

This is a very common misconception about atheism.

Just because you have no reason to believe any of it doesn't mean that there is no reason. Some people enjoy the thought of a higher power, some people actually NEED it in their lives. You have no such need, so you don't feel the urge to find such a higher power. But some people do have that urge. That's what religion is for, the search for that higher power. Can you prove that there isn't one? No you can not, neither can I. Can they prove there is? Nope. That's why it is called FAITH, though.

You have faith that there is no God, they have faith that there is. Neither can be proven, neither can be dis-proven, they can only be believed. Choose to believe what you will, but do not bash or look down upon someone because they believe something else.

Need/urge to believe in a higher power is not a logical reason to believe in one. It doesn't matter that I can't prove that it doesn't exist because the burden of proof (yeah yeah I hate using this term too) doesn't rest on me, because I'm not making a positive claim, that claim being that a god exists.

And Obsessed is right, as I have already said in this post. I do not have faith that there is no god. I reject the claim that there is a god. They are different.

*Reply to popemobile*

Sure there is, as said, it's stated in the Bible and elsewhere.

The bible is not a credible source

 

[MetalGearSamus]

Can you prove that there isn't one? No you can not, neither can I. Can they prove there is? Nope. That's why it is called FAITH, though.

Using that line of reasoning you can justify absolutely any claim. Here are a few samples:
-The government is secretly controlled by blue monkeys
-There is an invisible pink unicorn that is married to a giant spaghetti monster and they rule the universe
-Long chains of infinitely tiny gnomes are what produce gravity
-Your computer comes to life and hosts parties for all the other computers on your block when your are gone

-When you sleep aliens appear in your room and play card games until you wake, then they disappear

None of these can be proved, yet none can be disproved. And all are equally likely, almost as likely, or more likely then a god. That's why its called FAITH, though.
​

 

[bleed4m3]

popemobile (kind of an ironic name considering, I suppose), faith is often illogical. But it is necessary in human life. You have faith everyday, albeit not in things as large as "God." You have faith that what you are about to eat at lunch, for example, is not poisoned. Unless you test you food for all known poisons, that is, which I highly doubt. You can not prove that it isn't, and you can not prove that it is (unless you meet the previously stated criteria), but you have faith that it is not.

Now please do not misunderstand, I am not comparing this, admittedly silly, example to a belief in a higher power. They are vastly different, I just wish to bring up a point: everybody has faith in something, in multiple things actually. They choose to believe in the existence of God for whatever reasons. Are they logical reasons? Probably not. But you can't always follow logic. Logic is a powerful thing, but it is not always correct (for example, logic would have dictated that people who bet on the Bruins/Flyers hockey playoff series would have bet on the Bruins after they went up 3-0 in a best of 7 series. However, the people who bet on the Flyers made out pretty darn well because they won that series). Sometimes blind faith is correct. Sometimes it is not. So long as it doesn't hurt anyone other than the believer, let them have their faith. If we someday find irrefutable proof that God does not and can not exist, bring it up then. Until them, let them walk with the eyes of faith. If they stumble, that is their choice and their right.


Also, Obsessed and popemobile, if I misunderstood what either of you said I apologize. I am merely trying to be a mediator here, although that may be a futile attempt seeing as I'm new to these boards. Just for the record, I personally think it's silly to believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but if he chooses to believe that, so be it. Just don't push your beliefs on another.

EDIT: MetalGearSamus, if someone believes any or all of those, let them. If it doesn't harm anyone, I don't see a point in trying to convince them otherwise. If they try to push their beliefs on another, then I can see the point of arguing, but merely stating what you believe does no harm. Basically, the guy from this article should be argued with, those who believe in Creationism, but aren't doing any harm, should be left alone. I'd also like to clarify that I am neither a Creationist or religious, so arguing with me about why there can't be a God is rather pointless as I am rather indifferent on the matter.

 

[Relictivity]

no, you are completely wrong. Theism is defined as a belief in a god, Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. Being an atheist in no way requires one to believe that there is no god. Theism refers to beliefs, gnostic/agnostic refers to knowledge, they are not the same thing. Which is why the labels agnostic theist and agnostic atheist exist.

This is a very common misconception about atheism.

Well not according to dictionary.com...
a·the·ism

   /ˈeɪ

θiˌɪz

əm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uh

m] Show IPA
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

It's really a rather petty thing to pick over though, as we both know what we are talking about, and that there is a difference between people who are not sure, and people who believe there isn't a God. So yah, umm.... let's not bother over this one.

Need/urge to believe in a higher power is not a logical reason to believe in one. It doesn't matter that I can't prove that it doesn't exist because the burden of proof (yeah yeah I hate using this term too) doesn't rest on me, because I'm not making a positive claim, that claim being that a god exists.

Ummm... logic by itself, is accepted because of our own idea that it makes 'sense', and religion isn't really any different. I believe it because of how it makes me feel, and it makes me know it is true. And experiences - the reason I believe in religion - are ultimately the same driving force to belief in logic and rationality. And the unusual thing is, rationality isn't always correct either.

And Obsessed is right, as I have already said in this post. I do not have faith that there is no god. I reject the claim that there is a god. They are different.

Yah, that's fine. But one should equally reject the claim that there is no God, in order to have full neutrality.

The bible is not a credible source

He's asking why I believed something, I simply pointed out why, that's all lol. However, the Bible, and other books, guide you to find faith, which is why I accept them as credible for myself. There's a reason this God I have chose to serve, and the Bible among other books are the reason I serve him, and not others.

Meh... this is getting too argumentative... warn me if I'm sounding arrogant please... thanks =).

Oh... guys... please read the quotes... they say clearly that it isn't 6000 years... thanks again.

 

[Obsessed]

Just don't push your beliefs on another.

That isn't what is going on though. Iirc it was Son of Disaster who popped into this thread and began his rant against evolution. J-man followed soon after. We are just defending legitimate scientific theory, and criticizing bad arguments. We aren't forcing our views on others. They willingly started a debate, so we are simply debating.

Well not according to dictionary.com...

Well definition 1 is gnostic atheism (belief that there is no higher power), while definition 2 is agnostic atheism (the lack of believe in a higher power).

 

[bleed4m3]

That isn't what is going on though. Iirc it was Son of Disaster who popped into this thread and began his rant against evolution. J-man followed soon after. We are just defending legitimate scientific theory, and criticizing bad arguments. We aren't forcing our views on others. They willingly started a debate, so we are simply debating.

As I said, if I have misunderstood, I apologize. I have not read all of the posts in this thread because, frankly, a lot of them are just giant walls of text with little to no point in the posting (ie stating the same point over and over again).

I have not seen them push their beliefs on another, but if they have you are certainly entitled to defend your own beliefs and try to refute their points. I'm just going by what I've read thus far. Once I have a better grasp on what is happening here I will try to find a comfortable middle ground for all, although, again, I am probably hindered by my newness to these forums.

 

[Relictivity]

Well definition 1 is gnostic atheism (belief that there is no higher power), while definition 2 is agnostic atheism (the lack of believe in a higher power).

Ok, that's cool... hmmm... how bout for consistancy's sake, when we post atheism, we make sure we post 'gnostic' or 'agnostic' before it, just so it is clearer, since there seems to be alot of misunderstandings going on... yah....

 

[bleed4m3]

Ok, that's cool... hmmm... how bout for consistancy's sake, when we post atheism, we make sure we post 'gnostic' or 'agnostic' before it, just so it is clearer, since there seems to be alot of misunderstandings going on... yah....

I do believe that they did say they were the latter and not the former. I don't think anyone here has forthrightly said that there can't be a God, or that it is completely impossible for Creationism to be correct, just that they don't see the logic behind it, which is also understandable.

Of course I could be wrong, that seems to be happening a lot today.

 

[Relictivity]

Of course I could be wrong, that seems to be happening a lot today.

Na, chill dude, don't worry, post anyways, and I haven't really seen anything wrong by the way ;-). And we all are wrong at times... and me more than most lol. And don't worry that your new, we are all new at some time, and you seem to be just fine.

 

[Scoopapa]

As far as I understand it, theism vs. atheism is whether you believe in God, or lack belief in God. Agnosticism vs. Gnosticism is whether you believe it is possible to know whether God exists (or any details about him). For instance:

Gnostic Theist - You believe there is a God and you believe it is possible to prove there is a God (i.e. know there is a God).

Gnostic Atheist - You lack belief in God and believe you can prove that he doesn't exist.

Agnostic Theist - You believe there is a God but you do not believe you can prove it (i.e. impossible to know for sure).

Agnostic Atheist - You lack belief in God and you believe it is impossible to prove whether there is or is not a God for sure. This does not mean you give any credence to the possibility of God - it just means you are not claiming to be able to prove a negative.

Atheist has almost become synonymous with Agnostic Atheist, since most rational people accept that you can't prove a negative, no matter how silly the corresponding positive claim is. Very mildly religious people tend to be Agnostic Theists - and if you've ever fallen back on the excuse, "well you have to have faith", then this is where you lie. If you're one of the chosen few who think you can prove the existence of God (usually goes along with extreme science denialism) then you are the Gnostic Theist. Congrats!

This may differ from the dictionary.com meanings, but dictionaries tend to use colloquial meanings, which may be less specific or different from those used in academic discourse. For instance, dictionaries don't always get "theory" right from a scientific perspective - hence the profound ignorance of those who shout "evolution is just a theory!" thinking that it means a guess.

 

[sonickid01]

Once again, it [the Bible] should not be interpreted Literally.

So your argument was that the Bible shouldn't be literally interpreted, but then you meant that the parables should not be literally interpreted. This is a weak argument that I feel was meant to seem as if you fended off an attack with a broad and general statement, but then diminish your point to ward off self-contradiction while still having "addressed" the issue.
The most obvious contradiction you have in your position is that you claimed that evolution cannot coexist with Biblical scripture but then claim that the Bible can't be interpreted literally, and then change the latter claim to apply to only certain obvious metaphors. This is why I justify my suspicion in the previous paragraph.
Away from my personal attacks on you (not trying to insult, only trying to expose from my own instinct), as other people said, what makes you cherry pick parts as historically accurate from a book loaded with parables and pointedly specific stories meant to instruct people on moral behavior (Jesus's stories were not all entirely historically true! They were symbolic examples used to make a valid point on societal behavior!)?

More importantly, why would you try to compromise science for religion while stating that you abhor those who "twist the Bible," which I read as "disagree with my personal and literal opinion?" Many people feel the Bible is to be read as metaphorical scripture and lessons and morals for living a beneficial societal life in a communicative species. Yet many of these people similarly abhor those who disagree with them. But not once have you established or even attempted to establish that your position is unquestionably better than these people's aside from taking it on faith, but when faith is involved in unfalsifiable claims then the claims are no more valid than any other claim which is unfalsifiable. You are as correct as the metaphoricalists, and spaghettimonsterists, and gravitationalgnomists. So my basic point is that I highly discourage you from trying to establish such claims as facts by simply believing that having faith permits it to be true.

I know it's from like 2 pages ago but I wanted to respond.

It is not a proven fact in anyway shape or form that bacteria and protozoa turned into a higher order to fish and plants and so forth. That's my problem with evolutionary theory. It is not backed up by the fossil record. The fossil record is being misread to try and support evolution but the gaps in the record that leave out huge transitional forms show the error of trying to utilize the fossil record to support evolution. It's these gaps that spawned the punctuated equilibrium theory to try and explain them away

Protozoa exhibit some of the most diverse features in organisms within a single kingdom. There are zooplankton (ANIMAL like) and phytoplankton (PLANT like). There are protozoans with chitin like fungi and some plants and there are multicellular protozoans like all "higher level" organisms. Protozoans are very much like primitive forms of the higher orders of life.

The fossil record is not being misread. Punctuated equilibrium is not simply an ad hoc response to changes within fossil frequencies in different eras as you would have me believe; it is also very intuitive- animals evolve most rapidly when there is a pressure for them to; a man living comfortably and happily is not going to try to radically adapt to anything different, there's nothing to adapt to.

And if I don't have much to say for much else so far from what I glanced over in five minutes, if I find something within the last few pages that I missed the last few days or so I might respond.

EDIT:

Agnostic Atheist - You lack belief in God and you believe it is impossible to prove whether there is or is not a God for sure. This does not mean you give any credence to the possibility of God - it just means you are not claiming to be able to prove a negative.

This to me is the most logical standpoint in my own personal opinion. It has no relevance to anything really but I'm just simply making a bold claim for further discussion or just to put my two cents in.

 

[bleed4m3]

Dang, sonickid has his stuff together.

This seems to be the case with most lurkers, in my experience.

Also, I have no intention to stop posting just because I've been wrong a few times. Can't learn from your mistakes if you don't make them, so.

 

[sonickid01]

Guys, getting a bit anti-religious here, not the point of the topic.

The point of the topic was originally that the Texas Board changed the curriculum to a heavily religious new one. We are debating over whether it is logically justifiable to definitively teach religion in social studies, science, or other areas in school, as Don McLeroy adamantly stated that he does not believe in evolution and it is therefore highly possible he will wish to revise the biology curriculums as well, and he believes in the alternative, Creationism, so we are debating if we can say the God created everything and say it is science. It's not inherently anti-religious, it's more pro-science and they aren't mutually exclusive, as we are currently debating. We haven't strayed an entire ocean, maybe a few rivers or seas.

Hmmm.... As for oneself claiming to be Christ, the problem would be that the Holy Ghost does not lead me to you, thus I cannot have faith in you, because my heart does not draw towards you. And since I can only trust my heart and the Holy Ghost, and since by the power of the Holy Ghost may you know the truth of all things, I cannot believe in you.

This is simply a rehash of the faith argument, that you can make informed and logical and rational decisions based on faith. The Holy Ghost is never even clearly defined in the Bible to my understanding. The fact that your heart is not "drawn toward" Oddish on Fire can be influenced by hundreds of things other than divine influence, unless you are very steady on the idea of determinism or something similar. It may be that you are on opposing sides of debate with him, even further that you are weary of having small support on your side of the argument, or you are afraid of fire and are turned away by his name, or even have a subvert psychological distaste for Oddishes (perhaps too much grinding in Pokemon Red back in 99?). It could be a host of reasons why you aren't inherently drawn to him.
Likewise, what about good salesmen? The charming, convincing, warm, and underlyingly deceptive and cold man who draws you close by feeding off your being "drawn toward" him inexplicably. Does this disprove the idea of being able to tell a divine spirit through gut instinct, or does it mean that the theif/liar/whatever can channel the Holy Spirit and take advantage of it (highly doubtful actually since the essence of God is taken to be perfect), or does it simply mean the Holy Spirit enjoys pissing you off by screwing around with you? This is part of the reason why faith and taking things as good, bad, false, untrue, or whatever is logically irrational and can sometimes even be dangerous. Intuition is not always rational.

However, on the faith thing,

Ummm... logic by itself, is accepted because of our own idea that it makes 'sense', and religion isn't really any different. I believe it because of how it makes me feel, and it makes me know it is true. And experiences - the reason I believe in religion - are ultimately the same driving force to belief in logic and rationality. And the unusual thing is, rationality isn't always correct either.

Religion doesn't inherently make sense, it's that we're told it does that it seems to. Divine or supernatural experiences are not necessarily actually divine just because we have no real explanation for it, the mysticism around it could very well be temporary or a placebo effect or an overlooked explanation, or even a combination. Rationality may not always be correct, but that is typically because we lack some knowledge necessary to form a correct hypothesis or a best choice (see certain logic puzzles). In fact at the risk of sounding like the No True Scotsman fallacy, it really isn't rationality if it isn't rational, ie, correctly justifiable.
Your argument for faith and religion is that you feel like it's true and it makes you feel good, but then you compare it to rationality and logic and say those are situationally true. I have a hard time understanding what you mean, please clarify.

I don't mean to sound rude in any of my responses, honestly, I'm just attempting debate, and I'm not formally skilled in it. Cynical, sarcastic, somewhat blunt, yes, but never rude or mean. :P

Dang, sonickid has his stuff together.

This seems to be the case with most lurkers, in my experience.

Also, I have no intention to stop posting just because I've been wrong a few times. Can't learn from your mistakes if you don't make them, so.

Rofl, dunno definitively if you're being sarcasmic or what. If you look at my other posts most of them are in similar debating topics over science/religion in Congregation like this one. I keep the account so if something comes up and I want to put in some two cents or something I can.

Making ballsy conjectures is part of discussion in my opinion, it opens debate and correction.
Who's telling you to leave 0_o? I probably just missed a post or something, only scanned through these recent pages. Although, way to pull the n00b card, xD. Good cover.

(Also, that's sonickid01, just to nitpick. Sonickid works but SK01 or Sonic also work if you're lazy; Sonickid was a user on another board who I didn't know and was completely unassociated with, I only picked a similar username years earlier out of pure chance.)

 

[bleed4m3]

No, I wasn't being sarcastic, haha. The post was well thought out with good points that most people would be hard-pressed to refute. Also, it was stated in a way which people who aren't knowledgeable in the subject wouldn't even understand, thus eliminating the possibility of some random troll turning your argument back on you. All in all a very good response.

Also, no one told me to leave, Relictivity just seemed to be under the impression that I was getting scared off of these forums due to my being wrong a couple of times. Just letting anyone who cares that I won't let it bother me. It's a learning experience.

I know your name is Sonickid01, by the way. I used sonickid merely for convenience's sake, but I'll use whatever form of the name you prefer. I don't mind writing out a few more letters if people prefer one form of their name over another. Just let me know and I'll stick to the preferred form from now on (this applies to everyone, just so you guys know).

 

[Relictivity]

This is simply a rehash of the faith argument, that you can make informed and logical and rational decisions based on faith. The Holy Ghost is never even clearly defined in the Bible to my understanding. The fact that your heart is not "drawn toward" Oddish on Fire can be influenced by hundreds of things other than divine influence, unless you are very steady on the idea of determinism or something similar. It may be that you are on opposing sides of debate with him, even further that you are weary of having small support on your side of the argument, or you are afraid of fire and are turned away by his name, or even have a subvert psychological distaste for Oddishes (perhaps too much grinding in Pokemon Red back in 99?). It could be a host of reasons why you aren't inherently drawn to him.
Likewise, what about good salesmen? The charming, convincing, warm, and underlyingly deceptive and cold man who draws you close by feeding off your being "drawn toward" him inexplicably. Does this disprove the idea of being able to tell a divine spirit through gut instinct, or does it mean that the theif/liar/whatever can channel the Holy Spirit and take advantage of it (highly doubtful actually since the essence of God is taken to be perfect), or does it simply mean the Holy Spirit enjoys pissing you off by screwing around with you? This is part of the reason why faith and taking things as good, bad, false, untrue, or whatever is logically irrational and can sometimes even be dangerous. Intuition is not always rational.

However, on the faith thing,

Ah, a clear definition of the Holy Ghost... hmmm... this might help, list of some references... should help clear up the HOly Ghost a bit.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/h/101

Your right, it could be a bunch of other things, but my heart tells me it isn't, and since I'm relying on faith in the first place, it is thus logical to use my heart for things such as this. One of those reasons that you might be referring to is a sarcastic attitude, but I can assure you that far more important of a reason is that of having faith, and trusting my heart.

Lol, concerning the salesman, you wonder 'is God just', and until you can see that for oneself, one struggles with that very problem you are talking of. But I have seen that God is perfectly just, and I trust him, and it troubles me no more.

Religion doesn't inherently make sense, it's that we're told it does that it seems to. Divine or supernatural experiences are not necessarily actually divine just because we have no real explanation for it, the mysticism around it could very well be temporary or a placebo effect or an overlooked explanation, or even a combination. Rationality may not always be correct, but that is typically because we lack some knowledge necessary to form a correct hypothesis or a best choice (see certain logic puzzles). In fact at the risk of sounding like the No True Scotsman fallacy, it really isn't rationality if it isn't rational, ie, correctly justifiable.
Your argument for faith and religion is that you feel like it's true and it makes you feel good, but then you compare it to rationality and logic and say those are situationally true. I have a hard time understanding what you mean, please clarify.

I don't mean to sound rude in any of my responses, honestly, I'm just attempting debate, and I'm not formally skilled in it. Cynical, sarcastic, somewhat blunt, yes, but never rude or mean. :P

Lol, I used to think religion didn't make much since either. But then, I started showing faith. And I started getting my questions answered. God has many mysteries, and he will show them to you according to their faith, and they are much more satisfying than logic, I can tell you. They make so much sense, that it seems as if it is almost de-ja-vu. You realize, oh my, it is true.

What I mean, is, say we are born into this world, knowing nothing. And we are given two ways to do things. A. By faith. B. By logic. Now, we know nothing, so we have no choice but to attempt both, without having any reason to, other than that we don't want to sit there doing nothing. We take a step of faith, in order to try logic, which we aren't sure will work at that time. We discover it does work, after taking that step of faith. Thus, faith is inherently necessary in the process of discovering that logic works. Thus, we have committed an irrational act, to create rational rules.

Although it might be a placebo effect, I have no reason to believe it is, or to believe it is not. I have simply the desire to try, the same desire that drove people to logic in the first place. I have the desire to 'try' faith. And I am confident, that if I ask in faith, I will receive my answer.

Lol, don't worry, your responses are fine, I've seen ppl who are like uber-offensive, and yours is more mild-considerate, which is nice =D. I also kinda consider this a discussion rather than an argument... so yah... if I accidentally sound like over-the-top, I probably did on accident or something lol XD.

 

[btb]

This logic vs faith debate is pointless imo as proven by many topics on that matter that have been discussed here because any argument made by one side can be deflected by the other side with little thought. When religious people say something, non religious people disregard as irrational and therefore wrong and in reverse, when non religious people make a point, religious people disprove it based on their faith, which I'm not saying is wrong, just counterproductive. This ''debate'' has been going on for a few pages and it will continue for many pages given the opportunity with no significant point being made as each side is equally biased against the other.

 

[popemobile]

This logic vs faith debate is pointless imo as proven by many topics on that matter that have been discussed here because any argument made by one side can be deflected by the other side with little thought. When religious people say something, non religious people disregard as irrational and therefore wrong and in reverse, when non religious people make a point, religious people disprove it based on their faith, which I'm not saying is wrong, just counterproductive. This ''debate'' has been going on for a few pages and it will continue for many pages given the opportunity with no significant point being made as each side is equally biased against the other.

probably but hey at least we're enjoying ourselves

 

[bleed4m3]

probably but hey at least we're enjoying ourselves

Exactly. It gives us something to occupy our time when we're bored. Plus, who knows, we might just stumble across something that nobody thought of before. Probably not, but you never know. We might even find a mutually beneficial common ground.

As long as nobody bears any sense of ill-will towards the other side in the debate, no harm comes from the debate.