You state that I must have faith in myself to have faith in something else, but that is not obviously so.
I don't have faith in my ability to climb Mount Everest, but I have faith in other peoples ability to do it. That simple example seems to contradict your sweeping statement.
If you had faith in yourself before you put your "faith" in someone else climbing a mt. you'd be climbing it instead.
Joined: Jan 16, 2006 Posts: 627 Location: Northern Europe
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject:
young wrote:
If you had faith in yourself before you put your "faith" in someone else climbing a mt. you'd be climbing it instead.
No, I can't even climb a ladder for more than a couple of meters! It would never work... My point though is that if mountain climber X wants to climb Everest, then I can have faith in him or her regardless of whether I have faith in myself or not.
Why does there only have to be one religion? Why can't there be more than one? Unless you follow christianity who say they are the only real religion, and everyone else is possessed by the devil.
Why does there only have to be one religion? Why can't there be more than one? Unless you follow christianity who say they are the only real religion, and everyone else is possessed by the devil.
Because truth is exclusive. Reality is reality. All religions cannot be true because there are points at which religions disagree.
That being said, by no means do intelligent Christians think that all non-Christian religions are equal. There are undoubtedly some non-Christian religions that come closer to the truth than others.
_________________ "Purity of heart is to will one thing." - Soren Kierkegaard
About dogma: no set of beliefs can exist without dogma. A set of beliefs without dogma is not a set of beliefs. The belief that a certain philosophy is correct is, in and of itself, a dogma. Any and every philosophical, theological, social, political, economic, or academic philosophy has its own dogma. Even skepticism.
_________________ "Purity of heart is to will one thing." - Soren Kierkegaard
This is why religon should never be spoken of in forums..everyone ends up fighting Not everyone is ever going to come to the same conclusion(belief). So it should be just let be.
I believe in what i believe in..but i don't need to tell everyone about it.
Use each one's own religon for themselves only!!!!!
Because one's faith/spirituality is the most important thing. To say no one should discuss religion with others because it is impossible for everyone to agree is like saying the study of medicine should be abandoned because it cannot keep all men from dying. It is not about convincing everyone of the truth because that is impossible; it is about convincing everyone that is willing to believe.
_________________ "Purity of heart is to will one thing." - Soren Kierkegaard
But to me is contradictorial. Since what they say is fact today, tomorrow they'll come out and say that they were wrong.
But that is the greatest strength of science! It is dynamic and self-correcting, evolving ever closer to a true explanation of reality. Classical physics was close, quantum mechanics closer still.
Unlike religion which is static and generally ignores new evidence until it becomes so embarrassing that religious "scholars" have to yield (as with the heliocentric world view). By being so dogmatic they paint themselves into a corner.
And damn you for luring me into posting again!
There are some things that cannot be proven with empirical evidence. Science is the study of nature, not of super-nature. Science fails as a religion because it deals only with the physical world and can tell us nothing of the metaphysical one.
As an aside, trying to broadbrush all Christianity by pointing out the mistakes of a few Catholic officials from the Middle Ages is ludicrous. Let's not forget that Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus were Christians themselves.
_________________ "Purity of heart is to will one thing." - Soren Kierkegaard
However, following your definition of Agnosticism, let's think about this.
There's no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, but there's no evidence against it either. So would it be irrational to not believe in it?
How about Zeus and all those other greek gods?
How about a gigantic invisible cheese ball that watches over us?
See what I'm getting at?
A flying Spaghetti monster cannot exist because a monster is, by definition, a living creature and spaghetti is not.
A gigantic invisible cheese ball cannot watch over anything because it is inert organic material without consciousness or sensory perception.
Zeus has just as great a likelihood of existing as Yahweh does. Unless, Zeus is just a quasi-polytheistic perversion of the God of monotheism, in which case the question of greater likelihood of existence is mooted.
_________________ "Purity of heart is to will one thing." - Soren Kierkegaard
Last edited by SongOfSongs on Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
114 guests
31 members
Forum FAQ
Search
Profile
Private messages
Log in
It would never work... My point though is that if mountain climber X wants to climb Everest, then I can have faith in him or her regardless of whether I have faith in myself or not.
Not everyone is ever going to come to the same conclusion(belief). So it should be just let be.
