Buffalo Soldier said:Weird article indeed. As if any person honestly believes the bible is historically accurate?
So you don't visit the U.S. much then...
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
So you don't visit the U.S. much then...
BigMac said:
Did the quiz, turned out atheist/secular humanist.
I sympathise with pantheism, but I cannot get behind any idea of the supernatural until I see sufficient evidence. I marvel in awe at the cosmos, but I don't think there's anything supernatural about it.
Descender said:
Oh,
Well you can be an atheist pantheist. A Naturalistic/Scientifical Pantheist uses the term 'god' mainly as a metaphor to describe both the mistery and greatness of the Universe/Nature. A Naturalistic Pantheist doesn't think Nature/Universe is supernatural. You can however use the term supernatural to coin Nature in a way it transcends human comprehension (it does, want it or not (at least for the moment)). I see it as a philosophy.
I immediately thought of you due to your beliefs towards the natural and the enviornment itself.
By the way. This quiz you talk about, did you take it online? I'd be much interested in it.
Thank you!
Echoes said:
The BBC, where? Whereas I have nothing to repress.
You proclaim to know the Truth, thus a fascist who gets his info from an anachronistic orthodoxy.
Care to place (serious) bets on eschatology?
I just don't understand how people can be 100% sure there is no god.
I think its super, super unlikely but if you believe it to be 100% true and infallible....
Isn't that faith?
Or do you not acknowledge there are somethings that you may not know or are unknowable because of the limitations of our perceptions or brains.
Im very surprised that so many people voted for the bottom option.
I guess it depends on what your definition of god is but your whole reality could be a sham how can you be 100% sure there is no god?
I think its super, super unlikely but if you believe it to be 100% true and infallible....
Isn't that faith?
Or do you not acknowledge there are somethings that you may not know or are unknowable because of the limitations of our perceptions or brains.
Im very surprised that so many people voted for the bottom option.
I guess it depends on what your definition of god is but your whole reality could be a sham how can you be 100% sure there is no god?
pregalblvd said:
If one is certain of the unexistance of gods, then no, it is not faith, for faith implies having doubt on a subject you wish - or not - it is either true or works out on a certain way.
Those who voted for the last option find it clear that God and gods are a human projection or creation, and not the other way 'round. God is denied because it becomes impossible to conciliate it with logic, cosmological science and physics, as well as biology at certain point. Note that Descender writes God and not god(s) which means he can be directing specifically to the Abrahamic religions. The notion of God (which implies an original creator) is incompatible with modern day science - unless you consider the Universe to be God metaphorically.
BigMac said:
I've always disliked this definition of faith. I know many people use the word 'faith' as in believing a proposition that can't be proven or something along those lines. For me however, when I say I have faith, I'm not talking about believing certain propositions to be true at all. When I say I have faith in God, I don't mean I just believe God exists without any proof or rational reasons for it. In fact, when I say I have faith in God, I'm using the word more in a relational sense. When I say I have faith in someone, I'm not saying I believe he exists without being able to prove it; I'm saying I trust him. So similarly I think faith in the Biblical sense of the word is about trusting God and what he says and what he promises. Now of course for trusting someone, you have to believe he exists. But saying you have faith in someone, or that you trust him, doesn't imply you have some doubt about whether he exists or that you accept his existence without proof or anything like that.
Btw, I'm not correcting how you use the word faith or anything, because many people use it in that way, so I guess it's a perfectly valid meaning of the word. Even many christians, to my disappointment, use it in the same way. I just read your post and I remember I was annoyed when people and even many christians somehow think that christianity teaches that accepting certain propositions to be true without having a rational reason for it is somehow a virtue called 'faith'. Because I, as a christian, think that's a really lousy vitue. But of course your post wasn't talking about that at all, so I guess I just randomly got annoyed and started ranting into the air
Maaaaaaaarten said:I've always disliked this definition of faith. I know many people use the word 'faith' as in believing a proposition that can't be proven or something along those lines. For me however, when I say I have faith, I'm not talking about believing certain propositions to be true at all. When I say I have faith in God, I don't mean I just believe God exists without any proof or rational reasons for it. In fact, when I say I have faith in God, I'm using the word more in a relational sense. When I say I have faith in someone, I'm not saying I believe he exists without being able to prove it; I'm saying I trust him. So similarly I think faith in the Biblical sense of the word is about trusting God and what he says and what he promises. Now of course for trusting someone, you have to believe he exists. But saying you have faith in someone, or that you trust him, doesn't imply you have some doubt about whether he exists or that you accept his existence without proof or anything like that.
Btw, I'm not correcting how you use the word faith or anything, because many people use it in that way, so I guess it's a perfectly valid meaning of the word. Even many christians, to my disappointment, use it in the same way. I just read your post and I remember I was annoyed when people and even many christians somehow think that christianity teaches that accepting certain propositions to be true without having a rational reason for it is somehow a virtue called 'faith'. Because I, as a christian, think that's a really lousy vitue. But of course your post wasn't talking about that at all, so I guess I just randomly got annoyed and started ranting into the air
But your definition is right as well Maaaaaaaarten.
However, that is Faith you're talking about and not faith.One has Faith in God and (quoting you here) ''what he says and what he promises''. The word faith (lower case) means belief on the the trustworthiness of a person or idea. On both cases, it is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. There is where lies the wordplay pregalblvd used, though it is not valid because atheism is not seen as a belief so one cannot be considered to have faith in the non existance of gods.
rhubroma said:
Ironically (?) it sells the idea of arbitrariness and a very unreasonable God. What have I done wrong not to deserve Faith?
rhubroma said:
Grace is the free gift that you receive through Faith. (Eph 2)
A good definition of Faith is: Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see. Heb 11:1
BigMac said:
Apart from this reason itself becomes arbitrary and can fit whatever conclusion one has established.
In actual fact neither camp has established anything, nor ever could, which only fuels the polemic.
As far as I'm concerned the leap of faith of the religious is alien to me, thus I try to be content with the brief existence afforded me. If by chance, or design, I know not.
pregalblvd said:
The trick is to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist, especially in the face of a movement that wants to believe it does exist.
When Jesus was asked what the only way was to true
salvation,he replied: keep the Commandments (Matthew
19:17).
The first of the Commandments was to believe in the
Oneness of God and that there is no other God besides him, (Exodus 20:3). Why did Jesus answer
so if he believed in and was part of the Trinity?
Why did he not refer to the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost?
Just interested.
salvation,he replied: keep the Commandments (Matthew
19:17).
The first of the Commandments was to believe in the
Oneness of God and that there is no other God besides him, (Exodus 20:3). Why did Jesus answer
so if he believed in and was part of the Trinity?
Why did he not refer to the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost?
Just interested.
He did not refer to OT Commandments.
Jesus' commandment is : "Love one another the way I loved You"
Christians - at least traditional catholics - don't believe in the OT. The OT is ambivalent; there are good things and bad things in it. Only the Gospel matters.
You've quoted a link from the BBC, just scroll up. Saville's broadcaster !
Jesus' commandment is : "Love one another the way I loved You"
Christians - at least traditional catholics - don't believe in the OT. The OT is ambivalent; there are good things and bad things in it. Only the Gospel matters.
rhubroma said:
You've quoted a link from the BBC, just scroll up. Saville's broadcaster !
pregalblvd said:
because the religious story contradicts itself. Therefore it makes no sense. If something makes 0 sense I can be 100% certain it's not true.
Echoes said:
Christians/Protestants DO believe the in OT. The whole entire bible matters New and Old testaments.
The Hitch said:
The Bible doesn't contradict its self. You might be confused by it, but that is a user error. It harmonizes perfectly - you have to read and study the Bible in it's entirety to understand it's complete harmonious story.
Jspear said:
It's more likely the other way round. You have to throw aside every bit of sense you have, to make this piece of work look like a perfect harmony.
Jspear said:
God is benevolent but he puts people into eternal suffering based on actions they, commited during a tiny inconsiquential fraction of time, because of circumstances he placed them in.
I wouldn't put Hitler into eternal suffering let alone someone who didn't believe in me and I'm far from benevolent.
That a benevolent being would.force the most horrific punishment imaginable on innocents is an irreconcilable contradiction that absolutely destroys any religion that proclaims it.
Jspear said:
The key word here is STORY.
There are plenty of stories out there, doesn't mean they are all true.
The Hitch said:
Only if you are 100% certain that it makes 0 sense..
Which you may be. Just pointing it out..
kingjr said:
I respectfully disagree. I believe in the bible because I see it as logical. My faith is informed faith. The Bibles views on origins, man, sin, and hope all make perfect sense in light of what we see in our day in age. Is there anything in particular about the Bible that you find completely nonsensical?
The Hitch said:
Here's what the bible says Hitch.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. John 3:16-17
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;
10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed."
Rom 10:9-11
Have you done this? If not you can. If you have then you have no reason to complain. No one is without excuse. God has revealed himself through creation, through His Word, and through other Christians. People out in the world have the information. They can believe in God if they desire to.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Amstel is Gold, Jerry, Gold! Men's Classic One-Day Race, April 14, 2024- Started by red_flanders
- Replies: 708
Latest posts
-
Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard: The Wizard of Visma- Latest: velaso montador
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram