I like that definition. Most people find it much harder to place faith in themselves, though. The Bible even discourages you from placing faith in yourself, so people influenced by it are going to have their self-doubts reinforced.
I like that definition. Most people find it much harder to place faith in themselves, though. The Bible even discourages you from placing faith in yourself, so people influenced by it are going to have their self-doubts reinforced.
Referring to the covert art here, not the text on the cover.
As titled, for those of us who played Skyrim.
I find formal debates tedious and too much like work. I do my debating in the forums. Always did. Also this forum is still new and in alpha, not surprised people haven't filled out their profiles.
What there is insufficient evidence for is the objective existence of God, the historical fact of the resurrection, the virgin birth, and other biblical miracles.
There's plenty of data for it. You say 'insufficient evidence' because of your interpretation of the data.
Correct.
Faith of something does not denote that thing exists, unless you want to admit that Freya, Vishnu, Allah, and thetans all exist too.
Yeah it does. Those examples you gave do exist at least in concept. Faith of something denotes that thing is at least an idea from a person or group.
Sure, but everyone agrees that deities exist as an idea/concept.
Re: faith as evidence -- it's evidence to the believer. It is not an evidence that you can present to others as proof of the broad authority of your religion.
That doesn't mean faith cannot necessarily be used as evidence. Faith is based in evidence, not in feeling. Those who say otherwise don't understand what faith is.
We're back to the definition fallacy.
Belief despite lack of evidence is one definition of faith. Just because you have a different definition doesn't mean others "don't understand what faith is." They are simply acquainted with other definitions than the one you're trying to strongarm over and against the others.
Record of acts of faith can kickstart a trail of evidence. Many people died having faith in Jesus. Why would people be willing to die for their religion? Because it was important to them. Why was it important to them? Knowing the teachings of the Bible (or at least what was available at the time) fulfilled their life and gave them purpose. Why would the Bible give a person purpose? Because the Bible provides an explanation for the complete human experience as well as our origins and the future. The Bible gives a lot of answers that humans care about, and Christians find them satisfactory, at least they should. There is data lodged in faith that represents evidence for why the Bible is a truthful explanation for the world.
I don't understand why Christians use this argument. Do you know how many people from various religions have died for their faith? Do you know how many people have felt fulfilled by their religion, have considered their religion to be a complete explanation of the human experience?
Sometimes I think Christianity is such a cultural titan in the West that Christians have a real problem placing their religion in a broader context, in understanding that other faiths can be just as powerful, fulfilling, and moving to their adherents.
There is evidence based in faith; if you disagree, what data are you looking at that you interpret as evidence for an alternative?
There is a kind of faith that can be based in evidence. I don't disagree with that.
Right. I miss the age where book covers are just plain one color(white, blue, red, etc) with nothing else except the book title, the author name and the publisher. The flashiness of the book cover nowadays is negatively correlated to how much I want to read it (assuming it is a book I have never read). I know I am quite literally not supposed to judge a book by its cover but it is another thing when apparently the publishers are actively trying too hard to push a regular book to be Teen Vogue.
Ikr? Or something simple and classy
A, You like the book and the cover is not worthy of it.
B, You disliked the book and were misled by the cover.
C, OCD.
D, Other.
I think it's all of the above lol
I feel like these semantic arguments all suffer from the definition fallacy -- that because a word means one thing, it cannot mean another.
There is faith in the sense of believing in something despite lack of evidence.
There is faith in the sense of a broad religious movement.
There is faith as in simple confidence or trust in something or someone.
Many believers use "faith" to describe something more like a personal light inside each of us that we draw strength and hope from. This is my favorite definition.
As for your main points, Christianity is a religion, and there is obviously tons of evidence for the existence of that religion. What there is insufficient evidence for is the objective existence of God, the historical fact of the resurrection, the virgin birth, and other biblical miracles.
Re: faith as evidence -- it's evidence to the believer. It is not an evidence that you can present to others as proof of the broad authority of your religion. Faith of something does not denote that thing exists, unless you want to admit that Freya, Vishnu, Allah, and thetans all exist too.
Why does it irritate me so much when book covers inaccurately depict the subject material
People who use the term agnostic and then go on to argue an anti-theist position are copping out. If you honestly don't know, then argue, like you don't know. But don't come at people confident in their faith and say, I'm agnostic, thinking it makes you look less bigoted. Ricky Gervais is a perfect example of this.
Some people definitely do identify as agnostic to look less bigoted (Neil deGrasse Tyson springs to mind) but afaik Gervais is an atheist. An agnostic atheist, but still an atheist.
Anyone who comes at theism all aggro is an atheist imo; if they claim otherwise, then yeah, seems like a dodge.
I enjoyed it in New Vegas. Always carried around a couple of glass pitchers and surgical tubing to purify my dirty water on the go. Searching for food, avoiding radiation, it all just adds an extra edge to games that I like.
Holy shit lmao
I disliked that picking your race also meant picking your appearance, but what can you expect from an older game. I bought it last year and went Ventrue because I liked the mind control powers.
The roleplaying value in that game was through the roof. And the atmosphere was so cool.
My theology is completely about connecting with Gods and making deals with Gods. I do talk with humans too especially online but that is for research purposes and has no any love involved.
Do you love your gods, then? Or is it just transactional?
Get out, you played VM:B? What vampire race? No. Wait. I wanna guess.
Mm... Tremere?
I prefer my copypasta al dente.
Where you have to either feed, hydrate, shelter, warm your character and/or your character's mount.
Do you love these or find them annoying.
I love me some survival mechanics, which is ironic because I hate camping and I take care of myself like health is a myth.
I hope your whole theology isn't based on this misanthrope mindset.
handwave
I'll amend that to "his rhetoric surrounding 1/6" then.
You're continuing to focus on one word in his speech; I'm talking about the entirety of the speech, his tweets prior, his propaganda, the speeches of his compatriots, etc. The whole body of lies and provocation.
Hm, I see. Appreciate your candor.
Passing over your views on hetero relationship dynamics, you would honestly prefer to never enjoy food, beverages, cozy blankets, orgasms, any of the pleasures that come with fulfilling our needs?
Their art is famously appreciated read a fucking book Debs
I don't know how old you were in '69, but do you remember the murders? It must have been a huge deal for the neighborhood.
Elaborate plz 🙏
Oh, yes I have. The argument, from the beginning, has been the incorrect interpretation of the word "fight" in the context of the speech transcript.
You introduced that talking point yourself here. Neither myself or RR have made the word "fight" central to our arguments. RR mentioned the word once in the context of a much larger post. You have largely ignored our arguments in favor of focusing on small semantic matters and reductive platitudes.
You're still assuming everyone shares your negative experiences with people, relationships, and trust, Luce. I often consider becoming a theist, but for spiritual fulfillment, not so I can have someone to trust. I trust the people in my life well.
Hieroglyphs ultimately inspired the Phoenician alphabet and are thus the ancestors of the English alphabet. They're not has-beens; they're forefathers.
To address the question: difficult to answer, from what little I know. Hieroglyphs are a writing system, but it's not like it was one the ancient Egyptians used for common day-to-day communication. These were sacred glyphs reserved for tombs, monuments, religion, stele, obelisks. They were meant to be ornamental and artistic. When artistry was not needed they used hieratic. Later demotic.
wdym, you've participated in religious conversations on discord with me without any problems
eVERYTHING THAT COULD GO WRONG DID GO WRONG AT WEORK TODAT, SCREW IT i AM NOT RETYPING IT
Fuck 'em.
(This is always what I want to hear when I'm in this situation, sorry if it's not appropriate.)
I hear this occasionally and I'm getting kind of tired of it.
Huxley coined the term agnostic to describe a reasonable philosophy: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration, and do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
Admitting that you cannot know if God exists or not seems like a pretty rational stance, yet it's sometimes maligned as cowardice by ideological edgelords.
Even if someone happens to be hiding under the tent of agnosticism out of religious apathy or conflict avoidance, it doesn't mean agnosticism is inherently cowardly.