What's the utility of faith?

[_Buffalo]

You have to understand, mormonx, that on this board, if you're an atheist/agnostic, you don't have to have reasonable discussions. Where one makes a statement and the other disagrees and provides reasons why...

The burden of proof is yours. You're irritated because some of us require more that vague and ambiguous lines of reason.

Not to mention circular lines of reasoning (appeal to scripture)

[_Mad Viking]

Let's see if we can get this discussion started.

A believer would say something like:

The God of the Christian Bible exists and I have evidence to that effect.

The non-believer would reply:

I would love to hear/see this evidence. Please share it with me.

At this point you would present your evidence and we could discuss its merits. Are you prepared to present your evidence?

[_mormonx]

Jesus the historical figure? Sure, I can prove he doesn't presently exist as a living person. When was he born? 2000 years ago or so? The maximum level for human lifespan is well below 200 years, let alone 2000 years.

It boils down to this, in a nutshell. For Christians, Jesus is the great "I Am." In other words, Yahweh.

Okay, I've heard this argument before, about the "the square" YHEW. I'm no linguist for sure. But let me ask you, what did the God of the Bible tell us his name was? I think you need to go back to your research. You just said that Yehweh means I AM. But this is incorect... the meaning of Yehweh is well disputed, but most think it means: "He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists"
What your thinking of is: Ehyeh asher Ehyeh the name God gave himself in the burning bush. Which is translated I AM that I AM and that's all that I yam.

As far as you empirical (things we can observe) argument on Jesus. Can you go on to prove that math ceases to exist when we die, or when the world blows up or when the universe and all matter ceases to exist. Dose math still exist?

[_mormonx]

You said earlier, that there was NO evidence. That is a fact denied. There is evidence, for the 4th time, it's just not "credible" evidence in your view.

You have not presented any evidence so how could I have said it wasn't credible? If you would care to share your evidence, we could have that discussion.

Do you really need me, a lowly high school drop out to show you the evidence that you already know and are waiting with claws out to jump on? Christians share evidence when there is a reason for it, not just to have intellectual masturbation.

[_mormonx]

Not to mention circular lines of reasoning (appeal to scripture)

Appealing to scripture? I'm sorry, I do have faith, but not as much as a atheist scientist. I don't believe empirical evidence can prove all things. It has it's uses, but there are places it can't go.

[_Buffalo]

Jesus the historical figure? Sure, I can prove he doesn't presently exist as a living person. When was he born? 2000 years ago or so? The maximum level for human lifespan is well below 200 years, let alone 2000 years.

It boils down to this, in a nutshell. For Christians, Jesus is the great "I Am." In other words, Yahweh.

Okay, I've heard this argument before, about the "the square" YHEW. I'm no linguist for sure. But let me ask you, what did the God of the Bible tell us his name was? I think you need to go back to your research. You just said that Yehweh means I AM. But this is incorect... the meaning of Yehweh is well disputed, but most think it means: "He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists"
What your thinking of is: Ehyeh asher Ehyeh the name God gave himself in the burning bush. Which is translated I AM that I AM and that's all that I yam.

As far as you empirical (things we can observe) argument on Jesus. Can you go on to prove that math ceases to exist when we die, or when the world blows up or when the universe and all matter ceases to exist. Dose math still exist?

Way to completely avoid responding to my argument. Is this what atheists can expect on that site you mentioned?

[_Hoops]

The burden of proof is yours. You're irritated because some of us require more that vague and ambiguous lines of reason.

Actually, no. The burden of proof is on the one who wrote the op. He made a statement representing faith as something that it is not. For him to have us address his question, he first has to show that a)he understands the terms, or b)that faith is, indeed, what he says it is.

[_Buffalo]

Not to mention circular lines of reasoning (appeal to scripture)

Appealing to scripture? I'm sorry, I do have faith, but not as much as a atheist scientist. I don't believe empirical evidence can prove all things. It has it's uses, but there are places it can't go.

Yes, empirical science has no claim on imaginary beings. For everything real, there's science.

[_consiglieri]

I'm not seeing god in that picture. Where is he?

Just behind the locked entrance . . .

Please note the historical marker sign posted in front of the house commemorating NightLion's experience.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Guest]

You said earlier, that there was NO evidence. That is a fact denied. There is evidence, for the 4th time, it's just not "credible" evidence in your view.

You have not presented any evidence so how could I have said it wasn't credible? If you would care to share your evidence, we could have that discussion.

Do you really need me, a lowly high school drop out to show you the evidence that you already know and are waiting with claws out to jump on? Christians share evidence when there is a reason for it, not just to have intellectual masturbation.

I have no way of knowing whether the things you will site as evidence are the same things I've heard others say. You made a claim, and you've been asked to substatiate it. Such a request seems reasonable.

Oh... and by the way... you being a high school drop out is irrelevant. I think that a high school drop out is as capable as a PhD (which I am not) at dicussing such topics.