ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
LOL I hope you're not serious -- at some point I mentioned Zoroastrians, having to do with the Muslims in India refusing to bury the dead terrorists... but that was a joke.
At any rate: I am not agnostic. I believe in God, sometimes (rarely) because I feel it affirmed by a je ne sais quois at a certain moment. More often than not, for me, belief is a struggle, and I choose to maintain belief in the absence of good proof that would convince a skeptic, as well as the absence of a heart full of easy faith. It's just a choice.
I can not make a case for it to you or anybody else and have no interest in doing so. I do get disgusted in these perpetual displays of easy faith in what I see as demonstrably false premises, regarding literalism and the mechanics of salvation and theology.
So: if one believes that belief is a matter of choice, does that make one agnostic? I don't think so, but that's a definitional quibble.
PFnV
You sound like a classic agnostic Zoroastrian to me...CULTIST!
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
nobody ever came to Faith because they lost the arguement.
I did. I was arguing with a young lady that Jesus could not possibly be the Son of God, and instead he was just a normal yet rather clever, forward thinking bloke with a very developed spiritual side.
Unfortunately in my zest to prove her wrong and win the argument, I decided to research his life and teachings and gather the evidence.
Its probably safe to say I ended up losing that that argument in a rather spectacular fashion.
I did. I was arguing with a young lady that Jesus could not possibly be the Son of God, and instead he was just a normal yet rather clever, forward thinking bloke with a very developed spiritual side.
Unfortunately in my zest to prove her wrong and win the argument, I decided to research his life and teachings and gather the evidence.
Its probably safe to say I ended up losing that that argument in a rather spectacular fashion.
So you can relate to Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell then. Thanks for sharing that.
So you can relate to Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell then. Thanks for sharing that.
I’ve not read any of their books, but in terms of seeing the perfectly rational side of Christian teaching and the "mechanics of salvation", then yes I can definitely relate to them in apologist terms.
Last edited by OldEngland; 12-13-2008 at 03:03 PM..
But if you have FAITH that there is a teapot circuling Pluto and you had hundreds of eyewitnesses ( ok, say we had the technology to send astronauts to Pluto just for, lack of a better word, arguements sake) who put their life on the line to swear that there was a teapot, and generations before that, there were hundreds of prophesies on record that there would be a teapot going around Pluto at exactly the same time that it was predicted
then the people who had faith that there was indeed a teapot circuling Pluto would not all be whackjobs.
So far, there has not been a book produced making so many predictions about the teapot, there hasnt been hundreds of people who saw the teapot, and these same people didnt have such faith in the reality of the teapot that they would all accept grisly deaths rather than take back their teapot story so in this case I dont feel there is the same weight of responsibility to disprove the theory.
But tell me, how many of those who had that faith of an invisible teapot orbiting Pluto primarily becuase they learned about it from someone else who had that same faith?
I mean, it's not like you can actually go to Pluto and see thast teapot. Never mind that it's invisible.
Now, if thousands of people autonomously came up to me and told me they believed this, AND if they could PROVE to me that they never talked to anyone else who shared the faith, THEN you would have my attention.
Faith in and of itself doesn't mean squat.
And as to the question of why faith and science can't co-exist... well, it simply can't if that faith continues to contradict science. If you want to abide by a certain faith, that's your right, and I will defend that right as an American as well as a free person to follow that faith. In that way, science and your faith CAN be compatible because, well, they don't need to be imcompatible. However, once that faith compels you to begin to impinge on MY rights, then the party's over. This has nothing to do with science vs religion, and everything to do with your sensibilities being driven by your faith contradicting with my sensibilities.
But tell me, how many of those who had that faith of an invisible teapot orbiting Pluto primarily becuase they learned about it from someone else who had that same faith?
I mean, it's not like you can actually go to Pluto and see thast teapot. Never mind that it's invisible.
Now, if thousands of people autonomously came up to me and told me they believed this, AND if they could PROVE to me that they never talked to anyone else who shared the faith, THEN you would have my attention.
Faith in and of itself doesn't mean squat.
And as to the question of why faith and science can't co-exist... well, it simply can't if that faith continues to contradict science. If you want to abide by a certain faith, that's your right, and I will defend that right as an American as well as a free person to follow that faith. In that way, science and your faith CAN be compatible because, well, they don't need to be imcompatible. However, once that faith compels you to begin to impinge on MY rights, then the party's over. This has nothing to do with science vs religion, and everything to do with your sensibilities being driven by your faith contradicting with my sensibilities.
Faith doesnt mean squat to you. That doesnt mean it doesnt mean squat.
How has my faith impinged about your rights? What if your lack of faith impinges on mine?
Personally, i believe this whole God vs Science thing is a false arguement, they can certainly co-exist. A person can believe in Evolution, and that life began from a Creator. Many, many people, caught in the buckshot from extremists from both sides, believe this.
Faith doesnt mean squat to you. That doesnt mean it doesnt mean squat.
How has my faith impinged about your rights? What if your lack of faith impinges on mine?
Personally, i believe this whole God vs Science thing is a false arguement, they can certainly co-exist. A person can believe in Evolution, and that life began from a Creator. Many, many people, caught in the buckshot from extremists from both sides, believe this.
I believe it!
Hey! You tricked me! You made me say....wait, OH NO YOU DON"T...I'm not saying it again!
Faith doesnt mean squat to you. That doesnt mean it doesnt mean squat.
How has my faith impinged about your rights? What if your lack of faith impinges on mine?
Your faith CONSTANTLY impinges on my rights, and the rights of many others. Can you say reproductive rights? The right-to-lifers cause is entirely faith based.
Your faith CONSTANTLY impinges on my rights, and the rights of many others. Can you say reproductive rights? The right-to-lifers cause is entirely faith based.
That's not true.
"Right-to-Lifers" are for the right to life. True RTL's oppose the death penalty as well. Are you one of those? If so, why? Where do you get the notion that the life of a rapist or murderer is worth keeping? Is there some sort of religious basis for that?
That's not true.
"Right-to-Lifers" are for the right to life. True RTL's oppose the death penalty as well. Are you one of those? If so, why? Where do you get the notion that the life of a rapist or murderer is worth keeping? Is there some sort of religious basis for that?
I'm opposed to the death penalty and I couldn't be any less religious. It's cruel and inhumane and doesn't serve as a deterrent. I believe that societies can be judged by how they treat their most unwanted elements. I also think that an execution is irreversible and the chance that an innocent person could be put to death outweighs the need for it. It's also cheaper to house and feed someone than execute them. Justice cannot be based on revenge, and revenge is the only basis for putting someone to death, regardless of what their crime is.
Re: God vs Science
Linear Mode
