18
   

What is hope...is there a difference between hope and faith

 
 
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 02:57 am
@Jasper10,
*world
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 03:32 am
@Jiggy,
Jiggy wrote:

I don't know where you got your definition from. Perhaps you can post the link here, because what you are describing is not the religious view, but the skeptic's


Are you suggesting that the assertion, "There is a GOD...and that GOD is described in the Bible"...is anything more than a blind guess?

It is, you know...whether you acknowledge it or not.

It is as much a blind guess as the assertion, "There are no gods."

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 03:34 am
@Jiggy,
Jiggy wrote:

I don't know where you got your definition from. Perhaps you can post the link here, because what you are describing is not the religious view, but the skeptic's


What I am "describing" is a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

There MAY be a GOD (or gods) involved...or there MAY BE NO GODS involved.

One can make a guess either way...A BLIND GUESS.

One of those guesses is correct.

BUT EACH IS A BLIND GUESS.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 03:38 am
@Jiggy,
Jiggy wrote:

"Blind guess" is a way skeptics seek to demean religious people as irrational.
There are persons to whom the difference has been explained, but they insist on using the term "blind". It's obviously deliberate.


Actually, "blind guess" (the way I have been using it) is not meant to demean at all. It is meant to convey a truth.

Either at least one GOD exists in the REALITY of existence...or NO GODS exist.

We can only guess. And whichever guess you make is a blind guess. There is NO unambiguous evidence in either direction.

In fact, the people who make those blind guesses ALL use the same evidence to make their guesses.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 06:06 am
@Albuquerque,
Quote:
Voluntarity is not voluntary!

And denial is not a river in Africa.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 06:13 am
@hightor,
Quote:
People who attend church don't describe it as "godding".

Good grief, word games? What are you, twelve?

Quote:
People who strongly believe in a personal Supreme Being don't see it as a voluntary activity but as a recognition of their devotion to and dependence on the god that they worship.

People who insist they know what and why others are doing a voluntary activity better than the ones doing it, cannot be taken seriously. Grow up.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 06:18 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Your conclusion that it had to be ID...

I think you are cross threaded again. I have posted arguments regarding ID elsewhere if you care to discuss.
ascribbler
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 06:39 am
Scuse you Frank, Leadfoot has evidence. He has been in the presence of the Almighty on more than one occasion. Tell us about it Leadfoot.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 08:01 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
What are you, twelve?

Why the hostility? You compared "golf" with "god" and said they are both voluntary activities. I didn't think that was a meaningful comparison because we use the words in different ways. I don't see "god" as an activity, which is why I used it as a gerund; we can talk about golfing but no one talks about godding.
Quote:

People who insist they know what and why others are doing a voluntary activity better than the ones doing it, cannot be taken seriously.

That's what you're doing! You're insisting that god and golf are similar voluntary activities. None of the strongly religious people I have known have ever described their faith as a "voluntary activity" which they could choose to do or not do — unlike going to the golf course — and when they explained how their religion fit into their lives they used terms like "devotion" and "dependence". Which is why I chose those terms.
Quote:
Grow up.

Don't be so juvenile.

Jiggy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 02:34 pm
@InfraBlue,
> Human evolution
> Comparative anatomy, including 1) comparative studies of brain size,; 2) comparative study of genetic sequence... etc.
> Last universal common ancestor (LUCA)
> Universal common ancestor (UCA)
> Phylogenetics - on which most evolutionary ideas (assumptions) stem.
.... and the list goes on, Which I don't think it's necessary, since I also think that it's not fair that skeptics always want to be the ones asking the questions, and they ignore questions posed to them.

It's interesting how we get theories built on hypotheses. The hypotheses have not become theories, but they are used to claim that a particular idea is a theory. Hence the "theory" of evolution, including the extrapolated and unverifiable macro side of it; the "theory" of whale evolution based on the hypothesis that fossils - an ear bone, and blow hole tell us something conclusive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific
Quote:
In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Theories must also meet further requirements, such as the ability to make falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry, and production of strong evidence in favor of the theory from multiple independent sources (consilience).


This is no different to religion.
When scientist can use such terms as looks like, appear to be, likely, could be, may have, etc., and call it science, they are doing the same thing they accuse religious people of. It's not science, when such assumptions are not proven. It's more philosophy or religious.
It's not surprising therefore, that many who study these methods of science, see the gaping holes - how easy it is to take science beliefs where the community wants it to go. Against Method

https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b
Quote:
The scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.
It is the only rigorously-defined tool that filters out our personal bias.

The scientific method allows us to formulate ideas and back them with evidence. They are then shared with a community of other scientists that rigorously try to disprove them. If no one can disprove a hypothesis, it becomes the current working theory. If someone eventually does, the theory is changed or replaced. This process continues and results in better and better ideas being formulated over time. Although the scientific method is not guaranteed to give us the absolutely correct answer, it does help us get closer to that answer. It helps us improve our existing model of the universe and learn from our mistakes.
Science is the process of attempting to understand the natural world through evidence and reason. Scientists have been wrong before, and they will certainly be wrong again. New evidence can change our model of the universe, and that’s okay.


It would be great if there was a tool that guaranteed us the absolute correct answer every time, but it is doubtful that such tool exists. Science is by far the best tool we have to understand the natural world, and scientific evidence should not be ignored just because it has been misinterpreted in the past.

Smile Interesting.

Please be aware that this means nothing to me, as it is just a matter of beliefs. What Atheists, skeptics, or unbelievers believe, has nothing to do with what I believe.
If one is going to say one is better than the other, I think I want to hear that person, and have them demonstrate that to me.

I see one is useful for trying to understand the physical - natural is a loaded word Very Happy - world, The other is useful for understand the spiritual world, which helps in understanding the physical world also. Smile

Jiggy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 02:41 pm
@Jasper10,
I think you are a reasonable person, and this has nothing to do with religion. Although ... with humility comes wisdom - Proverbs 11:2. Smile
So yeah... In a way it does.
0 Replies
 
Jiggy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 02:45 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Are you saying you cannot give me the definition because you are speaking purely from emotion and not fact?
What you are describing is not the religious view of faith. It's not a guess. No.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 02:51 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
Leadfoot Quote:
People who insist they know what and why others are doing a voluntary activity better than the ones doing it, cannot be taken seriously.

hightor replied:
That's what you're doing! You're insisting that god and golf are similar voluntary activities.

I said that they are similar in that they are both voluntary. If you don’t know the difference, maybe you are twelve. And if you don’t believe they are both voluntary, you don’t have a good grip on reality.
Jiggy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 02:53 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Truth is not relative to you Frank. Because you consider it truth does not make it truth.
Aren't you interested in rational reasonable response?
At least we can agree on something - There is NO unambiguous evidence in either direction. Whether science, philosophy, religion, all things are subject to different interpretation... unless it is clearly and directly observable.
I agree with that.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 03:06 pm
@Jiggy,
Quote:
Truth is not relative to you Frank. Because you consider it truth does not make it truth.
Aren't you interested in rational reasonable response?

My guess is that his answer is 'No'. And if you keep insisting on rationality, he will put you on 'ignore'.
Good thing or bad? You decide.

But I think he'll accept your answer this time. It is compatible with his dogma.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 03:34 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
If you don’t know the difference, maybe you are twelve.

Okay, assume that I'm twelve. Explain how the name we give to a supreme being — "god" — and the activity we call "golf" are both voluntary.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 04:27 pm
@hightor,
Would it help if f I made it 'God' instead of God?
I was using it in the general sense of 'Seeking understanding of God' , just as 'Golf' refers to the activity of hitting balls into small holes in the ground.

Not that I was referring to 'church going', but whenever I went, I can assure you it was voluntary. I’ve never seen anyone dragged in by force. It is true that people go for many reasons, keep spouse happy, like the punch & cookies after, good business contacts, etc. And oddly enough the same reasons apply to Golf.
But it’s still voluntary.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 04:34 pm
@ascribbler,
Quote:
Scuse you Frank, Leadfoot has evidence. He has been in the presence of the Almighty on more than one occasion. Tell us about it Leadfoot.

I’m not sure I have ever not been in the presence of God.
So right now, I’m replying to you. Is there some other specific occasion you are interested in?

Edit: I forgot, there was one time when I asked what it was like not to be in his presence. He showed me. I will not ask again.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 04:38 pm
@Leadfoot,
Doesn’t it depend on how you define voluntary?

If someone is doing something because they want to then fair enough, but if they’re doing it for fear of what might happen in the hereafter, then there’s some level of coercion and it’s not voluntary.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2020 04:47 pm
@izzythepush,
You have a point if I was talking about church attendance. Your spouse might be threatening to cut you off if you don’t go.

But seeking to understand God is a solitary pursuit and unless you accept other people’s dogma about him, there is no coercion.

If you tell me otherwise, I demand to see the evidence.
 

Related Topics

Emmanuels Light A Poem of Death and God - Discussion by Alan McDougall
Help! Should I give up hope?!? - Question by Jessicalawely123
Can someone offer some clarity please? - Question by rebellefleur
Are you religious? - Question by lizaveta
Help me out please :/ - Question by Jeffrey1111
The Death and Life of Chicago - Discussion by Miller
Itinerary, Obama the next term - Discussion by RexRed
State Of Black Males in Chicago - Discussion by Miller
Is hope a bad thing? - Question by Procrustes
Feathers in Bethlehem - Discussion by mags314772
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/16/2021 at 12:28:20