Poll: If you are a Trump supporter, do you consider him to be a “good Christian?”

[LouderVol]

Yes.

If you're making claims of "metaphysical" activity without evidence, it can be dismissed just as easily. That people have been duped for a millennia isn't evidence of rational thought or proof.

Claims aren't evidence. Billions of people "believing" isn't evidence.

If no conclusion can be made for or against, because of a lack of evidence - why should anyone logically err on the side of magic?

why would an objective person expect concrete physical proof of an alleged (from the atheistic viewpoint) metaphysical activity? typically one would not look outside the subject to prove/validate the subject.

Only a very little of our math has been "proofed" outside of the equations we use to express it. our entire scientific field is built upon scientific support, not philosophical, historical, or other non-science fields. heck there are even things we "know" from the science of physics, but can't do with engineering. and vice versa, there are things we can do, that we can not explain. the science of physics can not explain why an unridden bike will self correct to an extent, but it is clearly observable and thus real. if you only accepted the science of physics you would reject a reality your eye can see.

even direct objects we don't measure off the context of something else. we don't use the stars to prove or explain biological life. we use biological life.

 

[Septic]

why would an objective person expect concrete physical proof of an alleged (from the atheistic viewpoint) metaphysical activity? typically one would not look outside the subject to prove/validate the subject.

Only a very little of our math has been "proofed" outside of the equations we use to express it. our entire scientific field is built upon scientific support, not philosophical, historical, or other non-science fields. heck there are even things we "know" from the science of physics, but can't do with engineering. and vice versa, there are things we can do, that we can not explain. the science of physics can not explain why an unridden bike will self correct to an extent, but it is clearly observable and thus real. if you only accepted the science of physics you would reject a reality your eye can see.

even direct objects we don't measure off the context of something else. we don't use the stars to prove or explain biological life. we use biological life.

Can you rephrase your question?

I'm not understanding why you would not believe that an objective person wouldn't expect anything but concrete proof of metaphysical "activity." As I stated, I haven't put much effort or thoughts into metaphysics and really don't have an opinion on it one way or the other. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that Occam's razor applies to my comments about any supernatural or the unexplainable and that my conclusion will never end with "I don't know, therefore god must have done it."

 

[82_VOL_83]

We all need to pray for turbo

I think she would be insulted so I will pass.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

There's no evidence for a divine being and never will be. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the bible was written long after "Jesus" supposedly lived. As you allude, the adherents of the world's many different religions and spiritual philosophies believe in a lot of different things--most of them wacky. And nothing is more wacky or pathetic than self-styled christians who support the most immoral and detestable man in the history of American politics.

For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.

It’s the eternal flaw of the atheist. Even with evidence, you won’t believe.

 

[LouderVol]

Can you rephrase your question?

I'm not understanding why you would not believe that an objective person wouldn't expect anything but concrete proof of metaphysical "activity." As I stated, I haven't put much effort or thoughts into metaphysics and really don't have an opinion on it one way or the other. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that Occam's razor applies to my comments about any supernatural or the unexplainable and that my conclusion will never end with "I don't know, therefore god must have done it."

God is not a physical being. He doesn't come down and physically part the Red Sea with his hands, keep Jesus walking on water with some divine string, etc. At least as far as I know, no Christian denomination claims otherwise. The physical Jesus existed, but none of his physical miracles would be things we would expect to still exist, usually healing the sick or driving out demons. we would have to find the physical remains of someone known to have been miracled to prove it, and as far as I know that hasn't happened. So expecting some concrete physical proof for a being or actions that leave no physical trace is not a good faith (purely a phrase about arguments and not faith faith) argument.

how/what would you reasonably expect a person of faith to provide as far as concrete, or provable, evidence? IMO you are setting an impossible standard based on the subject matter at hand.

I agree with your last, the lack of proof doesn't prove anything either, which is why I have been calling out several posters in this thread arguing for God, a position I agree with.

my point was that we accept several of those same assumptions, "I don't know, therefore it must be X", in the fields that you would likely want us to use to prove God exists. the scientific method is not a perfect tool, and science doesn't claim to be, and that is no fault of science, but it is accepted. We make leaps assuming that we don't know how something works today, but someday we will and that fits under the umbrella of "science". But apparently it becomes unacceptable to assume that we can't scientifically prove God today, but maybe someday we will. If you are debating out of good faith, it seems like you would be willing to accept the POSSIBILITY of it, instead of flat out rejecting it.

 

[jvol1]

Yes.

If you're making claims of "metaphysical" activity without evidence, it can be dismissed just as easily. That people have been duped for a millennia isn't evidence of rational thought or proof.

Claims aren't evidence. Billions of people "believing" isn't evidence.

If no conclusion can be made for or against, because of a lack of evidence - why should anyone logically err on the side of magic?

Or err against it by assuming theres nothing by relying on the same faith that the believers do.

Are you familiar with Pascal's wager?

 

[jvol1]

but isn't that the call of the faithful anyway? we very much operate with a certain knowledge of God's existence. some faiths put a very heavy emphasis on there being real punishment for those sins (hell & satan), seems like that is also influencing ones choices.

does that change because the source of knowledge goes from the Bible, religion, faith, to science? seems counter productive, reducing the role of faith, and placing possibly false assumptions on God's gift of freewill to us.

all free will is always influenced by the reality of the individual. you are only "free" to make the choices you know of. You are always going to be constrained by your experiences, history, and context of the situation itself.

Reason and faith shouldn't be conflated. Science and reason are based on logic and proof. Faith is acting essentially without reason on a belief. One has faith in the bible and the higher metaphysics which it proposes. One doesnt have faith in science because its claims are proved via logic, reason, and the scientific method.

If you act like a good christian here, it's based on faith not reason. You have certain reassurance that theres any reason for doing so.

 

[Septic]

God is not a physical being. He doesn't come down and physically part the Red Sea with his hands, keep Jesus walking on water with some divine string, etc. At least as far as I know, no Christian denomination claims otherwise. The physical Jesus existed, but none of his physical miracles would be things we would expect to still exist, usually healing the sick or driving out demons. we would have to find the physical remains of someone known to have been miracled to prove it, and as far as I know that hasn't happened. So expecting some concrete physical proof for a being or actions that leave no physical trace is not a good faith (purely a phrase about arguments and not faith faith) argument.

how/what would you reasonably expect a person of faith to provide as far as concrete, or provable, evidence? IMO you are setting an impossible standard based on the subject matter at hand.

I agree with your last, the lack of proof doesn't prove anything either, which is why I have been calling out several posters in this thread arguing for God, a position I agree with.

my point was that we accept several of those same assumptions, "I don't know, therefore it must be X", in the fields that you would likely want us to use to prove God exists. the scientific method is not a perfect tool, and science doesn't claim to be, and that is no fault of science, but it is accepted. We make leaps assuming that we don't know how something works today, but someday we will and that fits under the umbrella of "science". But apparently it becomes unacceptable to assume that we can't scientifically prove God today, but maybe someday we will. If you are debating out of good faith, it seems like you would be willing to accept the POSSIBILITY of it, instead of flat out rejecting it.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around whether or not you're kidding. Are you seriously suggesting that to expect someone who is trying to convince or persuade me to believe in a supernatural, unseen, unheard force that is both omnipotent and omniscient without evidence is being unreasonable?

To be clear, I'm not an atheist and do not reject the possibility of a "god." I accept the possibility of a higher power, I've just yet to be convinced that there is one. If you can't provide evidence of something, the onus isn't on me to accept a 'your' claim purely on faith. If your argument is that I need to make a "leap" of faith to get to where you are, then I flatly reject your argument as unconvincing.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around whether or not you're kidding. Are you seriously suggesting that to expect someone who is trying to convince or persuade me to believe in a supernatural, unseen, unheard force that is both omnipotent and omniscient is unreasonable?

To be clear, I'm not an atheist and do not reject the possibility of a "god." I accept the possibility of a higher power, I've just yet to be convinced that there is one. If you can't provide evidence of something, the onus isn't on me to accept a 'your' claim purely on faith. If your argument is that I need to make a "leap" of faith to get to where you are, then I flatly reject your argument as unconvincing.

If your mind is truly open, that is wonderful.

Sometimes it takes an epiphany. It did with me. I've probably told this before, but I was flying across the north Atlantic at night. It was quiet and dark, and I found myself looking up at the stars. As much of a technological marvel that an airliner is (yeah I still look out the window, and I still think flying is something at which to marvel).. looking up at those stars it simply hit me that there MUST be something more than this. To be convinced that we are nothing but a bug on a speck of dust in an infinite (can you REALLY wrap your head around infinity?) universe would be incredibly depressing. As someone said 'it takes more faith to be an athiest than a Christian.'

It truly is for you to discover. And it is not what's in your head, but what's in your heart. I have found that I am a lot more at peace with my mortality. But it all goes back to the question of the openness of your mind. I can tell from your post that you're being defensive, and I understand that. Been there. I don't care what other people think at this point. I don't need to prove to anyone where I stand. I don't need anyone's approval. I have the only approval that matters. The sad thing are the snake oil salesmen that give Christians a bad name. All I can say there is that God will deal with them in due time, and I pray that you won't let them color your openness (I don't have the right word there).

As much as we spar on here I can imagine you won't even read this post, but I truly hope you find peace.

 

[Septic]

Or err against it by assuming theres nothing by relying on the same faith that the believers do.

Are you familiar with Pascal's wager?

Are you familiar why Pascal's wager is such a terrible argument?

Do you think "faith" is a switch a skeptic can flip to fool an omniscient creator? Wouldn't that god easily sniff out whether a person is true believer or just one who is hedging?

I'll tell you what - I have the power to send you to hell unless you send me $5k (no proof required). Hold on now, before you laugh and mock my ability to send you to hell, just remember - you can't be sure that I can't, wouldn't it be in your best interest to go ahead and send me the $5k? Run this up your flagpole and let me know when I should send you my address for the check.

 

[volbound1700]

Yes.

If you're making claims of "metaphysical" activity without evidence, it can be dismissed just as easily. That people have been duped for a millennia isn't evidence of rational thought or proof.

Claims aren't evidence. Billions of people "believing" isn't evidence.

If no conclusion can be made for or against, because of a lack of evidence - why should anyone logically err on the side of magic?

Did you read my post #1408 out of curiosity or my discussions with Turbo? If you are taling about physical fossils, God or angels wouldn't create it but there are a lot of odd/difficult to explain items around Faith in our World. A great example is the story of Joan of Arc or Jacques de Molay.

 

[WoodsmanVol]

God is not a physical being. He doesn't come down and physically part the Red Sea with his hands, keep Jesus walking on water with some divine string, etc. At least as far as I know, no Christian denomination claims otherwise. The physical Jesus existed, but none of his physical miracles would be things we would expect to still exist, usually healing the sick or driving out demons. we would have to find the physical remains of someone known to have been miracled to prove it, and as far as I know that hasn't happened. So expecting some concrete physical proof for a being or actions that leave no physical trace is not a good faith (purely a phrase about arguments and not faith faith) argument.

how/what would you reasonably expect a person of faith to provide as far as concrete, or provable, evidence? IMO you are setting an impossible standard based on the subject matter at hand.

I agree with your last, the lack of proof doesn't prove anything either, which is why I have been calling out several posters in this thread arguing for God, a position I agree with.

my point was that we accept several of those same assumptions, "I don't know, therefore it must be X", in the fields that you would likely want us to use to prove God exists. the scientific method is not a perfect tool, and science doesn't claim to be, and that is no fault of science, but it is accepted. We make leaps assuming that we don't know how something works today, but someday we will and that fits under the umbrella of "science". But apparently it becomes unacceptable to assume that we can't scientifically prove God today, but maybe someday we will. If you are debating out of good faith, it seems like you would be willing to accept the POSSIBILITY of it, instead of flat out rejecting it.

Just a few interesting comments about things the Bible says. Not that it meets the empirical conditions for determining facts. In any case, here are the interesting things that caught my attention while reading the Good Book. Stuff written before the age of science. I trust you folks know your Bible enough to know from whence the quotes originate.
1. Suggesting the existence of gravity: He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
2. Providing an aerial before planes or satellites: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

[The last statement implies we live within an atmospheric region that allows us to breathe]

3. Awareness that some constellation stars move independently rather than like a herd, And some move the same direction: Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

[Until relatively recent times, we didn't know the Arcturus stellar group were gravitationally bound]

4. Indication the universe is governed by the laws of physics: Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?

Unfortunately, a lot of such statements are interwoven with religious symbology, and cultural references, even folklore. The Bible, after all isn't a textbook. But it is interesting to see such statements. Including Genesis referring to the universe being dark and formless, then suddenly a burst of light appears. Sounds very Big Bang, interesting. So it makes one wonder what else we think we know but don't, and perhaps overlook God because we ignore the clues given us.

 

[creekdipper]

I am very much appreciating the civil, thoughtful conversation and exchange of ideas.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I am very much appreciating the civil, thoughtful conversation and exchange of ideas.

You are definitely in the right place.

 

[utvolpj]

This thread: open your heart to Jesus

Other threads: women are whores! Anyone in Gaza is a terrorist and should die! Not one dollar to help anyone who can't afford necessities! Minorities are all criminals!

Never a dull day

 

[PEPPERJAX]

This thread: open your heart to Jesus

Other threads: women are whores! Anyone in Gaza is a terrorist and should die! Not one dollar to help anyone who can't afford necessities! Minorities are all criminals!

Never a dull day

Where is the whore thread?

 

[utvolpj]

Where is the whore thread?

Any time the VP is mentioned

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Where is the whore thread?

See anything that has the word: Kamala

 

[LouderVol]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around whether or not you're kidding. Are you seriously suggesting that to expect someone who is trying to convince or persuade me to believe in a supernatural, unseen, unheard force that is both omnipotent and omniscient is unreasonable?

To be clear, I'm not an atheist and do not reject the possibility of a "god." I accept the possibility of a higher power, I've just yet to be convinced that there is one. If you can't provide evidence of something, the onus isn't on me to accept a 'your' claim purely on faith. If your argument is that I need to make a "leap" of faith to get to where you are, then I flatly reject your argument as unconvincing.

I think trying to convince either side via two different and conflating "languages" is not a good faith argument.
or maybe put another way you are wanting visual proof that a smell is the way the person describes it. two different senses, impossible to justify, but neither is invalid. its just invalid as a way to describe the other.
requiring physical proof of a non-physical being is an impossibility, and not a good faith argument.

"What does argument in good faith mean?

When a person argues in good faith, they intend to argue that a claim is true by using good logic and true (or at least plausible) evidence and reasons. Arguing in good faith does not require that a person believes the claim they are arguing for, but they do need to be honest about this."

bolded is my emphasis. when considering what should be considered "plausible" evidence when discussing a metaphysical being, is going to exclude most physical explanations just based on the subject.

you don't have to make any leap, or take anything on FAITH, a good faith argument is just a term used in debates to describe an "honest" discussion. I don't think either side has partaken in a good faith argument to this point, which again is why I have called out both sides.

 

[LouderVol]

Reason and faith shouldn't be conflated. Science and reason are based on logic and proof. Faith is acting essentially without reason on a belief. One has faith in the bible and the higher metaphysics which it proposes. One doesnt have faith in science because its claims are proved via logic, reason, and the scientific method.

If you act like a good christian here, it's based on faith not reason. You have certain reassurance that theres any reason for doing so.

reason and faith as standalone items should not be conflated. but applying reasoning to something you have faith in is not contradictory, or at least it doesn't HAVE to be. especially in this case as God is the one who gave us the rules/laws/standards that form reason and logic. Seems like if you believe God is the creator it would be an act of faith to use the very things he created to be able to prove/argue for his existence.

otherwise you would be denying Him and his creation as lesser/unequal to reason or logic.

 

[utvolpj]

See anything that has the word: Kamala

Your post history really helps sell your testimony

 

[LouderVol]

Just a few interesting comments about things the Bible says. Not that it meets the empirical conditions for determining facts. In any case, here are the interesting things that caught my attention while reading the Good Book. Stuff written before the age of science. I trust you folks know your Bible enough to know from whence the quotes originate.
1. Suggesting the existence of gravity: He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
2. Providing an aerial before planes or satellites: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

[The last statement implies we live within an atmospheric region tha allows us to breathe]

3. Awareness that some constellation stars move independently rather than like a herd, And some move the same direction: Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

[Until relatively recent times, we didn't know the Arcturus stellar group were gravitationally bound]

4. Indication the universe is governed by the laws of physics: Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?

Unfortunately, a lot of such statements are interwoven with religious symbology, and cultural references, even folklore. The Bible, after all isn't a textbook. But it is interesting to see such statements. Including Genesis referring to the universe being dark and formless, then suddenly a burst of light appears. Sounds very Big Bang, interesting. So it makes one wonder what else we think we know but don't, and perhaps overlook God because we ignore the clues given us.

I actually feel very similar about it. there is a lot of not-quiet science in the bible. its a shame that both sides get caught up on the ickyness of the other without first considering there is more overlap. Science rejects what the bible says because of the religiosity and symbolism used by a primitive people to understand complex ideas. like if you went to the isolated tribes in the Indian Ocean, explained our current understanding of the world to them, and told them to spread the word to others. they wouldn't be able to reuse the complex words and thoughts that we used to tell them. they would replace some parts and simplify others, and probably not understand the finer points.

but similarly the believers reject any science that isn't literally word for word in the Bible, because its science. they find it easier to believe God just "poofed" things, than acting through the very forces He created and used, physics, chemicals, atoms, and I would argue evolution, etc.

the creation story is pretty spot on except for the birds being the first things created. but it makes sense when you consider it as God giving someone a vision of how things came to be, the birds would have been the first thing to see, coming over the horizon, above the water, however it was done, they would have been visible before the fish.

 

[Septic]

If your mind is truly open, that is wonderful.

Sometimes it takes an epiphany. It did with me. I've probably told this before, but I was flying across the north Atlantic at night. It was quiet and dark, and I found myself looking up at the stars. As much of a technological marvel that an airliner is (yeah I still look out the window, and I still think flying is something at which to marvel).. looking up at those stars it simply hit me that there MUST be something more than this. To be convinced that we are nothing but a bug on a speck of dust in an infinite (can you REALLY wrap your head around infinity?) universe would be incredibly depressing. As someone said 'it takes more faith to be an athiest than a Christian.'

It truly is for you to discover. And it is not what's in your head, but what's in your heart. I have found that I am a lot more at peace with my mortality. But it all goes back to the question of the openness of your mind. I can tell from your post that you're being defensive, and I understand that. Been there. I don't care what other people think at this point. I don't need to prove to anyone where I stand. I don't need anyone's approval. I have the only approval that matters. The sad thing are the snake oil salesmen that give Christians a bad name. All I can say there is that God will deal with them in due time, and I pray that you won't let them color your openness (I don't have the right word there).

As much as we spar on here I can imagine you won't even read this post, but I truly hope you find peace.

My mind has always been open. Heck, I was even "saved" at one point - I was fully in the club.

Asking tough questions without convincing reply's opened the door to agnosticism.

You shouldn't feel sorry for or otherwise pity those who have no faith - many like me are perfectly at peace with their place in the universe. It doesn't owe me a thing. Being moral and having good character isn't dependent on some hope of reward later. I'd argue that that is a truer form of altruism that the religious could ever claim.

 

[WoodsmanVol]

My mind has always been open. Heck, I was even "saved" at one point - I was fully in the club.

Asking tough questions without convincing reply's opened the door to agnosticism.

You shouldn't feel sorry for or otherwise pity those who have no faith - many like me are perfectly at peace with their place in the universe. It doesn't owe me a thing. Being moral and having good character isn't dependent on some hope of reward later. I'd argue that that is a truer form of altruism that the religious could ever claim.

Long story short. I think folks like you abandoned the faith because of rigid mindedness, judgmental, coerced conformism, blatant hypocrisy, and monetizing religion as opposed to what the claimed ministry was supposed to be about. In short, you were pushed out over time rather than drawn in. So many denominations can't or refuse to acknowledge this.

 

[OrangeTsar]

can you prove there isn't a spaghetti monster who rules us all?

even as a believer I dislike when someone asks to prove a negative.

it literally can't be done. there is a reason our justice system has us as innocent, typically the negative (didn't do it) assumption, as the baseline.

For some reason that we cannot understand, God created the universe and made its central principle that of belief. He prizes Faith above all virtues and makes it the entire basis of our eternal Salvation. God wishes to be believed in and to be trusted for His Character in my opinion. He gives us signs and revelations of Himself (the most prominent being Jesus); but He never gives enough for Proof. We all want to believed for what we say and who we are. I feel God wants the same from us.
If we could be certain of God, we would be in a perilous position as we would have no excuse before God for our bad decisions. The fallen angels and Lucifer had certain knowledge of God but chose rebellion and as a result are eternally damned.
Jesus was able on the cross to say of humans “Father forgive them for that know not what they do”. The same cannot be said of angels who definitely knew what they did because they knew God with absolute certainty/