Atheists revenge. Persecution of theists.

So far those facts remain unchallenged.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see you decided to rewrite the dictionary definition to suit.
That is basically what all Christians do with scripture as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg&feature=related

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That would depend on how you read this and what motivates you from what you know of reality.

For evil to grow, all good men need do is nothing.

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

You can plug in whatever groups you like in the above and it still holds it's message.


Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We forget again that a reasonable reliable on what has repeatedly happened as a known is not the same as faith in an unknown.

 

you cannot have "faith" in something that is known by you to be true.
the only "faith" you can have in this instance is that it will ALWAYS be true.

DL stated i "rewrote" the definition.
not so.
i have proof i have a 100 watt bulb in my desk lamp.
3 other people will attest to that fact.
since DL does not have any "firsthand" experience he must take it on faith i am telling the truth.
trust and faith are synonymous.

 

Light bulbs are know to be so and so we could verify it if we had to.

Religious trust and faith is admittedly of a hope for an unknown to be so.

 

Go find a dictionary definition that fits your definition before saying that I am wrong about your definition.

I have faith that you will not find a dictionary that agrees with you.

Regards
DL

 

i DID verify it, with 3 witnesses.
oh, i see, you want firsthand verification.

DL?

faith in this context is no different than any other unknown.

what do you consider "proof" DL?
what someone says?
or do you need to see it for yourself.

it seems you are really bent on "faith" being solely "religious" in nature and it isn't.
if 10000 people said the sky is blue how can you, being blind, say different?
in this instance you are taking it on faith because you have no firsthand experience.

i can remove the stator cover from my bike by removing 7 bolts, i've done it twice.
do you believe me?
the most likely answer is no, you do not, simpley because you weren't there, you do not have firsthand experience.
the method HAS been proved twice.
so, faith does not depend on proof but on firsthand experience.

 

Religious faith is still a wish for an unknown to be so.

Firsthand experience is knowledge.

 

faith is faith, religion has NOTHING to do with it.

i can agree to that.

 

If I think that the sun will come out, that is not a completely unknown happening.

 

i take it on faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, i have ZERO guarantees that it will.
i take it on faith that i will submit this post.
there are a zillion things a person takes on faith.

 

@leopold --

Technically you're right, you don't have any guarantees that the sun will rise, but you do have evidence that it will. So while you can call it faith, it's not the same thing as religious faith. Religious faith is trust in the complete absence of evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary. The "faith" that the sun will rise is trust that is based both on past experience(the sun has never not risen on planet earth before) and our knowledge of physics and this gives you a basis for trusting that the sun will rise. Religious faith is trust without any basis for trust while secular faith. is merely trust

As with your above example, the comparison is flawed. You have evidence that you will post because you've done so in the past. You know that the mechanisms work, even if it isn't all of the time, and you know that you have a history of posting on this site(more than fourteen thousand posts is quite a history). With religious faith you have no such evidence, regardless of what you'd like to believe.

However, as I've already shown, not all faith is created equal. Some is justified and some is not.

 

there is indeed a complete lack of evidence the sun will rise tomorrow.
the ONLY thing you can say is it always has.

there is no evidence "god" doesn't exist.
it doesn't matter how you or i feel about this matter.
i find the concept ridiculous but "ridiculous" is far from proof.

yes, a basis. there are no guarantees.

faith is faith regardless of whether it involves god or not.

and i have quite often wrote an involved post to only press the back button on my browser and not submitting it

what i would like to believe?

you seem to be saying that those that "believe in god" are somehow lacking in mental scruples.

 

confused..

sounds like some theist got in your face and angered you..(not hard to find one who will do that)

so are you now an official atheist, Anti-theist, theist or what?

you saying you still believe in God? or not?

 

no, people are busy and so deal with the general, not the exceptions.

most theists don't just believe in god, they think it's a fact. and if they could, they probably would force it down your throat or at least that has been my experience. or if they could, they would even teach it in school that god is not just a belief or a faith but a fact.

stop pretending and playing around. as if people aren't aware of this. people have lived, grown up around and dealt with plenty of religionists and religion. pul-leeze....

 

Not the miracle working absentee super God who likes to use genocide as good justice.

The God I believe in is more of a cosmic consciousness. I base my belief on apotheosis. A personal contact. I have no more proof of it than anyone else has for their God. That is why I do not push it. I have no dogma to sell and offer this as an anecdotal rendering only. It is our next evolutionary step. that is about it. Correction. I do have a dogma to sell. Question everything.

My concern and why I am here is to further moral thinking and correct those I think need it.

Gnostic Christian naturalist would be my closest label.

Regards
DL

 

then badmouthing/trashing others beliefs is not a good place to start.

 

unfortunately this is correct.
question is do they have some kind of insight the rest of us is lacking?

what is the difference between theists forcing something down your throat and certain other people forcing something down your throat?
scientists for example.
i am STILL trying to come to grips with certain information i have found, trying to put it all together, trying to find a plausible reason for it.
yes, science is just as guilty in this area as religion.

there are 2 problems with this.
first is god being taught as a fact.
second, and more importantly, is that there are many different types of religion.
once we start down this road we WILL have to include them all, thereby confusing the student even more.

 

only because there is a lack of evidence to back them up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!