Christian Pride.

A man is faced with (for example) a God-given realistion of the wrath of God.This wrath is more terrifying than any raging fire (but we'll use that as an analogy for that is what the Bible does too)The man turns to God and cries for mercy.You say: "The man chose to save himself. He had a choice - he could have chosen otherwise".Only if one is prepared to reject reason to an extreme degree could one go along with such a conclusion. But if you insist on having it that way then be my guest.{AbE} of course it does not have to be the wrath of God that God exposes man to. It could be the love of God. As irresistable in attraction as fire is in repelling. Still no choice. And there are any other number of ways to achieve the same thing inbetween those extremes. Each one will have their own, custom fit scenario to suit them. We are all individuals and he treats us as such.Unless we reject being brought into the light so as to see which it will be for us.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

come on Iano, You your self said I'm sure you would be of the opinion that right now I am rejecting God's call. where's the fire? in fact I know of no one who has died having seen raging fire, yet they likely spent their lives rejecting what you would consider to be 'God's call'.this 'raging fire' you speak of may never even be presented to the man, because your God may have chosen not to present it to him, thus dooming him to eternal damnation, what a guy! Your outright dishonesty reminds me why I took a break from posting here.

And God replies, "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more."ABE: Yes, this really is "back on topic".The prideful Christian says, "I chose," or "God chose me," or "I understand this. Let me explain."In fact, there is nothing to choose, nothing to explain.It's done.Edited by Ringo, : Clever link to topic.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

You assert the word blind but have not basis for saying so. Your lack of access to what I know does not allow you to assume blind.

---

Faith, by definition, requires no evidence.That's what the "blind" part means.If you need empirical evidence to believe something, then is isn't faith anymore, but knowledge.Nobody but you has access to your faith, just like every other individual person in the entire world who believes anything on faith.

quote:

---

Live up to your agnostic position Schraf: say "I do not know whether Ianos faith is blind"

---

That's not what Agnosticism requires.All faith is blind, or else it wouldn't be faith.It would instead be "facts which are supported by empirical evidence found in nature that one can demonstrate to a disinterested party".

quote:

---

All that has to happen is for God to exist and for him to reveal himself to me in a way that I cannot mistake. Nothing more. And that is possible.

---

Sure it's possible. But is it probable?But who cares if you cannot demonstrate it? I have absolutely no reason to believe that you, out of the billions of people on this planet with their own personal, individual beliefs, are any more or less correct (or deluded) than any of the others.Your beliefs are all supported by the same thing; personal testimony and assurances. As such, all such blind, evidenceless beliefs carry the same weight.However, this is getting off the point I want you to address, which is that the scientific method requires no faith at all to use.Do you accept that to be the case?

quote:

---

How can you know that I do not know something. I know a fox ran across my path last night. You might believe me or not. That you cannot know that one did has no bearing on what I know.

---

Foxes are known to exist.Foxes are known to live in the part of the world you live in.Foxes are known to live fairly close to human villages in rural areas.Many, many, many, many people over thousands of years have seen, photographed, killed, captured, trapped, chased, stuffed and mounted, worn, kept as pets or in zoos, studied, researched, and otherwise had very close, frequent contact with foxes. Also, it is possible for many people to see a fox at a nearby zoo.You do not have to believe in the existence of foxes before you can see, hear, smell, or touch one.However, if someone said to me that Vignal the Space Alien visited them in their bedroom last night, and she told them to paint all of the houses purple so they won't be destroyed when the Zorlogs come, I am going to have a great deal more skepticism regarding the veracity of that statement, and I am going to require a great deal of evidence before I start slapping the lilac latex on to my house. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

Iano lives in Ireland not the UK As a Christian I'm sure he'll forgive your transgression...I don't know about in Ireland but in the East Midlands area of England where I live you're probably more likely to see an urban fox than a rural one - we throw away so much crap it's easier to live off our waste than hunt for a living.Back to the regularly scheduled topic.Edit: I see you spotted your mistake and beat me to it!Edited by MangyTiger, : Changed 'of our waste' to 'off our waste' and added comment.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Sorry Ian, the argument isn't really one of "empiricism" vs. "iano's way of knowing". Although it might be an interesting exercise for you to show that "iano's way of knowing" has actually provided some concrete observation of the world. After all, "empricism" has been shown to work, given that you are typing on a computer whose principles and processes are based on an emprical approach. Now if you can show the spiritual (or whatever you wish to call it) can have some practical application - say making a faster computer that didn't require one to type everything out - then maybe you'd have a point that there is more than one way of "knowing" that is valid. Thank you for bringing this back to the topic. Exhibit A: True Christian (tm) arrogance in action. "Believe me and be saved! Only I know the Truth! Only by following my way can you be saved."Thanks, but no thanks. If that's what needs to happen, I guess I'll die a heathen and take my chances. Really? And what questions would those be, pray tell? Salvation? 'Fraid you have to buy into the whole faith thingy as a starting premise before that is anything other than meaningless - in other words, it's only an "important" question to you. "Life, the universe, and everything"? Empericism seems to be providing a lot more answers on those subjects than your unprovable, ambiguous, arrogant assumptions of an exclusive, idiosyncratic "way of knowing", now doesn't it? Again, anything concrete ever come out of "iano's epistemology"?

Ian,If there's one thing that you'll find Schraf, myself and the Apostle Paul agreeing on is that faith only exists in the absence of empirical evidence.The question is, do you agree with us?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Talk about point being white..lilac..whateverwashed. Can you differentiate between the words "believe" and "know"? Let us find outQ: Do you know (not believe) that I saw a fox cross my path last night or no?A: (suggested) No I do not.Q: Does your not knowing this in anyway affect the fox, my sighting of him and our happening upon each other when we did?A: (suggested) No it does notQ: Do I have to demonstrate (empirically) that I saw the fox in order to know I saw the fox?A: (suggested) No you do not.Should you answer as suggested, my question is: why do you argue about what is involved in belief instead of arguing about what is involved with knowledge?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Reminds me of Dexys Midnight Runners circa 1980 Are you being deliberately obtuse? A person who is on the point of salvation will see the fire (or whatever it is he choses to bring them to see at that point). That is what is guaranteed to cause them to turn.Now a person who is not at that place will not see it. The person who has has avoided his attempts to let them see it (or whatever it is he choses to bring them to see at that point) will, patently, not see it. This was the argument that evoked such a response. What have you got to say regarding the position I suggest is yours? Try honesty - ad homs don't suit you. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Good to see foxes are flushed out occasionally. Enjoying a rare excursion into a Religious Thread are we MT?

I think 'relative worth' would sum up my response here. You set a standard against which we should measure. An asserted one. Would you like to attempt to justify it as one worth giving the time of day to (empirically preferably) You mistake the signpost for the destination. Ever heard the phrase "Don't shoot the messanger"? Apparently not. My pointing does not make it my way. Fortunately, your intellect is not an impediment to your salvation. I didn't even read this rant. One can tell at a glance. Fuck off Q (No offence: I could do with the break)

quote:

---

Q: Do you know (not believe) that I saw a fox cross my path last night or no?

​

A: (suggested) No I do not.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

Q: Does your not knowing this in anyway affect the fox, my sighting of him and our happening upon each other when we did?

​

A: (suggested) No it does not

---

Correct.

quote:

---

Q: Do I have to demonstrate (empirically) that I saw the fox in order to know I saw the fox?

​

A: (suggested) No you do not.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

Should you answer as suggested, my question is: why do you argue about what is involved in belief instead of arguing about what is involved with knowledge?

---

I am.You're the one saying that they are the same, but I am not.Faith, by definition, is belief without emperical evidence.Knowledge is that which is obtained through emperical investigation.I've said this many, many times.So, do you see the difference between someone taking your word for it when you say that foxes exist and that you saw one, and someone taking your word for it when you say that your specific version of God exists and that you have been in contact with Him?Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You mistake the signpost for the destination. Ever heard the phrase "Don't shoot the messanger"? Apparently not. My pointing does not make it my way.

---

Just the fact that you believe you are "the messenger" is arrogant, since your message, and the individual, endlessly-varying messages of a billion other people on the planet have exactly the same backing...faith.There's no way to decide who is right when there's no way to demonstrate that you are right. All any of you billions of faithful have is your say-so and assurances.

Relative worth, eh? I agree. So go to it - meet the challenge to provide a concrete example of the "worth" of your particular "way of knowing". I already provided a simple example of the worth of empiricism: you're typing on it. Your turn. Or, on the other hand, you are abrogating to yourself the only "right" way, n'est-ce pas? As I said, pride... Of course, you haven't yet demonstrated in any way shape or form that "salvation" is a thing to be desired, nor even that it exists outside your mind. That would be a good start, I think. As it stands, my "intellect" (for what that's worth) is precisely what is "standing in the way". Ya see, I can't turn off my brain long enough to swallow your "way of knowing". Maybe if you provided something more concrete than your say so... Gentleman to the end, eh iano. Very, erm, Christian of you.