Orbit Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 To know them, and they know you.....a relationship. Love. Faith is a religious thing that I don't need. Love is an altogether separate, human matter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted September 27, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2014 What can you really refute to this response? Really, honestly?I confess I don't know how to discuss this topic, assuming I even understand what the topic is. When it's 32 degrees Farenheit I have faith that water will freeze. It's proven to be thus every time, so my "faith" that it will happen this time isn't based on wishful thinking or what someone told me but didn't show evidence for. It's not faith so much as a reasonable expectation based on observation and past performance. I say that A causes B because by reason of C and you respond that it's "grace" or something else once observed by those who wrote the Bible. Doesn't work with humans... or at least not yet. Just saying I don't see humans acting predictably like natural law and don't see how we can reasonably exclude an inordinate amount of variable acting on a human system.....that we must apply faith to compensate. Can you define "natural law"? People's behavior does fall into rather predictable patterns when you look at them as a group. Apply faith to compensate for not being able to tell the future? Why? What for? To know them, and they know you.....a relationship. Love. I know (and love) both my wife and my son, have a relationship with both; and neither require any kind of faith. Trust, sure; faith, not so much. What else you got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 What can you really refute to this response? Really, honestly?I confess I don't know how to discuss this topic, assuming I even understand what the topic is. When it's 32 degrees Farenheit I have faith that water will freeze. It's proven to be thus every time, so my "faith" that it will happen this time isn't based on wishful thinking or what someone told me but didn't show evidence for. It's not faith so much as a reasonable expectation based on observation and past performance. I say that A causes B because by reason of C and you respond that it's "grace" or something else once observed by those who wrote the Bible. Doesn't work with humans... or at least not yet. Now the two faiths equivocation? Surely you've learned something more original than this hanging out here over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 What can you really refute to this response? Really, honestly?I confess I don't know how to discuss this topic, assuming I even understand what the topic is. When it's 32 degrees Farenheit I have faith that water will freeze. It's proven to be thus every time, so my "faith" that it will happen this time isn't based on wishful thinking or what someone told me but didn't show evidence for. It's not faith so much as a reasonable expectation based on observation and past performance. I say that A causes B because by reason of C and you respond that it's "grace" or something else once observed by those who wrote the Bible. Doesn't work with humans... or at least not yet. Just saying I don't see humans acting predictably like natural law and don't see how we can reasonably exclude an inordinate amount of variable acting on a human system.....that we must apply faith to compensate. Can you define "natural law"? People's behavior does fall into rather predictable patterns when you look at them as a group. Apply faith to compensate for not being able to tell the future? Why? What for? To know them, and they know you.....a relationship. Love. I know (and love) both my wife and my son, have a relationship with both; and neither require any kind of faith. Trust, sure; faith, not so much. What else you got?you're not using your brain on this ... You can't know all the facts regarding those relationships . You do use faith to fill the gaps. What else do YOU have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 What can you really refute to this response? Really, honestly?I confess I don't know how to discuss this topic, assuming I even understand what the topic is. When it's 32 degrees Farenheit I have faith that water will freeze. It's proven to be thus every time, so my "faith" that it will happen this time isn't based on wishful thinking or what someone told me but didn't show evidence for. It's not faith so much as a reasonable expectation based on observation and past performance. I say that A causes B because by reason of C and you respond that it's "grace" or something else once observed by those who wrote the Bible. Doesn't work with humans... or at least not yet. Now the two faiths equivocation? Surely you've learned something more original than this hanging out here over the years. ha , I don't remember using this one before . And if so, never so effectively . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 What can you really refute to this response? Really, honestly?I confess I don't know how to discuss this topic, assuming I even understand what the topic is. When it's 32 degrees Farenheit I have faith that water will freeze. It's proven to be thus every time, so my "faith" that it will happen this time isn't based on wishful thinking or what someone told me but didn't show evidence for. It's not faith so much as a reasonable expectation based on observation and past performance. I say that A causes B because by reason of C and you respond that it's "grace" or something else once observed by those who wrote the Bible. Doesn't work with humans... or at least not yet. Now the two faiths equivocation? Surely you've learned something more original than this hanging out here over the years. ha , I don't remember using this one before . And if so, never so effectively . It's not effective at all. Faith in god, is belief without reason, faith my chair will not collapse when I sit on it is based on well-tested structural integrity. Not even in the same ball park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 What can you really refute to this response? Really, honestly?I confess I don't know how to discuss this topic, assuming I even understand what the topic is. When it's 32 degrees Farenheit I have faith that water will freeze. It's proven to be thus every time, so my "faith" that it will happen this time isn't based on wishful thinking or what someone told me but didn't show evidence for. It's not faith so much as a reasonable expectation based on observation and past performance. I say that A causes B because by reason of C and you respond that it's "grace" or something else once observed by those who wrote the Bible. Doesn't work with humans... or at least not yet. Now the two faiths equivocation? Surely you've learned something more original than this hanging out here over the years. ha , I don't remember using this one before . And if so, never so effectively . All of your word salads are this effective. every. last. one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 What can you really refute to this response? Really, honestly?I confess I don't know how to discuss this topic, assuming I even understand what the topic is. When it's 32 degrees Farenheit I have faith that water will freeze. It's proven to be thus every time, so my "faith" that it will happen this time isn't based on wishful thinking or what someone told me but didn't show evidence for. It's not faith so much as a reasonable expectation based on observation and past performance. I say that A causes B because by reason of C and you respond that it's "grace" or something else once observed by those who wrote the Bible. Doesn't work with humans... or at least not yet. Now the two faiths equivocation? Surely you've learned something more original than this hanging out here over the years. ha , I don't remember using this one before . And if so, never so effectively . Human ego alert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted September 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted September 28, 2014 What can you really refute to this response? Really, honestly?I confess I don't know how to discuss this topic, assuming I even understand what the topic is. When it's 32 degrees Farenheit I have faith that water will freeze. It's proven to be thus every time, so my "faith" that it will happen this time isn't based on wishful thinking or what someone told me but didn't show evidence for. It's not faith so much as a reasonable expectation based on observation and past performance. I say that A causes B because by reason of C and you respond that it's "grace" or something else once observed by those who wrote the Bible. Doesn't work with humans... or at least not yet.Just saying I don't see humans acting predictably like natural law and don't see how we can reasonably exclude an inordinate amount of variable acting on a human system.....that we must apply faith to compensate.Can you define "natural law"? People's behavior does fall into rather predictable patterns when you look at them as a group. Apply faith to compensate for not being able to tell the future? Why? What for?To know them, and they know you.....a relationship. Love.I know (and love) both my wife and my son, have a relationship with both; and neither require any kind of faith. Trust, sure; faith, not so much. What else you got?you're not using your brain on this ... You can't know all the facts regarding those relationships . You do use faith to fill the gaps. What else do YOU have. Ah, yes the old wife-of-the-gaps argument. Problem is, you can't know what I know or don't about those relationships; so your statement is based on your own faith, not mine. Moreover, I do know both of these people well enough to make educated decisions concerning whatever gaps may exist, based on experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 May I jump in long enough to explain the faith in the chair vs faith in God argument? Chairs get older and weaker over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts