chavos

in response to...http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...13#post845413, specifically the article posted on why faith is the "enemy"...i'm posting a sermon i gave a while back. I'll put some TFP commentary in my next post.

Jeremiah 7 1-11

The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: Stand in the gate of the LORD's house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the LORD , all you people of Judah, you that enter these gates to worship the LORD . Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Amend your ways and your doings, and let me dwell with you in this place. Do not trust in these deceptive words: "This is the temple of the LORD , the temple of the LORD , the temple of the LORD ."

For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly act justly one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, then I will dwell with you in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your ancestors forever and ever.

Here you are, trusting in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, "We are safe!"--Only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight? You know, I too am watching, says the LORD.



Matt 14:22-31

Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, but by this time the boat, battered by the waves, was far from the land, for the wind was against them. And early in the morning he came walking toward them on the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, "It is a ghost!" And they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid."

Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me! Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?"


Have faith. Pretty simple, really. You read the story, and you decide if it’s something you have faith in, right? So what happens when you have a question? Have you lost faith? Did you have it in the first place?

Hmm. So imagine me, sitting in a conservative church, listening to the sermon. I was there as a tourist, an assignment from class. I knew that my attendance was academic, but I did feel a bit responsible for being in the room. The liturgy was familiar, and I tried to feel something holy in it, to pull out of memory the sensation of being touched by God. Didn’t work. What good was my faith, if it could be drowned out so easily? This really got to me, and I started to think that I just didn’t have faith at all. I was fair-weather, able to agree to the Gospel when it agreed with me, able to see myself as forgiven, but not judged, and listening to the Good News only when it was convenient to do so. A carefully edited, sanitized version of faith.

That editing was brought to my attention very acutely by the sermon. Drawn from scripture, the texts I claimed to believe, he issued judgment: Abomination, unholy, nothing to do with God. He was talking about people. People I love. I was hurt. I was offended. No, I was angry. Not just regular angry, but with the fire to know more than anything else I know that he was not like me. That man was not like me at all. He was proclaiming Christ with one side of his mouth, and denying Christ with the other. This was evil, and hypocrisy at its worst: closing the doors to love. And that’s when I realized I forgot who I was talking about.

Square one. This was one of those beam and speck moments, where I realized I had projected my insecurities of faith on to him. My heart was full of the same hate and division, and yet I could only see his faults. But I was already to go with righteous indignation. And can it really be wrong to dislike those who are perverting God’s message, hurting God’s children? I mean, look at the prophets, Jesus cleansing the temple, and tonight’s reading from Jeremiah. It goes on, about burning anger, and the awesome power of an offended righteousness. There is something very real about that judgment. People were doing wrong in the name of the Lord, and there was going to be consequences. So I was right to be angry, this man was wrong to say what he did. My soul was being repelled by seeing sin and that’s what’s supposed to happen to good people, right?

Yeah..,. So I listen on, full of my anger, when it hits me. His sermon has veered away from hate, and starts talking about trust. It’s an unassuming word, with such big ideas behind it. I think to myself that that’s what’s wrong with him. He’s not evil himself; he’s done evil because he doesn’t trust. There are people, people made in God’s image telling him that they love, that they love in God’s image. And he doesn’t trust that. The spirit is moving these people to speak, and this man does not trust the message.

But do I trust him? Of course not-he’s a hate monger. Shoot. Square one, again-I’m mirroring his guilt. I’m never getting out of this. I may as well throw in the towel, and pick a new religion at this rate. I’ve failed to trust that he is one of God’s children as well, and that he is my brother in Christ. And I’m calling out his failings? I lack for trust, and I need to find it again.

But what am I going to trust in? What will give me hope, when I’m stuck in the failings of the church, myself, and the human race. Think about that for a moment. In the beginning, God thinks to create the world. All of human history can be seen, and the words begin to form. Let there be….wait a minute! Is this going to be good? When it’s all said and done, will have humankind been good to create? God says yes. To all of the doubts, to the sins, to the failures, to the mistrusts, God says yes. This will be good, and I will be seen in this creation. I will be made known by what I have made. That’s hope. That’s trust.

Only I can’t see the future. And I can’t base this trust in the abstract, and just conjure faith from nothing. But, I can trust what I have seen. I can trust in seeing people cross boundaries of faith, to challenge and support each other in seeking justice and peace at the Interfaith retreat a few weeks ago. I can trust in all of the witnesses that have touched my life, and shown me resilient and steadfast love. I can trust in the expectation that has sustained so many communities during their struggle for rights and freedom, with out assuming the violence and oppression that wounded them. I can trust in mercy that allows me to move on from these crisis of faith, and assures me that I am still in God’s image, no matter how clouded my thoughts, or thin my conviction. I can trust that anger and schism in the church is not the solution to be sought, but a pain we endure. I can trust God’s yes to creation, because I can hear that whisper, even amongst the clamor and noise of human shortfall. These things can be real to me, grounding for my faith. You see, faith didn’t always have these negative connotations it has today. It didn’t mean an all or nothing confidence, with out regard to evidence, a certainly that is divorced from the mind or a selective and willful blindness. It used to mean loyalty to something that had been loyal to you. Faith was holding on to that which was authentic and tangible to you.

So I try one last time. I have to trust that however broken; that preacher is a part of God’s family. However broken, I am still a believer in Christ. However broken, I believe my indignation can be tempered with love. However broken, the Church Christ left us is still going to proclaim good news to the world. However broken, this people is still made one through his sacrifice. However broken, this world is still God’s. What has been lost is redeemed and brought in to new life. This can be our hope, our trust.

So let us pray.

God of Mercy, be with us tonight, and give us the audacious courage to affirm your creation. Let us not have eyes only for what is hurt and torn apart, but be able to see what you have knit together in love. Lead us to join you in the work of recovering this world, beginning with ourselves. Give us what we need to trust and to hope, and sustain us when we cannot. Above all, come in to this world abundantly, and show us what you are making anew. Amen.

chavos

I guess i want to challenge the notion that faith is the enemy of thought...and i thought it would be good to see how some people regard faith from a Christian perspective...one that isn't about hellfire or fundamentalism.

I left the church when i was young. i was convinced that becuase i couldn't accept the literal truth of the creeds, the 6 day creation, the ressurection of the body, the virgin birth, the flood, etc...that i could never have an idenity with in the Church. I was wrong. I still don't beleive in creedalism, or creationism, or Biblical "science." I take much of the texts as metaphor. And i happen to have a strong Christian idenity. I think it is a fundamental misunderstanding to think that the first and most important part of the texts is the literal truth claims. Fundies have done most of this work...opponents have done the rest. But its time to start undoing that damage. Faith does not mean blind belief in academically questionable assertions. First and foremost it is a relationship, and an exploration of something greater than ourselves.

Humans cannot escape faith, really. It would be a faith to believe that there is nothing beyond our tangible senses. It would be faith to beleive that human reason is the highest power. It would be faith to think that secular ethics were the best for humanity. We believe things about our world...it seems to be the most basic human impulse, and a folly to try to rid ourselves of it.

wilbjammin

I have found the question of faith to be moot for me. To question whether God exists or not is a matter of one absurd scenario or another. In any event, I don't not know why I exist, and I was born without essence - that is, I started as nothing and have come into being.

To view faith as a reciprocating trust relationship makes sense when dealing with people. To have no faith in people leaves on solitary and bitter. Of course, having faith in people can leave one gullible and exploited.

We make choices about what we have faith in, this is true. And, when it comes to metaphors, all abstract thinking is metaphorical. There is always a distance created because of this. And the larger and more externalized this is, the more difficult it is for me to conceptually handle. I start with faith in myself, beyond this, it is very difficult to go farther without feeling that I'm asking too much and wanting answers that do not exist.

I think the essence of faith is to create a metaphorical link towards a feeling of belonging - to something. The inherent value of what one has faith in lies in how one came to have faith. Not why... but how. And then finally, how that manifests in everyday life. For without action, meaning is left lacking.

__________________
Innominate.

Mantus

Faith: Definition 1. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Definition 2. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

As long as we talk about faith that is defined in the first definition then it IS the enemy of though. For “blind faith” requires no though at all. The second last paragraph in the sermon illustrates this wonderfully.

“So I try one last time. I have to trust that however broken; that preacher is a part of God’s family. However broken, I am still a believer in Christ. However broken, I believe my indignation can be tempered with love. However broken, the Church Christ left us is still going to proclaim good news to the world. However broken, this people is still made one through his sacrifice. However broken, this world is still God’s. What has been lost is redeemed and brought in to new life. This can be our hope, our trust.”

Stating that no mater how flawed or corrupt or broken a religion becomes, you have to believe it. As you see, there is no option for disbelief.

Essentially this sermon uses blind trust as synonym for the word faith. Attempting to trick the reader into believing that blind trust has more substance then faith. Even though the two terms represent exactly the same thing. It also states that one’s faith can be re-enforced by accepting the faith of other’s who in turn do not have to illustrate or prove their faith. In essence this adds up to a mass delusion. As every one has faith because of others yet not a single person in the group can offer a personal reason for their faith.

In the end the sermon is stating: no matter what happens, do not question, do not think.

chavos

okay...we'll leave open the option that my words don't convey the meaning i intended. but...i don't think faith equals anti-intellectualism.

I know the Church is human, falliable, and broken. I know my beliefs are not always right. Why have confidence in any of it? Becuase i have had experiences of love, reconciliation, and redeemption. Thats what i'm talking about when i say:

The faith i hope for is expressly not the blind sort that has no precondition. I want it to be a hope grounded in my experience...and i'm trying to point out what experiences we can draw that hope from. The challenge to me is not to create faith and defend it...but to search for the truth that i can have confidence in becuase i know it is real in my life.

Also... i'd challenge you to make a distinction between your definitions. I don't think there is one, save a perjorative and normative value judgement. Faith one is bad. Faith two is good. And there isn't a whit of objective difference between them.

And...one word on tone. I'm not trying to trick anyone. You don't think that rational experience can develop an abstract faith...that's fine. Take the words or leave them...but take me at my word when i tell you that i mean these things sincerely, and with out any desire to mislead. I take my ministry seriously...and while i accept, even welcome that many will disagree with me, i am not quite prepared to accept the civility of someone who attacks my integrity.

thingstodo

I think faith is fine. What bugs me is when certain religions try to push me to change my thoughts, based on "faith", to some other belief when there is no reason to change. And I guess that's the real essence.... believe what you want but don't condem me if I don't agree with your religion.

Franklin and all the other founders founded the country on a freedom of and from religion. They didn't actually go along with christianity as is. But everyone you hear nowadays tries to claim that was the case.

No matter what you believe, if it is spiritual, it requires faith. And when you read the current Time magazine article you'll find that has had many faces over the past 2,003 years in the christian religion.

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

tecoyah

Sermon=opinion......not faith
I have no faith in man

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

minyn

cringe... here goes.

as once pointed out to me in a philosophy class, faith is not a sense. i cannot percieve with faith. thats where i leave it. so many people percieve god through faith and i guess i cannot accept something that i cannot percieve. if he wanted us to believe, why isnt he tangible in OUR terms, or why did he not give us the ability to percieve? in the scientific, sight,sound kind of way.

and if your answer is faith and feeling it in the heart, bullshit. i want somethign tangible. im a college student for crying out loud.

__________________
"Woke up this morning with a blue moon in my eye"
~A3 "woke up this morning"

"Don't compromise yourself, you're all you've got." -Janis Joplin

chavos

can i ask why one cannot sense in an emotional way? i understand that rationalism is king in many ways, but i guess i wonder why emotions get such a back seat.

a story that says it very well is by Patrick Henry in "An Ironic Christian Companion." He tells about how he ws facing grief, very academically, living the experience soley in his mind. Ordering emotion with reason, he nearly suceeded at managing the loss. Almost. Then he had a pyschotic break, emotions overwhelming his denial.

He tells it better, and i'd encourage anyone to read the book, but the point that he makes is that he was forced to realize that his power to feel was no less great that his power to think. They make us to an equal degree, human.

Open the paper tomorrow morning. Read the headlines...will it be wrong that people have been killed, maimed, abused, and trod upon because there is a rational principle that decrees otherwise? Or becuase of a feeling in your gut?

See, my reason states that a God that conviently disobeys the laws of physics, causeing floods, 6 day creation, burning bushes...doesn't exist. But i still feel something.

and that doesn't mean my reason plays no role. rationally, equality make sense-that people are not treated differently becuase of race, etc...but that doesn't seem fufilling until my heart sings at the idea that equality is only the beginning of the respect and dignity due each person, and that it is a law that does not depend on human recgnition to make it true.

point of it all is...why is something abstract automatically untrue? I can't prove God in a sight, sound sort of way. but i don't think God is a sight, sound sort of concept. and it is really bullshit to insist that our emotions have some say in determining reality?

you can rationally understand something, and know why you feel a certain way. but that reason can't dictate what is real emotionally. Just like emotion couldn't make something real rationally. but do you really just pay attention to one of those means of perception?

Mantus

Well as minyn said “faith is not a sense” and neither is emotion. We cannot perceive with emotion. We attach emotion to objects and subjects that we are already aware off. For example: we do not feel filial piety and deduce that our parents are standing before us. First we must sense or think of our parents before feeling the emotions that are associated with them.

Does the attachment of emotion to an object make it more real? The answer is no, because emotion can also be attached to subjects which do not exist. To demonstrate this: watch a scary movie. If the movie is good enough then one will certainly experience emotion of fear/discomfort about the subject. To further the experiment; try to recreate the circumstance that caused the subject of fear to appear in the movie. One will notice that for a second there will be a sign of fear about performing such an act. For example if the movie had ghosts in the closet then one would experience a bit of fear while opening ones closet.

As you see even though the emotion is real the subject is not.

There was a mention of a man who tried to deal with the death of his wife logically and ended up with a breakdown. Certainly we see these cases all the time. Yet do they prove that emotion can validate the existence of something? No. For we attach emotions to everything. The more we experience something the more emotions build up around the subject. Though even the greatest amount of emotional attachment cannot prove something real. Let me give an example by showing that a person can become emotionally attached to the most basic concept of all: a number.

There is a mathematician. He is working on a groundbreaking formula. The mathematician spends a decade working on the formula. Just as end seemed near tragedy strikes. The equation cannot work, its all wrong! The man is struck with grief. Ten years wasted. All the hopes for recognition and prestige are washed away. The dreams of publishing a book, the dreams of a teaching position all washed away. All is gone! So he greaves for an equation, a string of symbols that never could be in the first place.

As shown, the emotions attached to the equation did not make it any more real.

chavos

Exactly. For me, faith is about attaching an emotion, trust/love/loyalty, to a subject that i have come to know through specific, objective experiences. That's what i tried to convey, that it isn't a total abstract, but a response to what we can experience in our lives.

Let me try that again. Emotion is real, in and of itself. Sight is a sensation that describes a reality-the influx of EM radiation. Emotion is a sensation that describes a reality-the feedback of an entire system, both cognative and physical. I believe it is key to understanding questions of non-objective natures.

Art is not simply a product of sight/sound patterns. It is also our reaction to it. Can that be desribed entirely with in the confines of our sensory input? I doubt it.

When dealing with love, or morality, or God...i doubt one could describe any of these entirely with in the senses. Yet does anyone doubt the reality of art? Or love?

Now, i know there are people who will tell me i'm making a semantic error. But i'm quite convinced that they are mistaken. Concepts, abstracts, and othersuch things are realities. They are not physically real. But as far as our minds are concerned, they are. How else to explain the consistant reaction to and urge to interact with such things as art, freedom, or God?

tecoyah

Art and love are experienced , just as faith is. However most people accept the love of art, and the art of love as personal experiences and dont expect others to share in the same view. Those with excessive faith in one god or another generally feel the need to share it with others, whether they want it or not.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Mantus

So the topic has changed to whether faith and emotion can be used to prove that something exists. I will try to illustrate why this cannot be.

Faith is not about attaching an emotion to subjects and objects. Faith is defined as a belief or hope in the truth of an object or subject.

Also it seems that i have not made a strong enough case on why emotion cannot be used to define existence. We do not sense though emotion. We use emotion to process our sensory input. One must first perceive in order to feel, it cannot work the other way around. One cannot feel and then deduct the object that one is feeling without having an experience of that object first. Let me give an example: a person is pricked by a pin and feels pain (emotional pain). If all five senses were disabled and this person suddenly felt pain he can deduct that a pin pricked him. Yet if that person had no prior experience of being pricked by a pin and suddenly felt pain, he could not know the cause of it.

Further more, morality and freedom are titles of things that we all actually experience. Art and love are both subjective. They are words without a definition that every one can agree on. Yet when we call something art, the reality of the object is certain. When we call something love the reality of that act or feeling is certain as well.

Concepts, abstracts, and other such things are real yet they do not exist objectively. They do not have the property of a contingent existence. For example one cannot deny that the concept of a dragon exists. Yet one can state that no real dragons exist. Attaching emotion to the concept of the dragon will not make it exist. Having faith in the concept of a dragon cannot make it exist. Only if one sees some objective evidence of a dragon can one contend that it actually exists.

What would a farmer that has faith in a dragon act like? He might build a net above his fields so that the dragon could not prey on sheep. He might put metal plating on his roof to make it fire proof. Every week he might leave a calf at the foot of the mountain to assure that his children do not get eaten on their way from school. If one meets this farmer and sees all that he has done one might only think two things either he really knows that there is a dragon, or he is completely out of his mind. As you notice the existence of the dragon is not proven the only thing we are sure about is that the farmer has his faith and feels really strongly about it.

chavos

Exactly. Objective experience, interpreted by both reason and emotion, produces belief in the reality of a concept.

As for dragons... Your logic does not distinguish between bad faith and good. I would assume you beleive in freedom, or love or something. Well, does it really exist? On what level? Not physically, that's for sure. But all you have are little examples, gimplses, moments, instances. You can never see it, taste it, touch it, hear it, smell it. Okay.

I don't know in what way God exists. I'm pretty sure God isn't like much anything we know. I doubt there is anything for us to see, taste, touch, hear or smell. Save for little instances, examples, moments, glimpses.

I'm not making the case for a God that exists as a bearded man in the sky. I'm much more interested in the idea that not only is there something good out there...

As for tecoyah's comment...i have met an artist or two who was fairly evangelistic...but more importantly your analysis is faulty by omission. People force all kinds of ideas, politics, abstracts, and thoughts on other people. And i honestly don't want anyone to believe like i do for any other reason than that they feel led to do so. That some people get pushy about religion has nothing to do with the question of if faith is a valid construct.

Yes, construct. I know my idea of God is incomplete, faulty, and human. But i do think that it is describing something true about this universe...a model that bears an image of something very real.

point of this all is not to have you agree with me. but i'm sick of hearing that faith is bad for you-it is confidence that their experience can tell them something about an idea that is bigger than reality.
maybe its faith in God. or reason. or love. or art. or poltics. but everybody has got a faith...a way of understanding and percieving with something more than their mind alone. so why hate on people for something we all do?

Mantus

Faith and emotion do not make freedom, morality or philosophy exist. All of these words are words whose definitions match real phenomenon that we experience.

When one is at a fork in the road and one is free to choose either path one would call this ability to choose freedom. When some one says that killing is wrong one can identify that as a moral. When one investigates the nature, causes, or principles of reality based on logical reasoning we can identify that as philosophy. Lack of faith or emotion towards philosophy, freedom or morality would not make any of the three any less real.

Love is a subjective matter because people cannot agree on its definition. People say this or that is love, yet when we break it down it turns out that it is filial piety, or lust or a deep friendship. A feeling such as love might exist. When some one mistakes lust for love, they are still experiencing something though identifying it by the wrong name. If one has faith in love one does not prove the existence of love, one simply hopes that the experience one is feeling is indeed love and not some other emotion. The same goes for art or any other such word.

A unicorn, a dragon and a circular-square are words with definitions that do not match any known experience. If a word and its definition do not match any known experience then the word describes a concept; which can also be described as something with either the property of contingent non-existence or impossible existence. If one looked at an antelope with one horn and called it a unicorn one would simply be mislabeling the antelope.

I hope I cleared that matter up.

I would disagree with that statement. Emotion does not produce awareness. Experience produces awareness, emotions simply colors that experience. If emotions were taken away we would still experience the world around us and its reality would be no less questionable.

What is this about good and bad faith? First time I have ever head about such entities.

All I am interested in is proving whether faith can be used to prove the existence of something. By definition it cannot; doesn’t matter if that object is love, freedom, a sunrise or the continent of North America. Faith is either a rational hope that something is true, or a blind belief that something is true without proof of it. That is what faith is defined as. Sailors of the past had faith and feared that if they sailed towards the horizon they would fall of the edge of the world. When news reached them that the world was round their fears did not automatically dissipate. Captains who have never traveled from the sight of land had their hearts pounding as that first voyage was taken. I bet somewhere even killed in mutiny by terrified sailors as their ships came closer to the horizon. Of course there were others who lived with their faith in the edge of the world for so long that they could not overcome their fear and probably never left sight of shore. In the end their faith in a flat world proved to be wrong and their fears did not make the world any less round.

To close this reply, faith and emotion cannot make things exist. Faith is not the truth, but hope or blind belief in the truth. Emotion is not experience but adds a flavor to that experience. If we lost faith or stopped feeling or both the world around us would not disappear. I am not saying that all faith is bad, but simply saying that it does not make things true. I would argue that blind faith is bad because it is irrational and is the antithesis of knowledge and though.

thingstodo

To me, any time you attach emotion to someting, you lose the fatual. So it may make sense that faith and emotion go hand-in-hand. Anything we purchase we do so with some level of emotion, and it also makes sense that religion based on faith as the result of what someone tells you is a purchase.

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

chavos

Enough. i'll say it once more. you're making my point for me, save that you don't recognize it.

That is EXACTLY, with NO difference, how i experience the divine. Objective experiences create an idea. Thus, i request respect for that-faith is not a delusion, a meme gone wrong, a mental defect, or any other perjorative.

Hunh? Not only is it not possible to completely sever a person from emotion, it would hardly produce the same experience of reality. You might see the Mona Lisa, but you would simply see a human face. It would cease to convey meaning beyond a reasonable reproduction of human likeness. Wouldn't you say then that some of the reality of that painting is only visible to human emotion?

I'm using the terms good and bad faith, since there appears to be normative judgements in your analysis that have no basis in reality. You seem to posit to the existance of freedom or love with out question...but will adamantly deny the possibility of a similar existance that's labeled "God." You give examples of delusional farmers to make the debate about whether faith is crazy or not...but i doubt you would give such a reaction to someone who told you that they have faith in human reason.

Faith can be, by your own words, be a rational hope in somethign that is true. That's all i'm out to show.

Mantus

I am on the same page.

There is always the possibility that one’s faith is based on a delusion, it happens all too often. Therefore it is important to openly question and test faith. We must all be able to look beyond faith to see other possibilities, less we become blinded by our faith.

We cannot test faith by its strength. For faith cannot prove anything to be true, it is simply hope. Therefore we must test the validity of the objects and subjects that faith is based on.

Consequently only problems can arise when a theist offers faith as proof of god. We have no tangible evidence of god. Most of the conceptual evidence used to prove the existence of god can also be used to prove the non-existence of god. So god remains a theory. What’s worse is that there are many different theories, there is indecision and sometimes even fighting over which concept is corect. Though no side has any more proof then the others, so they make the mistake of offering faith as their proof, which only leads to more problems. Some people look at this chaos and question the validity of the whole concept of god[s]. They question because they are trying to find something more tangible to have faith in.

But I am sure you already know all this, I am merely speaking my thoughts for the benefit of people who have not reached this conclusion.

papermachesatan

There's a big difference between faith in something that has no evidence and faith in something that has observable and inferable evidence supporting it.

chavos

No argument there...

tecoyah

so where is the evidence to support your faith in "god"? or is the difference not big enough to require such evidence.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

chavos

i'm not sure if you're trying to be rude about this. i'll assume that you're not. i've tried to list a sample of the evidence found...three times i've posted the same explanation, quoting from my first post. i don't get the impression that you've read it. its not conclusive, but no more or less so than the evidence available to prove, define or describe most other non-tangible abstract phenomenon.