I Lost My Religion

[Sola_Fide]

I used to go to church every Sunday. I stopped when Bush jr won the 2nd time around. I just realize that I don't see eye to eye with Christians after they elected him twice. I heard so many Christian people say but he's a christian Lisa when I would point out something wrong with Bush. That is the only most people who voted for him coul give: he's a christian. I won't ever renounce Jesus but I can;t go to church anymore with those people.

Now it looks like the stupid Christians are going to nominate someone at least as bad as Bush because he held some prayer rally. My head is about to explode. I won't vote for Perry even if raon says to I hope he doesn't cause I know he would win if he does. I would rather see Obama win

Hmmm. It doesn't sound like you lost your religion. You just had a humanistic religion while you went to church, and kept it after you stopped going to church. Most churches in America today are centers of humanism anyway, so it is easy to be functionally and doctrinally atheistic and attend church.

Secondly, you are wrong that all Christians vote for neocons. In my Reformed church that I attend, I would say that most are principled non-voters, and the rest are Constitutionalists who will end up voting for RP if they do vote.

The state of evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism is thoroughly statist today. Both movements are doctrinally wrong and therefore will turn out to be politically wrong.

My humble advice is to find a Bible-believing fellowship that proclaims Scripture alone, grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, and God's glory alone. Also, forget politics. Salvation is not found in politics. Jesus is more important than any politician or political theory.

 

[idirtify]

So? I'm not one of those people who thinks there's something wrong with leaps of faith. We all do them. All knowledge would be impossible without them. That doesn't make all our knowledge somehow invalid.

You keep repeating this same argument. And I keep correcting you with the same answer. I think you're doing this on purpose.

What do you mean “we all do”? How do you know what I do? You’ve already admitted no competence to assert anything about what others do. Why do you keep neglecting to apply your faith logic to your own claims?

 

[erowe1]

What do you mean “we all do”? How do you know what I do?

Again, the laws of logic demand it. We don't have a choice about it. I'm not saying anything controversial here. I don't see why you bother disagreeing.

 

[idirtify]

Again, the laws of logic demand it. We don't have a choice about it. I'm not saying anything controversial here. I don't see why you bother disagreeing.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your claims, because I really don’t even have to concern myself with such a chore. Your philosophy and previous admission do it for me. I all have to do is point out how your own actions (of making confident claims, esp about others) contradicts your philosophy. Since you recently undermined all your credibility, every confident assertion of fact you make is a contradiction. IOW I’m not necessarily disagreeing with what you say, I’m only pointing out the fact that it’s automatically defeated before you even say it. For example, you have insufficient credibility to make any claims about 1) what the laws of logic demand or 2) what I don’t have a choice about.

I too would expect to have no future credibility if I suddenly admitted this:
“Everything I claim is based on nothing more than leaps of faith.”
I’m sorry, but with or without your clear admissions, I’m afraid all that your “faith logic” argument succeeded in doing was to undermine your credibility.

 

[Working Poor]

I lost my mojo once .

LOL not me big buddy...

 

[Dr.3D]

I lost my mojo once .

I think I found it out behind the barn. The chickens were pecking at it to see if it was good to eat. It's probably not worth anything anymore though, it got wet and chicken pecked.

 

[WilliamC]

Of course, by Philodemus' definition, I would be an atheist, since I don't believe in the beings he calls "the gods." .

Of course you do, everyone believes in the gods .

All human beings agree on this point.

Even people who claim to believe in the supernatural actually don't.

Gee, your method of debate is easy, I just have to assert my premises as my conclusions and all doubt is removed.

But what I really don't get is why is your faith so weak you have to use logic to support it?

2 Corinthians 5:7 "For we walk by faith, not by sight"

Romans 10:17 , "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

(Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast."

I'm sure this isn't a comprehensive biblical explanation of faith, but I don't notice anything about using logic or reason to support it.

But don't listen to me, 'cause you know satan can quote scripture to test the faith of religious folks.

http://thegloryland.com/index.php?p=1_11_The-biblical-definition-of-faith

3. What Faith Is Not
Faith is not mere human hope. Faith is based on the Word of God alone. Human hope may be based on the sands of wishful thinking or human desire, rather than on the rock of the Word of God. Doubt and hope raise the question, "What shall I do?" Faith says, "I have done!" The common phrase, "I am hoping and praying" is incorrect. "I have prayed and am believing" is more scriptural.


Faith is not natural human faith. In order to function in life, we must exercise a natural faith. We have faith in natural laws such as gravity and inertia and assume that they will work the same every day. If the universe were unpredictable and untrustworthy, chaos would reign and life as we know it would be impossible. We trust inanimate machines. By turning an ignition key, flipping on a light switch, boarding an aircraft, we exercise faith in machines. We trust vegetables and animals—we assume they will perform according to our past experience. We trust other human beings. We trust our surgeon, our spouse, our pilot, etc. However, faith in God is supernatural—a gift from God. We will examine the nature of faith in God in the next chapter.


Faith is not mental assent. John Wesley warned in his time that there was a dangerous substitute for faith that he called "mental assent." He was caught in this dangerous trap and only escaped after failing as a missionary in America. Faith is of the heart (human spirit) and not merely the head (human reason). Simply agreeing that God exists and that his Word (the Bible) is true is not Biblical faith. James states that demons believe in this manner and tremble in fear of judgment:


Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble (James 2:19, KJV).
Faith is not a psychological attitude. Mere positive thinking may have some good results, but it is not Biblical faith.


Faith is not sight. Faith is not based on mere sensory perception or human reasoning. Paul says,


We live by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7, New International Version).
4. Attributes of Faith
Faith thanks God beforehand. If a husband tells his wife that he has placed a hundred dollar bill in her purse for her birthday, she thanks him immediately. Why? Because she trusts him. She knows it is hers before she sees it. Jesus says,


Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (Mark 11:24, New International Version).
God does not answer biblical prayer with "No" or with substitutes. Paul says,


For no matter how many promises God has made, they are `Yes' in Christ. ... (2 Corinthians 1:20, New International Version).
Faith will endure to the end. Abraham waited 25 years for Isaac to be born. Caleb waited 40 years for his land. Noah waited 120 years for his physical salvation. Faith does not look at the calendar, but to Christ. Hope may last a few minutes or a few months. Faith will endure until it is replaced by the thing for which we are believing. D. L. Moody said,


Faith that fizzles out at the finish, had a flaw in it from the first.


Conclusion: Dr. Freeman concludes:
Faith is not hope. Faith is the means by which we receive those things we hope for. Neither is faith sight. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Faith can only operate in the realm of the invisible concerning those things we hope for and do not yet see. Faith cannot exist in the visible realm. When the things we hope for are manifested to our sight, then faith, the invisible "substance," having done its work, is supplanted by the visible substance, that is, the things we hope for. When the actuality comes into view, then the image (faith) vanishes. (Hobart E. Freeman, Faith, p. 4).
Biblical faith is an absolute requirement for answered prayer. The writer of Hebrews states,


But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Hebrews 11:6, KJV).

Gee, it sounds like if everyone had "faith" then we would all agree on god and religion and everything.

I wonder why we don't....

 

[Sola_Fide]

Of course you do, everyone believes in the gods .

All human beings agree on this point.

Even people who claim to believe in the supernatural actually don't.

Gee, your method of debate is easy, I just have to assert my premises as my conclusions and all doubt is removed.

But what I really don't get is why is your faith so weak you have to use logic to support it?

2 Corinthians 5:7 "For we walk by faith, not by sight"

Romans 10:17 , "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

(Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast."

I'm sure this isn't a comprehensive biblical explanation of faith, but I don't notice anything about using logic or reason to support it.

But don't listen to me, 'cause you know satan can quote scripture to test the faith of religious folks.

http://thegloryland.com/index.php?p=1_11_The-biblical-definition-of-faith



Gee, it sounds like if everyone had "faith" then we would all agree on god and religion and everything.

I wonder why we don't....

Still, the nature of human reasoning is to assume certain things at the outset before proving them. Your posts above have shown that you accept atheism as your primary default position, and then proceed to interpret everything according to your faith-based (or unproven) assumption.

Even your contention of neutrality in regards to epistemology is based on its own unproven assumption.

 

[WilliamC]

Still, the nature of human reasoning is to assume certain things at the outset before proving them. Your posts above have shown that you accept atheism as your primary default position, and then proceed to interpret everything according to your faith-based (or unproven) assumption.

Even your contention of neutrality in regards to epistemology is based on its own unproven assumption.

But I DON'T accept atheism as my primary default position, that's the point.

My default position is that I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH about god or the afterlife, and my beliefs are not THE TRUTH just because I happen to hold them.

I am SKEPTICAL of my atheism, so technically I'm agnostic.

It COULD happen that I will myself come to have 'faith' in the future because I can't predict everything that will happen in my life.

I just don't understand why anyone feels they have special knowledge of how all humans believe, which is the position of some in this thread.

Read the poem for goodness sakes, it expresses my opinion far better than any rational argument.

edit: the first 4 lines of post #67 are sarcastic, I apologize if that wasn't clear.

 

[Sola_Fide]

But I DON'T accept atheism as my primary default position, that's the point.

My default position is that I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH about god or the afterlife, and my beliefs are not THE TRUTH just because I happen to hold them.

^^^This position assumes something that is true (i.e. that a position of epistemic neutrality is correct).

This is what Erowe1 has been trying to get you to see for pages now. Even the position of epistemic neutrality is itself an assumption of something that is true.

This is why the nature of human reasoning is based on faith (an unproven first assumption).

 

[erowe1]

Of course you do, everyone believes in the gods .

All human beings agree on this point.

Even people who claim to believe in the supernatural actually don't.

Gee, your method of debate is easy, I just have to assert my premises as my conclusions and all doubt is removed.

But what I really don't get is why is your faith so weak you have to use logic to support it?

2 Corinthians 5:7 "For we walk by faith, not by sight"

Romans 10:17 , "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

(Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast."

I'm sure this isn't a comprehensive biblical explanation of faith, but I don't notice anything about using logic or reason to support it.

But don't listen to me, 'cause you know satan can quote scripture to test the faith of religious folks.

http://thegloryland.com/index.php?p=1_11_The-biblical-definition-of-faith



Gee, it sounds like if everyone had "faith" then we would all agree on god and religion and everything.

I wonder why we don't....

My method of debate isn't mere assertion. When I said that you believed in the supernatural (according to the definition you provided), I demonstrated that it was logically impossible for you not to.

I'm not sure I know what you mean about me using logic to support my faith. As I understand it, it's impossible to reason without logic. Faith and logic are two inseparable things. You can't have logic without faith. And you can't have faith without logic. Those verses you quote presuppose the laws of logic. Every time they assert that something is true about faith, they imply that the opposite of that statement is false (i.e. the logical law of noncontradiction).

You see, it isn't I who run into contradictions by claiming to have both faith and logic, it's the people who claim to have only logic but no faith who run into contradictions.

 

[WilliamC]

^^^This position assumes something that is true (i.e. that a position of epistemic neutrality is correct).

This is what Erowe1 has been trying to get you to see for pages now. Even the position of epistemic neutrality is itself an assumption of something that is true.

This is why the nature of human reasoning is based on faith (an unproven first assumption).

Yes, I understand.

Even though I start from the premise that I 'don't know the truth' (i.e. have a complete understanding of the Universe) I must automatically somehow accept that the 'position of epistemic neutrality is true'.

/sarc

Do you folks really deal with reality this way?

Seriously?

I apologize if I am unable to take your position seriously or as being in any way relevant to my life, but that's just nonsense.

Next you'll be telling me what I must think, not just what I think.

Don't you see the danger here?

edit. and yes, I understand epistemic neutrality, but that just semantics.

Others have suggested that many of the proposed conditions of good reasoning, for example 'objectivity' or 'neutrality', are not invoked in the service of gaining truths, as traditional epistemology would hold, but rather they are employed to prolong entrenched power and (at least in some cases) distort the objects of knowledge.

It honestly looks to me as if your purpose in our discussion is not our mutual understanding of each other, but rather an attempt to persuade me that your views are correct no matter what, and that your misunderstanding of my positions is deliberate and intended to discredit them.

I find that curious on the Ron Paul Forums.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, I understand.

Even though I start from the premise that I 'don't know the truth' (i.e. have a complete understanding of the Universe) I must automatically somehow accept that the 'position of epistemic neutrality is true'.

/sarc

Do you folks really deal with reality this way?

Seriously?

I apologize if I am unable to take your position seriously or as being in any way relevant to my life, but that's just nonsense.

Next you'll be telling me what I must think, not just what I think.

Don't you see the danger here?

You don't see that your position of epistemic neutrality is not epistemologically neutral?

 

[nicoleeann]

I don't go to church even though i would consider myself a christian. Church is just a waste of time. it's so effeminate and feel-goody. I believe that the best thing for christians to do is meet up at someones house once a week and discuss problem solving. for instance: fighting facism, fighting socialism, fighting crime, helping people who truly need it, solving personal problems, and helping each other in the group. I don't believe that we need "pastor" and the like. we regular folks do not need someone to decide what God wants for us. Also I don't believe that the Bible should be taken as a law in all the parts. Also, even though i am a christian i have never been attracted to a christian man. my boyfriend is agnostic. Christian men are too wimpy for me, at least in the liberal area i live in. I think that in other parts of the country christian men are real men.

 

[WilliamC]

You don't see that your position of epistemic neutrality is not epistemologically neutral?

What I see are folks unable to think for themselves.

Using your so=called reasoning, the character-string epistemologically neutral is meaningless since you are unable to accept the idea of opposites.

1 A = A.

2 B = B.

3 A =/ B.

You don't seem to get beyond step 2, so it makes it hard for me to understand anything you say.

 

[idirtify]

^^^This position assumes something that is true (i.e. that a position of epistemic neutrality is correct).

This is what Erowe1 has been trying to get you to see for pages now. Even the position of epistemic neutrality is itself an assumption of something that is true.

This is why the nature of human reasoning is based on faith (an unproven first assumption).

Let me understand this. If you think the nature of human reasoning is based on faith, then you must be including yourself too. Right? Are you admitting that all your claims are merely assumptions that are 100% based on faith?

 

[idirtify]

My method of debate isn't mere assertion. When I said that you believed in the supernatural (according to the definition you provided), I demonstrated that it was logically impossible for you not to.

I'm not sure I know what you mean about me using logic to support my faith. As I understand it, it's impossible to reason without logic. Faith and logic are two inseparable things. You can't have logic without faith. And you can't have faith without logic. Those verses you quote presuppose the laws of logic. Every time they assert that something is true about faith, they imply that the opposite of that statement is false (i.e. the logical law of noncontradiction).

You see, it isn't I who run into contradictions by claiming to have both faith and logic, it's the people who claim to have only logic but no faith who run into contradictions.

It’s true that your method of debate isn’t mere assertion. It also includes discrediting assertions with which you disagree by asserting that all assertions are leaps of faith. The funny thing is: you don’t see how your method first and foremost serves to discredit your own assertions – before they even make it out of the box. And here we witness you again making all kinds of assertions; about what’s impossible, about what’s inseparable, about what OTHERS can’t have, about what presupposes and is presupposed, about what OTHERS actually assert, etc. You carry on in a state on constant contradiction; as if all others had made the same admission that you did, and as if you had never admitted that all your assertions are merely leaps of faith. Well I, for one, certainly made no such admission. So when you assert that all my assertions are leaps of faith, you are ONLY demonstrating your own LEAP OF FAITH (in all it’s non-credible glory).

 

[erowe1]

It’s true that your method of debate isn’t mere assertion. It also includes discrediting assertions with which you disagree by asserting that all assertions are leaps of faith. The funny thing is: you don’t see how your method first and foremost serves to discredit your own assertions – before they even make it out of the box. And here we witness you again making all kinds of assertions; about what’s impossible, about what’s inseparable, about what OTHERS can’t have, about what presupposes and is presupposed, about what OTHERS actually assert, etc. You carry on in a state on constant contradiction; as if all others had made the same admission that you did, and as if you had never admitted that all your assertions are merely leaps of faith. Well I, for one, certainly made no such admission. So when you assert that all my assertions are leaps of faith, you are ONLY demonstrating your own LEAP OF FAITH (in all it’s non-credible glory).

Are you still repeating this?

Somehow, you think that my admission to using both faith and reasoning contradicts the fact that I use both faith and reasoning.

Yet you don't see that your claim to use only reasoning with no faith is proven logically impossible by reasoning itself.

 

[idirtify]

Are you still repeating this?

Somehow, you think that my admission to using both faith and reasoning contradicts the fact that I use both faith and reasoning.

Yet you don't see that your claim to use only reasoning with no faith is proven logically impossible by reasoning itself.

No, it’s very simple. You admitted that all your reasoning is 100% based on a leap of faith. Therefore you undermined the credibility of your reasoning (which obviously includes all your assertions, esp assertions about others who made no such admission). IOW if you admit that your reasoning is only as accurate as a leap of faith, why should anyone regard any of your claims as credible? You see, even though your method was an attempt to undermine the credibility of your opponents, it only served to undermine your own. Well no, apparently you don’t see (how it applies to YOUR reasoning first and foremost – INCLUDING your last assertion about what you think I don’t see).

 

[Sola_Fide]

Let me understand this. If you think the nature of human reasoning is based on faith, then you must be including yourself too. Right? Are you admitting that all your claims are merely assumptions that are 100% based on faith?

I don't want to steal any of Erowe1's thunder here because there is no way I can show it more plainly than he already has. But yeah, all reasoning at its foundation is based on certain axioms that are not proven to be true.