Is faith a reliable way to know truth?

[Dan_473]

POISON = EVIL
ELIXER = GOOD

What it means is that the atheist must recognize the existence of good and evil in this world, and then make an effort to determine the source of each one. The honest atheist would have to accept that goodness comes from God, and that there is none good (perfectly righteous) except God.

(the following should not be taken as an endorsement of suicide in any way.)

I think I see what you're saying.

I think an honest atheist would have to say that there is neither good nor evil, there is only Pleasure and Pain.

so then if the poison caused pain while bringing death that would be the wrong choice.

If, however, the poison was something that reduced pain while bringing death, such as an overdose of morphine, then if one's life has a lot of pain in it, whether that pain be physical or psychological or emotional, it would make sense to take the poison (speaking as an atheist).

 

[UnderGrace]

(the following should not be taken as an endorsement of suicide in any way.)

I think I see what you're saying.

I think an honest atheist would have to say that there is neither good nor evil, there is only Pleasure and Pain.

so then if the poison caused pain while bringing death that would be the wrong choice.

If, however, the poison was something that reduced pain while bringing death, such as an overdose of morphine, then if one's life has a lot of pain in it, whether that pain be physical or psychological or emotional, it would make sense to take the poison (speaking as an atheist).

Very true, a real atheist can not really say what is good or evil, never really looked at it that way.

 

[so-jesus-e-deus]

If, for example, a Hindu says "I have faith that Vishnu is my lord and saviour", does that make Vishnu true?

No!!! The faith isn't save; rather, it is the way used by Jesus for manifesting His savior Grace:

• "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph 2.8,9).

Our faith don't make anything be true; rather, the truth is what awakens in us true faith.

 

[Dan_473]

starting with the idea of preserving one genes,

And of course it's not just preserving but promoting. The one who dies having made a most copies of their genes "wins".

It would be easy to think of a scenario in which a man's best option for promoting his genes would be to rape a woman. I would disagree with such a moral system.

in your view, how do our genes go about deciding the best course of action to promote themselves? Is it purely mechanistic, physical processes?

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

hi Renate,

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but if you're an atheist you probably say that the best way to know something is some version of the scientific method. Yes?

so then, regarding good and evil, what would science have to say? What are your thoughts?

Ah...hmm...science cannot even speak on that, can it...?? Interesting.

 

[Dan_473]

come to think of it, if it's all about replicating one's genes, conservative religious people tend to have larger families, I believe.

Indeed, the genes in the modern Western World made quite a blunder because I'm pretty sure birth rates have plummeted in modern Western liberal cultures.

 

[Dan_473]

Can you define your view of relativity?

Because if its valid everytime and everywhere, its not relative, then.

good point. similar to saying that there are no absolutes. The saying itself is an absolute.

 

[Joseppi]

Also why does Jesus say that "they which see might be made blind"?

John 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

They that see not know they are blind, and are confessing the truth about themselves.
Knowing that they need a doctor, and hearing of Jesus of Nazareth, they gladly hear and receive the words of Jesus, trust to his car, and because he is the only begotten Son of God, they are healed by him, and now they can see.

God has judged to let it be that, “they that see might be made blind” because, they might deny they are blind.

Therefore, “they that see, might be made blind” if they refuse to confess the truth.

God, knows that all men know they are blind. (Consider that man seeks to alleviate his sciences by pursing science)

But, what if you are blind?
How would you know?

You’d know you are blind because you stumble around like a blind man.

But the blind leaders could rely on the best technology science can provide and claim to see better, and further than the average joe, and; with some lying, and a convenient set of assumptions, they could endeavor to lead blind people into delusion.

John 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remains.

Another proof of blindness is the inability of intelligent people to understand the sayings of Jesus. (A swish over the head of the Pharisees kind of thing, if you know what I mean)

For if they deny they are blind they desire to remain blind, and in fairness, God gives them over to their blindness.
But, remember, they will continue to deny it, irregardless of evidences to the contrary.

The reason folks don’t understand Jesus is simply because although some men say they believe him they in truth don’t.

That is, to be blunt, an atheist is blind, and may chose to remain blind.

 

[dcontroversal]

If, for example, a Hindu says "I have faith that Vishnu is my lord and saviour", does that make Vishnu true?

Obviously not....and to compare Hinduism to Christianity is like comparing MUD to Solid pure Gold........

Faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of GOD

 

[Joseppi]

My last post should have read...

(Consider that man seeks to alleviate his blindness by means of science)

 

[Joseppi]

It's just that back when I believed in God, I did ask for faith, and I prayed for the holy spirit. I never got an answer.

But you came here.

 

[Joseppi]

Why would a man seek God by science?

If a man truly seeks God he will seek and find Jesus, and avoid the philosophy and science of blind men. (he’ll be seeking Jesus without yet knowing who he is)

The reason a man seeking God looks for Jesus is because he seeks the man that can prove to him knowledge of the truth of all things, and he seeks the power of God.

A man looking to science to find God is doing so to avoid God, and will avoid Jesus.

 

[Joseppi]

A fundamental mistake atheists make, or deliberately present, is a vain notion of God. Typically an atheist will present a strawgod. They do this to avoid the God of the Holy Bible.

For example, a warped illogical god.
Or, a tyrannical god. etc...

but...

The God, of the Holy Bible is the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

And Jesus defines who God is.

 

[UnderGrace]

It's just that back when I believed in God, I did ask for faith, and I prayed for the holy spirit. I never got an answer.

The only way to come to God is believing upon Christ Jesus as your Saviour, He died for you, to set you free, meaning change your mind from thinking that you are just fine as you are and come to a right belief that you need Jesus to set you free from your sin.... and your vain attempts to be good, only He can give you abundant eternal life and regenerate the dead spirit within you.

 

[Renate]

The only material worth reading is from an unbiased source and this source is completely biased and lacks complete objectivity.

Try again.

Are you claiming your link was unbiased? lol

 

[Renate]

starting with the idea of preserving one genes,

And of course it's not just preserving but promoting. The one who dies having made a most copies of their genes "wins".

It would be easy to think of a scenario in which a man's best option for promoting his genes would be to rape a woman. I would disagree with such a moral system.

in your view, how do our genes go about deciding the best course of action to promote themselves? Is it purely mechanistic, physical processes?

In general, it is genetically beneficial not to hurt others. After all, you share at least 99% of your genes with other humans. Sure, there might be scenarios where a man's best option for promoting his genes would be to rape a woman, but genes don't deal with "scenarios", only what works in general.

Genes don't decide anything about promoting themselves. The ones that stick around are just the ones that make an organism best adapted to survive in an environment.

But like I mentioned, genes provide only basic moral instincts. The specifics are cultural.

 

[Renate]

Can you define your view of relativity?

Because if its valid everytime and everywhere, its not relative, then.

It is relative to humans. A crocodile eating a human child is bad from the human perspective, but not from the crocodile's perspective.

 

[trofimus]

In general, it is genetically beneficial not to hurt others. After all, you share at least 99% of your genes with other humans. Sure, there might be scenarios where a man's best option for promoting his genes would be to rape a woman, but genes don't deal with "scenarios", only what works in general.

Genes don't decide anything about promoting themselves. The ones that stick around are just the ones that make an organism best adapted to survive in an environment.

But like I mentioned, genes provide only basic moral instincts. The specifics are cultural.

Genes work with and inside physical laws.

Physical laws work with and inside mathematical laws.

Mathematics work with and inside logic.

Logic works with and inside rationality.

===

Where are physical laws from?

Where is mathematics from?

Where is logic from?

Where is racio from?

 

[Renate]

Genes work with and inside physical laws.

Physical laws work with and inside mathematical laws.

Mathematics work with and inside logic.

Logic works with and inside rationality.

===

Where are physical laws from?

Where is mathematics from?

Where is logic from?

Where is racio from?

I don't know.

 

[trofimus]

It is relative to humans. A crocodile eating a human child is bad from the human perspective, but not from the crocodile's perspective.

But my example was not about being eating by animal, it was about murdering of an innocent person.

So my example is not about "something is good for a wolf, something is good for a sheep".