Are any believers interested in answering my questions?
Or, are their some believers out their who believe that belief in God is more rational than non-belief?

Because, I think we may have been creating a false dichotomy with the Reason Vs. Faith kind of idea. I'm not sure that all believers adhere to the idea of faith, nor do all nonbelievers deny faith and only embrace reason.

Although I'd rather discuss this with you, I don't have the time right now at the moment, so I will refer you to this article:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

Threatening? Not at all. I'm just bringing up a very good point. If one hopes to debate this issue, one really needs to know why one is debating this issue, and how one is going about it.

My point as to whether the existence can ever be proven, or even discussed in this context, is quite a valid one; in fact, it is one that has been dealt with often in philosophical thought. Much of Bertrand Russell's work, for example, dealt with existence, claims of existence, and how one deals with existence in logic. Russell eventually noted that existence cannot be shown logically--it exists outside the realm of logical thought. Existence is, in fact, a necessary presupposition to any discussion involving logical thought. So no, my point wasn't raised because I am threatened by any discussion of God (why would I be threated by such discussion, anyway?); my point was raised because it does highlight an issue with this very discussion, that of the claims of existence of a being.

That's true. I don't really know what to say in response to this except hapiness is happiness, but religion helps you find happiness. Sure, religion may not be scientifically proven (and most of it is full of contradictions and lies), but if it helps people cope with their lives, so be it. However, I'm strictly anti-Christanity because it's affecting America politically now. Christians are going way over the edge that it's interfered with beliefs on abortion and homosexuality. But that is a whooole different story.

No one's forcing you to take a religion and for you religious people... just ... don't preach to Atheists/Agnostics and we'll be just fine.

i do not believe in god.
im the type of person who has to see it to believe it. i havent seen god, i havent had god talk to me, none of my prayers worked, and nothing good has happened in my life.

if god was really here with me, why did he "take" my mom away? why did i suffer from depression for so long? why is it that everything in my life has been negative and why is it that every single time something good happens, something else happens which makes that experience negative? sure, everything happens for a reason..but there no way that anyone could be "punished" for sins as severe as i have. and i havent even done anything.

there is no explaination for god. how can something no one sees make earth? how did adam and eve conceive so many babies of different races? if god truly exisists, why are there so many other religions claiming their gods are real?

also, how did mary have jeus without sex? miracle? i think not. its pretty much impossible to concieve without sperm. and if god is not human, what are so many people worshiping? air?

and i'd like to refer you to this site:

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

the fact that the URL is "new advent" makes it seem a bit prone to bias, don't you think?

According to my own sources, he was house arrest for putting his support of the Heliocentric theory in writing, which he admitted while on trial that it was a rather strong support despite the Pope warning him to treat it as a hypothesis.
Your own article says, that that Galilleo is house-arrested because he made too strong of a support statement for heliocentricism and ventured into theological grounds. The Council of Trent in 1616 stated first that it was heretical and then that the "doctrine of the immobility of the Sun" was false and contrary to Holy Scripture. In his writing, he declared that science is a basis for authority. My question is, how could he avoid clashing with the theology when theology holds the oposite theory? What I see here is a censorship of knowledge. If this is still incorrect to you, please explain how.
You may research for yourself that pleas for pardons and medical treatment were refused. The latter only granted when he was well blinded (cataracts and glaucoma) and sick.

... people being averese to adopting your radical new theory is hardly plausible a crime for house arrest.

To the end of his life - nay, after his life was ended - the persecution of Galileo was continued. He was kept in exile from his family, from his friends, from his noble employments, and was held rigidly to his promise not to speak of his theory. When, in the midst of intense bodily sufferings from disease, and mental sufferings from calamities in his family, he besought some little liberty, he was met with threats of committal to a dungeon. When, at last, a special commission had reported to the ecclesiastical authorities that he had become blind and wasted with disease and sorrow, he was allowed a little more liberty, but that little was hampered by close surveillance. He was forced to bear contemptible attacks on himself and on his works in silence; to see the men who had befriended him severely punished; Father Castelli banished; Ricciardi, the Master of the Sacred Palace, and Ciampoli, the papal secretary, thrown out of their positions by Pope Urban, and the Inquisitor at Florence reprimanded for having given permission to print Galileo's work. He lived to see the truths he had established carefully weeded out from all the Church colleges and universities in Europe; and, when in a scientific work he happened to be spoken of as ``renowned,'' the Inquisition ordered the substitution of the word ``notorious.'' [Source]

Ok... What does that have to do with the topic at hand?



He was allowed to "conjecture" the theory of heliocentrism, but not outright say that it was the truth.

I still have found no source that claims that Galileo was not treated by any doctor. The sources I see say that he was denied to leave town to see a doctor.



Are you saying disobeying a direct order after being given a warning should go unpunished?

From here: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/WestTech/evili.htm

He was treated (or given permission to see doctors), with money from his own pockets, when he was already too sick/"wasted", as mention in the source (from the University of Michigan) that I posted. He was denied to leave town to see his own doctors in Florence, to be more accurate.

The said order was to not support a scientific theory because it went against the "Holy Scripture". Are you saying that any or all scientific theories/findings that go against the Bible should be punished?

From your own source:


He was supported by inquisitors? Let be more specific WHICH of the inquistors supported him because obviously there were those against him from the start. Three other concluded that he defended the Copernican theory as truth. To be fair and history proved it, he had more opposition than support. And "support" isn't even the right word because if they had supported him, they'd have given him a fine or something else rather than house arrest. More like a few of them were lenient because he was an old man.

Several of the ten cardinals apparently pushed for Galileo's incarceration in prison, while those more supportive of Galileo argued that--with changes--the Dialogue ought to continue to be allowed to circulate.(Source)

The Church took no action when the book was smuggled? The Church would had had a hell of a time preventing the book from going to Holland when the said book was already available in the black market.

He declined urgings to escape to the Venetian territory and instead asked that proceedings against him be moved to Florence. His request was denied: the Pope insisted that the old man, weak and ill though he was, make the two-hundred mile wintertime journey to Rome. (Source)

This man had to regret his support of the Copernican theory, you may say it's because of his own making, but I'll say that it's because Christianity was intolerant of theories outside of Christian dogma.

i was calling in question the impartialness of a link from "newadvent.org"

1. What is faith, exactly?

uh...belief in Jesus Christ, that he was the one and only God. and that He died for our sins.

2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih?

many people who say they are christians have christianity as just part of their life. you are operating under faith when your entire life REVOLVES around your faith. not just one part of it.

3. How do we gain accurate knowledge from mechanisms of faith?

read the bible....

4. What exactly are the mechanisms of faith?

Well. Following God and his rules to the best of your ability. Admitting that you are a sinner. Believing that Jesus died for our sins, then rose again. committing your life to serving God with the talents He gave you.

5. Of what value is faith?
6. Of what use is faith?

kinda the same question.

something i think people dont understand (atheists...)...when they ask the question, "why doesnt God just come save us?"

well, as a christian, life is hard. its inevitable. life is hard. and you might not be satisfied with your life AND THAT IS RIGHT. cause you were made for more than that. you think Earth is your final destination? nononno, earth is just "an inch on a tape measure from New York and San Francesco." Only at HEAVEN will we be satisfied. the Switchfoot CD, "Nothing is SOund" nothing satisfies here on earth.

so why doesnt God save us? save us from what? save us from Death? haha, death is the one way to SATISFACTION. even the most "christiany" people you know are totally satisfied.

and why doesnt God give us all salvation?
well, some believe in predestination. others say that ....idunno cause i beleive in predestination.

Alright. You are defining faith as a belief system.

2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih?



So, when you base a choice on reason, you would be operating on faith? This seems contradictory.



Alright. How does reading the bible provide as we knowledge that we can classify as accurate?

Reading something usually involves basic cognitive faculties. We comprehend what is on paper and in decided on whether or not to believe said text, we use, in most cases, reason. My questions are pertaining to people who believe that we use "faith" to come to a conclusion on any given truth value.

How does the act of simply reading the Bible present us with accurate knowledge?
How is that any different then reading any other form of text?
How can I use "faith" to gain accurate knowledge from the Bible?



By mechanism of faith, I meant to ask exactly how by using faith do we come to gain knowledge?

Reason is a well defined and developed way of knowing. I'm asking you, for the most part, to explain what allows us to gain knowledge under the use of faith.



How do you know any of these things?
If you can know them, please explain them.
Why is any of this true?

You have, for the most part, gone off an a tangent that is non sequitur, and for the most part meaningless. You had missed my most important questions, and failed to accurate answer the rest.

All I want to know, is how can we gain knowledge from faith? So far, your argument seems circular and noncoherent. If faith is simply the belief in "Jesus Christ," how does holding any specific belief let us know anything?

Try at #7, please.



Also, here are some additional questions.

8. Imagine that you were given three divine messages. One of these messages was true. Using faith, how do you determine which message is true?

9. Can you base a choice on faith?

10. If so, how would you go about making such a choice?

Also, on a far more important note. I think we need to focus alot less time on the question "Does God Exist," and more time on the question, "Should we believe a God exists?"

I was never proposing that we could deductively prove or disprove the existence of ever possible god figure. My arguments are based in rationalism and do not even assume such a possibility. The matter I care to deal with are the realities behind reason and faith, epistemology, and what we should believe and why. Not exactly a deductive conclusion on the matter.

there's nothing to prove. god & jesus are real & whether you believe in them or not they're real.

..sigh.

*grumbles* idiot people not reading the rules of debate.

you have to SUPPORT your beliefs. and besides that, there have been many people who have said the EXACT SAME THING.



how is what you said doing that?

and why are god and jesus real?
why not just god? why necessarily jesus? you cant just say, "they're real and thats that".


and sorry if that sounded rude...

there's nothing to prove. god & jesus are not real & whether you believe in them or not they're not real.

[See what I did there? Notice how arbitrary and unconvincing this line of argument is? Alright. Cool.]

I believe I might have answers 6. In most religions, there is some hope of some kind of afterlife. We believe that keeping our faith strong will promote us in the after life.



We know that there is some kind of superior being (I believe in God. I'm Catholic.) through miracles. I don't know if anyone is familiar with the miracle of Fatima, but it is and amazing occurence that I think one should research before deciding to not believe in God. There are many other miracles that have occured, but I believe that of Fatima is very good proof that God and the Virgin Mary exist.

is evolution solid evidence? ya...darwinism, animals changing blah blah... i've noticed that when there is a flaw in the THEORY of evolution the scientists comes up with other thoeries to fix it up. but my guess is... look at everything around you. look at the human body. look how a woman gives birth. look at the stars and planets..... look at everything. do u think that evolution and big bang created all this? to think that there is at least SOME kind of higher power/designer out there? the world is complicated and someone had to create it. i dont think its random like evolution and the big bang states.

Er... Do you understand that life is about learning? Do you understand why one hundred years ago, people did not have PDAs or lap tops?

To borrow from Carl Jung, "knowledge rests not upon truth alone, but upon error also." Do you understand that? Do you also know why there are amendments in the Constitution?

And last, but not least, do you know the definition of "THEORY"?

Why did someone have to create it?



Evolution is not a random process. That's a straw man and a wild misconception.

Ever hear of indulgences? During the middle ages, the Catholic Church claimed that your soul would not be sent to heaven unless you paid indulgences.

I don't believe what any of you are saying, and I don't feel I should waste my time trying to explain my philosophy, as only a select few of you will understand it anyway. Mipadi probably would, as he seems to be touching on it.

I'll tell you what I think about religion, instead.

I believe there is nothing denying the possibility of the existance of God. However, I don't believe that is why people turn to religion. I believe people turned to religion because it is easier to understand than a world created by chance.



I think you mean, "The world is complicated, and I can't understand how it may not have been created by a higher being".

As for me, I don't believe anything. I don't believe anything that did not directly come from my mind. Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore, I am. I will question everything, and anything, as the only thing that is certain is my existance.

Is this what is being taught in school these days? This is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. Even worse than the version we were taught at my school.

Indulgences do affect going to heaven or hell. Indulgences only remove the temporal punishment that is associated with sin.

What does affect where your soul is headed is if you are absolved of your sins or not. Indulgences are worthless unless you are absolved first anyway, regardless of whether you bought them or you earned them. Also, indulgences are not a license to sin.

indulgences were something you paid for in reperation for sins. instead of confession, you'd pay indulgences. it was simply because people were too lazy to say a few prayers or go out and help someone like we do now.

if there was a god why does he let us f**k up so bad?

Ah, go figure on the school thing. Or maybe my memory didn't serve me.

Hmm... I think the fact that money can simply "remove the temporal punishment that is associated with sin" is kind of strange to me. Money is suddenly important to religion?

However, I suppose that if they actually used the money to help those in need, perhaps that would be like charity, therefore it would be good. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. If they didn't, well...