Why Debate?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1261878' date='May 1 2007, 05:14 PM']This is the reason I debate. It is an opportunity for me to learn other people’s beliefs and a chance to understand why they believe and also affords the ability to challenge my own beliefs. If someone is leading a debate with their faith I am at loss of what to do with this. It is a very distracting disturbance to the debate process.[/quote]A basic problem of debate is one of differing assumptions. From a philosophical perspective, we can't be certain whether the entire material universe actually exists; think of the Matrix. Yet, we won't get very far if we don't make some basic assumptions.

This problem of assumptions isn't exactly new. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote the [i]Summa Theologica[/i] with Christian readers in mind; and he made liberal use of Holy Scriptures and Church Fathers. In contrast, his [i]Summa Contra Gentiles[/i] is written for non-Christians (i.e. gentiles), and leans heavily on Greek Philosophy (particularly Aristotle).

Back to the world of Phatmass debate: each poster has his own set of assumptions. If someone is "leading a debate with their faith", it may simply mean that he has a different set of assumptions. In such a situation, I would think the best response would be to describe where my assumptions differ from my partner in dialogue. If there is a key difference in assumptions that cannot be easily resolved (or some alternative found), then this can be a "debate killer."

[carrdero]

[quote]The Joey –O writes: Nobody has faith in something they possess no knowledge in. [/quote]What I am after is the belief and the knowledge. I am not interested in how much faith one professes in it. I am not impressed in what organization one is affiliated with, I just want to examine the belief. If someone wants to tell me where they found this belief that is fine but their faith and trust in the source is not going to overwhelm me.

[quote]The Joey-O writes: That would be absurd. Faith begins with knowledge that is a promise, a seed if you will.[/quote]
Faith begins with individual hope. Hope is not knowledge. The difference between a belief and faith is that the belief can stand alone. You do not have to appy faith to support it.

[quote]The Joey-O writes: It contains within it Truth that you aren't fully aware of. [/quote]It can also may contain Untruth that one refuses to acknowledge.

[quote]The Joey-O writes: Faith is reasoable, because the knowledge that you have and the promise that you've been given is reasonable.[/quote]
Promises can be broken, wishes sometimes don’t come true and Faith can also betray and disappoint. If one is going to practice faith then one should also be aware of these aspects? Faith and doubt are belief abuses and it is not reasonable to abuse your beliefs.

[quote]The Joey-O writes: However, this doesn't give us permission to alter the essential character of our Faith or abandon it altogether. [/quote]Faith usually abandons the practicioner before the individual is ready to relinquish it.
[quote]The Joey-O writes: True Faith is organic.[/quote]
True faith is an oxymoron.

Edited May 1, 2007 by carrdero

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1261906' date='May 1 2007, 06:04 PM']True faith is an oxymoron.[/quote]Actually, it is not. I have faith that my posts are being sent out by Phatmass to the information superhighway. Is that not true?

[thessalonian]

[quote]That is to be understandable but do not pass it off as something that it is not. If you have a belief in something then say it is a belief. Do not color or season it with faith. It does not make the belief anymore attractive, acceptable, trusting or believable. As I mentioned in another thread, there is no shame in honestly admitting that one does not know.[/quote]

"does not know"? Ah but we do know for we walk by faith and not by sight and so far the walk has been good. It is the evidence of the walk that lets us know that the teachings of the Catholic Church are true. Catholicism, further is not a shopping cart full of beliefs we have extracted from the Bible as is protestantism but it is a total package of revelation. There are not parts we are certain of and parts we are not. It is all a certainty. Only a lack of faith would say otherwise. A watering down of our belief as you would have us do would say otherwise.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Promises can be broken, wishes sometimes don’t come true and Faith can also betray and disappoint.[/quote]

Faith is in no way connected with promises or wishes. Faith is a verb, an activity that requires radical trust, and trust has never disappointed anyone yet. I am not talking about 'trust' that the shops will be open or 'trust' that you won't get a parking ticket - the kind of superficial examples that are often thrown up by squabbling sceptics - but trust that no matter what happens to you or to the world, your ability to love and to be loved will remain untouched. Faith is a [i]response[/i] to an invitation to live as Jesus did, not a possession or an attitude.

[Mateo el Feo]

Faith is a noun, not a verb.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[Guest T-Bone]

I faith
You faith
He, She, It faiths
We faith

?

[Mateo el Feo]

O.K. So C.A. is taking some poetic license...we're just being immature and giving her a hard time about it.

Just to up the ante of nerdiness, if we conjugated the spanish word for faith, [i]fe[/i], first person singular would be: "[i]yo feo[/i]." Gives a whole new meaning to my screen name.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

I wasn't talking about grammar. I was trying to describe what faith [i]itself[/i] is rather than just making an observation on the grammatical nature of the word.

I was discussing this idea (faith as active) with the novice mistress at a Carmelite monastery when I made a discernment retreat there a few weeks before Easter. She has expressed it much more lucidly than I can in three of her books - [i]The Essence of Prayer[/i], [i]To Believe in Jesus[/i], and [i]Guidelines for Mystical Prayer[/i]. Beautiful writing. Shattering insights, but so simple. I recommend them whole-heartedly.

[prose]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1261911' date='May 1 2007, 04:11 PM']Actually, it is not. I have faith that my posts are being sent out by Phatmass to the information superhighway. Is that not true?[/quote]

Well, sometimes it isn't....

[Socrates]

[quote name='prose' post='1261739' date='May 1 2007, 12:53 PM']I have a question. Is there a true purpose to debate? I mean, I know that ultimately it is for conversion, but is there a point in running circles around one another with the same repeated arguments? Is it truly bringing people closer to their faith? Or is it causing a bigger canyon between faiths?

This topic is now open for debate [/quote]
Why debate?

Because it's fun!

While, it's true many people will not, er, budge, from their positions, as others have pointed out, people can and do change their opinions due to good arguments.
Debate alone will not convert most people - that requires God's grace and an openness of heart.
But debate, and making apologetical arguments cannot be ignored. My parents both converted to Catholicism in part because they realized the truth in the Catholic arguments.

And I know at least one Phatmasser who converted from liberalism to conservatism because of the arguments of conservatives on here. His testimony actually convinced me that I am perhaps not totally wasting my time on here.

I think much of the value of these debates is for the lurker or fence-sitter, who may not be actively participating, but who by reading the debates, might become convinced of the truth, or become strengthened in his faith.

[carrdero]

[quote]Mateo El Feo writes: Actually, it is not. I have faith that my posts are being sent out by Phatmass to the information superhighway. Is that not true?[/quote]

Though it is difficult to tell from here, it seems that you are misunderstanding faith for belief. I have a belief that my posts will be sent out on the superinformation highway but I do not have faith. The faith part is unnecessary; one can just wait until the post is uploaded to view if the post got there successfully. The belief stands that the post may get there or not. If one has posted on as many forum boards as I have, one can begin to be informed of the many possible malfunctions this technology invites. Double postings, long loading times with unresolved error messages, the possibility that someone has posted after the comment you wanted to address, smiley emoticons, that when utilized, do not appear as they are supposed to, home modems or dial-up connections that go off-line. If I was administering faith to these beliefs, I can assure that I would have been severely discouraged in my faith by now to even consider ever going on-line again. But this is also one of the aspects of faith. By enduring sufferings and long exended trials and tribulations some people believe that since they put faith in something that their faith has been rewarded or vindicated so it must be correct to continually use it for everything. No one bothers to think that a belief just concluded itself. It would be a lot easier if people just considered all the possibilities that a belief afforded someone and to prepare for these eventualities when their faith does not live up to their perceptions and hopes.

While we are speaking of faith and oxymorons, another thing that I never quite understood was organized religion and same-faith debates. How does a religious forum that supports a same-faith debate section get to see much debate if all the members are of the same denomination? Isn’t everyone who takes their religion seriously supposed to be on the same page as their other brethren if they are to be considered organized or a member of that religion? It is hard to imagine two members of the same denomination arguing or debating about church or scriptural doctrines when all they have to do is go to a source and have the issue resolved.
If same faith debates were a boxing match and I spent a lot of money for this ticket, I would be sorely disappointed at how quickly this battle ended.

[carrdero]

[quote]Thessalonian wrtes: "does not know"? Ah but we do know for we walk by faith and not by sight and so far the walk has been good. [/quote]What you are explaining is what some people have described as “believing blindly”. It would be far more practical to use every sense, every reference, every bit of
K(NOW)ledge at your disposal to reason, examine and conclude your beliefs and I do not understand how you can achieve this effectively without sight. Besides if you are walking without any sight how could you possibly appreciate and envision the enlightenment that you received and compare to where you have been? If one is walking without sight, how can they ever notice the many guideposts that could have gotten them to their conclusions quicker and more efficiently?

[quote]Thessalonian wrtes: It is the evidence of the walk that lets us know that the teachings of the Catholic Church are true.[/quote]
I must apologize but there are many people who currently exist in our generation who feel that they do not need to walk 2000 years to come to their truths and with all of that extra time, think of all the other beliefs, experiences and possibilities one can examine and consider when one stops to “smell the flowers”.

[quote]Thessalonian wrtes: Catholicism, further is not a shopping cart full of beliefs we have extracted from the Bible as is protestantism but it is a total package of revelation. [/quote]The Bible is not the only book in town that has been written about revelation. It is only [b][i]one[/i][/b] brand and has been packaged by [b][i]one[/i][/b] company.
[quote]Thessalonian wrtes: There are not parts we are certain of and parts we are not. It is all a certainty. Only a lack of faith would say otherwise.[/quote]
Then let us attempt to conclude ‘otherwise’.

[quote]Thessalonian wrtes: A watering down of our belief as you would have us do would say otherwise.[/quote]
The watering down part is the faith.
The original belief is fine as it is. Most beliefs can stand by themselves. There is no need to dilute it with faith, doubt or hope. Beliefs like to be concluded, they don’t like to be romanced, dressed up or put on exhibition.

[carrdero]

[quote]Mateo El Feo writes O.K. So C.A. is taking some poetic license...we're just being immature and giving her a hard time about it.[/quote]

Catholic Anonymous may be speaking of faith that extends into ‘works’ and in that case it could possibly be used as a verb. But one must continually ask themselves; I am working the Truth or exploiting my faith? Is the faith that I am practicing effectively making a difference or are they just stroking my own desires and ego? Personally I would prefer to live and die by my Truths not my beliefs or faith. One cannot reasonably conclude their beliefs or practice faith if they are dead.

[carrdero]

[quote]Socrates writes: Why debate?
Because it's fun![/quote]Amen!

[quote]Socrates writes: While, it's true many people will not, er, budge, from their positions, as others have pointed out, people can and do change their opinions due to good arguments.
Debate alone will not convert most people - that requires God's grace and an openness of
heart.[/quote]
How can one even K(NOW) that the other debator is not God or at least someone sent from God or someone who speaks for God on His behalf?
Because it does not match what you have been taught or told to believe?
[quote]Socrates writes: My parents both converted to Catholicism in part because they realized the truth in the Catholic arguments.[/quote]Yes but have the heard and reviewed all the arguments and examined all the possibilities and perspectives. No offence to your parents but if they are practicing any kind of faith, chances are they may not be interested in these other possibilities. This is what faith does best. It immediately stops one from understanding. What reason is there for reviewing other understanding or considering someone else’s beliefs when one (fatihfully) believes that they already have the Truth?

[quote]Socrates writes: And I know at least one Phatmasser who converted from liberalism to conservatism because of the arguments of conservatives on here. His testimony actually convinced me that I am perhaps not totally wasting my time on here.
I think much of the value of these debates is for the lurker or fence-sitter, who may not be actively participating, but who by reading the debates, might become convinced of the truth, or become strengthened in his faith.[/quote]
I think the prominent reasons to debate is not to convert anyone. I would think that debating offers an opportunity to share beliefs, to help each other understand how we believe and possibly conclude the things we don’t yet understand and to promote tolerance and respect for each other’s beliefs. I am not here to coddle, strengthen or weaken anyone’s faith. That is personal, and if one feels threatened or uncomfortable or disturbed about some of the things I post that is between you and your own conscience. Though I do find it interesting how fierce some people will go to defend their faith, if they approached these concepts as beliefs, they would immediately perceive that beliefs do not need defending. It is the nature of beliefs to be replaced with current or more enlightening understanding. Even some Truths are open to new understanding.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Catholic Anonymous may be speaking of faith that extends into ‘works’ and in that case it could possibly be used as a verb.[/quote]

That is not what I meant. It's explained more clearly in my second post.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1262281' date='May 2 2007, 03:04 AM']What you are explaining is what some people have described as “believing blindly”. It would be far more practical to use every sense, every reference, every bit of
K(NOW)ledge at your disposal to reason, examine and conclude your beliefs and I do not understand how you can achieve this effectively without sight. Besides if you are walking without any sight how could you possibly appreciate and envision the enlightenment that you received and compare to where you have been? If one is walking without sight, how can they ever notice the many guideposts that could have gotten them to their conclusions quicker and more efficiently?[/quote]

Where have I said I have no sight? I was riding my car in to work today. I don't know all the details of how the car works. My wife and 17 year old son have less than I. Yet the "blindly" submit to the idea that if they turn the key it will get them to there destination. Now I have enough knowledge of how a car works to have "faith" in the rest that I don't understand and know that as I continue to grow in understanding of how the car works, my current understanding (unless in error) will not contradict. I have seen enough and understand enough and know enough about what the Catholic Church teaches at this point in my life to tell you with CERTAINTY that I know I can have faith in what I don't understand. My children have less sight than I and so I teach them and they gain more.

[quote]I must apologize but there are many people who currently exist in our generation who feel that they do not need to walk 2000 years to come to their truths and with all of that extra time, think of all the other beliefs, experiences and possibilities one can examine and consider when one stops to “smell the flowers”.[/quote]I don't need to walk 2000 years either. Jesus Christ set up a Church that would last 2000 years. I've examined lots of beliefs in other religions from Mormonism to Islam. There are not different truths, but one truth.

[quote]The Bible is not the only book in town that has been written about revelation. It is only [b][i]one[/i][/b] brand and has been packaged by [b][i]one[/i][/b] company.[/quote]

It's the only game in town that is sufficiently supernatural to have come from God. The evidence is overwhelming if you study it. The rest are not revelation but the writings of man and I do not say that blindly. There is nothing supernatural about the ones I have read.

[quote]Then let us attempt to conclude ‘otherwise’.
The watering down part is the faith.
The original belief is fine as it is. Most beliefs can stand by themselves. There is no need to dilute it with faith, doubt or hope. Beliefs like to be concluded, they don’t like to be romanced, dressed up or put on exhibition.[/quote]

Your confused. Blowing in the wind.

Edited May 2, 2007 by thessalonian

[TotusTuusMaria]

[center]J.M.J.[/center]
[quote name='prose' post='1261739' date='May 1 2007, 01:53 PM']I have a question. Is there a true purpose to debate? I mean, I know that ultimately it is for conversion, but is there a point in running circles around one another with the same repeated arguments? Is it truly bringing people closer to their faith? Or is it causing a bigger canyon between faiths?

This topic is now open for debate [/quote]

I haven't really read what everyone else has said. But my answer would be this.

We all must search for truth in this world. To seek and find truth should be the goal and purpose of every debate. As Christians we are called to and have a moral duty to defend the truth and "preach it from the rooftops". By debates and dialogue between people of different beliefs (if it has the right purpose) should bring us to a better understanding and love for the other. It should also lead both sides toward the truth their searching for. Without debates, dialogue, and questioning within oneself and with other people of different beliefs one is not living up to the goal of seeking truth, finding truth, and spreading truth.

The whole "no debate" argument is usually used by those who think there is no truth or by those who think it does not matter what people believe and that one can believe anything one wants to believe.

God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie

[Socrates]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1262311' date='May 2 2007, 02:49 AM']Amen!
How can one even K(NOW) that the other debator is not God or at least someone sent from God or someone who speaks for God on His behalf?
Because it does not match what you have been taught or told to believe?
Yes but have the heard and reviewed all the arguments and examined all the possibilities and perspectives. No offence to your parents but if they are practicing any kind of faith, chances are they may not be interested in these other possibilities. This is what faith does best. It immediately stops one from understanding. What reason is there for reviewing other understanding or considering someone else’s beliefs when one (fatihfully) believes that they already have the Truth?
I think the prominent reasons to debate is not to convert anyone. I would think that debating offers an opportunity to share beliefs, to help each other understand how we believe and possibly conclude the things we don’t yet understand and to promote tolerance and respect for each other’s beliefs. I am not here to coddle, strengthen or weaken anyone’s faith. That is personal, and if one feels threatened or uncomfortable or disturbed about some of the things I post that is between you and your own conscience. Though I do find it interesting how fierce some people will go to defend their faith, if they approached these concepts as beliefs, they would immediately perceive that beliefs do not need defending. It is the nature of beliefs to be replaced with current or more enlightening understanding. Even some Truths are open to new understanding.[/quote]
How can one even KNOW that I am not a pink elephant or that Carrdero is not a robot spy from the Alpha Centauri star system?
Claims to divinity are not lightly accepted and beleived by reasonable people, but must be backed up by rational evidence.

There is evidence to rationally beleive in the divinity of Christ and that He established the Church. There is none whatsoever that you or anyone else posting here is God or speaks for God.

Faith and reason are not in opposition, but support one another. That is the Catholic position.

And my parents are both very intellectual people, college professors, in fact. One of the reasons they became Catholic, was that they saw that the tenants of Catholic faith were more intellectually tenable than those of the protestantism they were raised in.

Personally, I don't find your position either intellectually tenable nor desirable - believing in both everything and nothing, yet denigrating those who actually have Faith and believe in something as being somehow inferior to you in "wisdom."

As the great G.K. Chesterton (himself a convert and former atheist) said:
[b]"Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." [/b]

Your posts also bring to mind another quote from Chesterton: "When people cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing; they begin to believe in everything."

And if you really believe that no objective truth can be known, or that one person's "truth" is just as good as anothers, and that nobody can be right or wrong, then there is absolutely no point to debate at all. It is entirely pointless to debate someone who refuses to acknowledge that anything true can be known. If you truly take such a position, you have defeated your own argument. I think people tend to ignore you on here not because they find your posts "threatening" or "disturbing", but merely incoherent and pointless.

Edited May 3, 2007 by Socrates

[carrdero]

[quote]Socrates writes: How can one even KNOW that I am not a pink elephant or that Carrdero is not a robot spy from the Alpha Centauri star system?[/quote]These are things that can easily be discovered by asking questions, sending pictures, maybe even setting a meeting date. There is much knowledge and understanding available if one is interested in the information and has a desire to learn. Faith is a very controlling and jealous ally, it filters out and avoids knowledge that it cannot be permitted to K(NOW), it does not go in search of knowledge that conflicts with its current understandings.

[quote]Socrates writes: Claims to divinity are not lightly accepted and beleived by reasonable people, but must be backed up by rational evidence.[/quote]

Where and what is this rational evidence? A book? There are million of books claimed to be written from inspiration (divine or otherwise). What is the investigation method used to reason this evidence? Is it scientific? Is it it spiritual? Is it physical? How does one claim that a book is written and inspired from divinity? Who are the experts that are employed to determine this? Who K(NOW)s God well enough to determine who this entity is, what this entity wills or what purpose this entity has for Himself and humans? How can we trust the many interpreters, the prophets, the saints, the teachers, the followers? Can you imagine how many debates that I have been involved in that ended with the sentence requesting “that I must have faith”?

[quote]Socrates writes Faith and reason are not in opposition, but support one another. That is the Catholic position.[/quote]I have seen people starve in the name of faith. I am of the understanding that people have been murdered and have died for faith. I have seen Truth ignored for the preference of keeping one’s faith. I have seen people retreat and refuse the moral responsibility to become intelligent in favor of faith. I have known people to suffer for not only their faith but to make others suffer becasue of their faith. I have witnessed faith segregate, disrespect, persecute, disappoint, discourage, disenchant, disillusion. If you can find any rationality and reason from that list above to continue the practice of faith, I would be very interesting in hearing it and would be openly willing to consider it. I have yet to see a practical, beneficial, all-encompassing use for faith except the possibility to use it to name my daughter.

[quote]Socrates writes: And my parents are both very intellectual people, college professors, in fact. One of the reasons they became Catholic, was that they saw that the tenants of Catholic faith were more intellectually tenable than those of the protestantism they were raised in.[/quote]
Yes but have they thoroughly examined all these other prospects?

American Baptist Churches USA
Amish
Anabaptist
Anglican Catholic Church
Anglican Church
Antiochian Orthodox
Armenian Evangelical Church
Armenian Orthodox
Assemblies of God
Associated Gospel Churches of Canada
Association of Vineyard Churches
Baptist
Baptist Bible Fellowship
Branch Davidian
Brethren in Christ
Bruderhof Communities
Byzantine Catholic Church
Calvary Chapel
Calvinist
Cell Church
Celtic Orthodox
Charismatic Episcopal Church
Christadelphian
Christian and Missionary Alliance
Christian Churches of God
Christian Identity
Christian Reformed Church
Christian Science
Church of God (Anderson)
Church of God (Cleveland)
Church of God (Seventh Day)
Church of God in Christ
Church of God of Prophecy
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Church of Scotland
Church of South India
Church of the Brethren
Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America
Church of the Nazarene
Church of the New Jerusalem
Church of the United Brethren in Christ
Church Universal and Triumphant
Churches of Christ
Churches of God General Conference
Congregational Christian Churches
Coptic Orthodox
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
Disciples of Christ
Episcopal Church
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Evangelical Congregational Church
Evangelical Covenant Church
Evangelical Formosan Church
Evangelical Free Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church
Evangelical Methodist Church
Evangelical Presbyterian
Family, The (aka Children of God)
Fellowship of Christian Assemblies
Fellowship of Grace Brethren
Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches
Free Church of Scotland
Free Methodist
Free Presbyterian
Free Will Baptist
Gnostic
Great Commission Association of Churches
Greek Orthodox
Hutterian Brethren
Independent Fundamental Churches of America
Indian Orthodox
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
International Churches of Christ
Jehovah's Witnesses
Living Church of God
Local Church
Lutheran
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
Mar Thoma Syrian Church
Mennonite
Messianic Judaism
Methodist
Moravian Church
Nation of Yahweh
New Frontiers International
Orthodox
Orthodox Church in America
Orthodox Presbyterian
Pentecostal
Plymouth Brethren
Presbyterian
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Presbyterian Church in America
Primitive Baptist
Protestant Reformed Church
Reformed
Reformed Baptist
Reformed Church in America
Reformed Church in the United States
Reformed Churches of Australia
Reformed Episcopal Church
Reformed Presbyterian Church
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Revival Centres International
Romanian Orthodox
Rosicrucian
Russian Orthodox
Serbian Orthodox
Seventh Day Baptist
Seventh-Day Adventist
Shaker
Society of Friends
Southern Baptist Convention
Spiritist
Syrian Orthodox
True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days
Two-by-Twos
Unification Church
Unitarian-Universalism
United Church of Canada
United Church of Christ
United Church of God
United Free Church of Scotland
United Methodist Church
United Reformed Church
Uniting Church in Australia
Unity Church
Unity Fellowship Church
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
Virtual Churches
Waldensian Church
Way International, The
Wesleyan
Wesleyan Methodist
Worldwide Church of God
Judaism
Islam

[quote]Socrates writes: Personally, I don't find your position either intellectually tenable nor desirable - believing in both everything and nothing, yet denigrating those who actually have Faith and believe in something as being somehow inferior to you in "wisdom."[/quote]If you want to encourage faith there is nothing I would do to prevent this but anyone who tells me that they believe they exclusively have the Truth and the exclusive authority to reveal this Truth I feel is exalting an unjustifiable superiority over another. When one examines this “Truth” one can usually discern it is not “Truth” but just heartfelt belief that may be driven by faith. This is condescending and misleading to both people who are seeking the Truth.

The only thing that I have done is shared my experiences and knowledge of the effects that I have discovered faith has upon individuals and societies in my existence and though I understand that people still practice it, it continually disappoints and fails to impress me. I wouldn’t take it personally because it has nothing to do with your race, creed, gender, color or religious affiliation, it just serves no purpose to my existence and my pursuit of knowledge and concluding my beliefs to Truth or Untruth.

[quote]Socrates writes: As the great G.K. Chesterton (himself a convert and former atheist) said:
"Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."[/quote]


Here are a few of my favorites.

[b] “Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to.”
-- George Seaton [/b]

[b]“A Great Escape into faith is no retreat to safety. It is nothing less than surrender.”
-Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist[/b]

[quote]Socrates writes: Your posts also bring to mind another quote from Chesterton: "When people cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing; they begin to believe in everything."[/quote]Don’t misunderstand me, I do believe in God. I just haven’t taken the same path as some people have to aquiring my knowledge and my understanding of this entity.

[quote]Socrates writes: And if you really believe that no objective truth can be known, or that one person's "truth" is just as good as anothers, and that nobody can be right or wrong, then there is absolutely no point to debate at all.[/quote]
I am all for Truth (universal and personal) but faith is not Truth. Belief is not Truth. Opinion is not Truth and I am not quite sure why some people still confuse the difference.
[quote]Socrates writes: It is entirely pointless to debate someone who refuses to acknowledge that anything true can be known. If you truly take such a position, you have defeated your own argument. [/quote]The position I am taking is open. If you have the Truth I am willing to consider it. If you do not have enough substantial evidence to convince me and I do not have enough substantial evidence to convince you that doesn’t necessarily mean debating the belief is pointless because the belief is still valid and up for further investigation. I take no pride in my beliefs (they’re not even mine), I take no pleasure in proving people right or wrong. I take pleasure in learning and understanding and I take great joy in Truth.
[quote]Socrates writes: I think people tend to ignore you on here not because they find your posts "threatening" or "disturbing", but merely incoherent and pointless.[/quote]
I am the faithless among the faithful and I am fully aware of how people perceive me.

Edited May 3, 2007 by carrdero