Tough Questions

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear Super Jew,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

Thank you for your response

I did not mean to imply any one has total control of everything that happens in one's life. I meant to point out that usually, one does have control of how one reacts to external stimulus.

For the example in question: If one believes one is living a shameful life, one can do things (and not do other things) to live a less shameful life. One does have that control. Or do you believe differently?

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear Purple Chris,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

Thank you for your response.

Curious what you are "undecided" about because you seem to have made up your mind about God?

Just wondering?

I am undecided about many things. Among which are:

1) the color underwear I will wear tomorrow

2) which ski run shall I take first in the morning

3) what will I eat for breakfast tomorrow morning

I am decided about other things. Among which are:

4) my mate with whom I will spend the rest of my life

5) my love for my children and family

6) the importance of education

I currently do not believe in any deity (ies). The only reason for this is because I have no reason to believe in any deity (ies), for the evidence is not present to convince me. My mind could change in the future. In the future, the deity (ies) in question could provide the evidence I seek. Many things could happen.

I hope I have been able to answer your question.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear botz,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

Thank you for your response.

yes you can successfully avoid the call of G-d upon your life...and repulse every effect and method that the Holy Ghost seeks to get your attention (even my sharp stick  ) and come to the end of your life defiant and satisfied that you have dodged all attempts at breaking down the walls of your unbelief if this is your choice (and I don't mean this in a deprecating way).

I am a mere mortal. I am sure the holy ghost can find a better method to get my attention (beyond your sharp stick ). I remain open to every new idea that can rationally be accepted. You may choose to see me as having "walls" of unbelief, but I choose to see me as being a tabula rasa. I have nothing to defend. In fact, if anyone has "walls" to defend, it is those that profess a particular faith.

...it is like being given a car and going to put water in the fuel tank...it will not run...you need gas...you need faith.

Interesting analogy. I think the more fitting one is that people tell me that I have a car, and that I have to accept that on faith. Pity me getting on the freeway with that imaginary car.

...that is a frightening aspect in view of eternity that stretches ahead and such a loss in terms of enjoying this exciting life that we now live to its fullest.

The thrust of what I was attempting to show you in the last post was...don't allow your rationality to prevent you exercising that first tentative step of faith...you might even have to say to yourself..."maybe I am wrong"..this is where the old pride bit comes in...and we think we are showing weakness

It is indeed a frightening aspect if one accepts the concept of living through eternity. But, as I have already posted before, I do not accept that concept. I believe we are finite beings, and do not live beyond our death.

I appreciate what your point was botz, but unfortunately, I cannot comply with rejecting rationality to exercise faith (the will to believe without evidence). As I have stated before, I am a very rational being. I am perfectly able to say that I maybe wrong. However, I will wait for evidence to show me that. It is what most rational people do.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[Botz]

Hi Frog.

Hmmm...what I really need is for you to come over and have a coffee and sit down and talk about all these things face to face...but as you are somewhere on the otherside of the Atlantic we will have to settle for the Forums.

Frog....

It is indeed a frightening aspect if one accepts the concept of living through eternity. But, as I have already posted before, I do not accept that concept. I believe we are finite beings, and do not live beyond our death

See...you have faith ....that we do not live beyond death. Obviously you have some evidence that I am not aware of that gives you this...this er...belief?

I appreciate what your point was botz, but unfortunately, I cannot comply with rejecting rationality to exercise faith (the will to believe without evidence). As I have stated before, I am a very rational being. I am perfectly able to say that I maybe wrong. However, I will wait for evidence to show me that. It is what most rational people do.

I think you have a slight cranial log-jam regarding faith Frog....You do not have to suddenly suspend all that you positively know and understand as a human being to believe that Jesus died and rose again and that through Him you can be forgiven and have eternal life...what I am trying to point out is that rationale can only take you so far...you have a great deal of evidence before you if only you will look at it...so to claim that faith is the will to believe without evidence is misleading.

Let me try and put it another way...

When my son was a little boy he would climb on a wall outside our house and when I asked him to he eventually plucked up courage to leap off the wall and fly into my waiting arms...the first leap is always the hardest...after that there was no stopping him. The brain/rational might say the distance is too far...or that I will drop him etc...but in the end he does it because he trusts me more than his doubts....and I persuade and encourage him.

When a person makes the transition from being without G-d to accepting Him and believing Him ...it is because they finally throw themselves upon Him as it were and trust that because He is G-d He will not trick them or disappoint them or disdain them.

They Bible talks about having faith as a little child.

Mark 10:15 "Truly I say to you, Whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter into it".

That is what it takes...a child-like trust.

The,richest,intelligent most successful and popular person in the world cannot enter the Kingdom of G-d without exercising this child-like faith...It is said that death is the great equaliser but I would suggest that faith is more truely so.

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear botz,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

Thank you for your response.

See...you have faith ....that we do not live beyond death.  Obviously you have some evidence that I am not aware of that gives you this...this er...belief?

I do not consider that faith. I do not believe there is life after death given the lack of evidence to support that notion. How can you interpret the disbelief in life after death as faith? How can a disbelief based on non-evidence be interpreted as faith? Please do not play word games with me.

You do not have to suddenly suspend all that you positively know and understand as a human being to believe that Jesus died and rose again and that through Him you can be forgiven and have eternal life...

Thank you for your permission, but I think that is exactly where I am today...I will not suspend any rationality. With that rationality, how am I to believe that someone was resurrected after death? Do people die and come back to life again? Beside religious stories, this does not happen in real life. Osiris, Mithra, Lazarus, and Jesus were all claimed to be resurrected. It is hard for me to believe that is truth. You may consider me to have a mental log-jam, but I think I am thinking clearly on this.

When my son was a little boy he would climb on a wall outside our house and when I asked him to he eventually plucked up courage to leap off the wall and fly into my waiting arms...the first leap is always the hardest...after that there was no stopping him. The brain/rational might say the distance is too far...or that I will drop him etc...but in the end he does it because he trusts me more than his doubts....and I persuade and encourage him

I see what you're saying. However, your son trusts you, and knows that you exist. He sees you there with arms outstretched ready to catch him. This is not the same with me. I see no god there with outstretched arms ready to catch me. I do not trust or know this god. I do not even know if this god exists. Yes, it would indeed be irrational to leap without that knowledge.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

PS: Next time you are in my neck of the woods, we can have coffee, and chat face to face.

[Botz]

Hi Frog.

Thanks for your reply....Just to follow up a little.

QUOTE...Frog...I believe we are finite beings, and do not live beyond our death.

QUOTE...Botz..

See...you have faith ....that we do not live beyond death.

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear botz,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

Thank you for your response.

I was not playing word games...just trying to get you to consider a different perspective...and from your initial statement above...it certainly resembles a faith/belief/credo...I could even ask where is your lack of evidence and how sure of it are you...but I won't push my luck.

There is no evidence that there is life after death. Hence I have a lack of belief in any afterlife. You may consider this as having a faith that there is no afterlife if you want to play semantics, and claim that I cannot provide evidence that there isn't any afterlife.

However, consider this: One does not need to disprove something that has not been proven in the first place.

The rational position is the one I choose. Do not believe in anything until provided evidence for it.

Oh boy...I see you want to cling to your security blanket at all costs and do not appreciate anybody trying to gently pull it away from you.

Just to briefly mention I think any quick look into the history of peoples from all over the world will show you a pattern and a consistent belief in the spiritual aspect of our nature...if you want to ignore anything that smacks of religion or belief because it does not fit in with your present handle on life that is your choice...but it ain't exactly rational!

Whether you choose to paint me with a security blanket is your perogative. I can only state that I have no security blanket. I do not believe in any god that will forgive any wrongs I may have committed. On the contrary, I see you as the one with the security blanket.

Yes, I do see that many different cultures/peoples believe in some supernatural deity/deities. I also see that these deities are very different from each other, and yet share similar characteristics. I do not ignore anything that smacks of religion. On the contrary, any thing that smacks of religion interests me very much. The pattern I see that is common to all religious beliefs is that the people attribute things they cannot readily explain to the will of their deity/deities. I think this is a very human characteristic. However, I have come to learn that some humans do not share this in similar quantities. I think those who have a higher quantity of what I term rationality lack the other human characteristic of attributing unknowns to some deity/deities.

Yes I realise that....The dilemma is coming to a place of trust in the G-d you have never believed in and have never had substantiated proof of...just religious people telling you of a subjective personal encounter which you cannot fathom and probably put into the same category as fairies at the bottom of the garden (sorry if I put words into your mouth  )

Yes, botz, it is an apt analogy. Fairies in the garden. However, I prefer the invisible pink unicorn in my garage.

Absolutely. My brother has to work in Boston from time to time and I can always stay with him...maybe that is near you...otherwise when you visit the UK ..I am on the South Coast straight down from London.

I'm not on the easten seaboard of the US. I'm on the western side, near SF. I am familiar with England, since I was English before I became an American. Are you in Brighton?

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[nebula]

Hey, Frog -

Sorry to butt into your convo with Botz, but I'd like to try to offer a different analogy on what faith is.

My friend loves to eat sushi. I am afraid to try it because of the risk of raw fish containing worms. My friend beleives the fish is safe to eat. In this, I would say she has faith that the raw fish she eats does not contain worms.

When I have a headache, I take a pain killer in faith that it will take the pain away. (It doesn't always work - so it is not a fact supported by evidence that it will work, but I hope it will - and so I take it in faith - hope made evident by action - that it will relieve my pain.)

Does that make a little more sense on what "faith" is? I know this word has been applied so heavily to religion that athiests and agnostics are reluctant to believe this word has relevance to their lives. But I don't think it should be such an ostricized word. Whenever you act on what you believe and/or hope for, that is acting in faith. Reliegion just uses that word a lot because it applies a lot.

I hope that makes some sense.

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear nebula,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

Thank you for your response. Your examples actually are good ones to point out why they don't really apply in this case.

My friend loves to eat sushi. I am afraid to try it because of the risk of raw fish containing worms. My friend beleives the fish is safe to eat. In this, I would say she has faith that the raw fish she eats does not contain worms.

You do not eat sushi for the fear that it may contain worms. You have the sushi to examine. You may take the sushi and look at it under microscopy to determine if it had worms indeed. You can gather the evidence to support your fear. How can I likewise examine your god?

You would say that your friend eats sushi because she has faith that it doesn't contain worms? That is not rational, unless your friend has the same fear that sushi contains worms that you do.

When I have a headache, I take a pain killer in faith that it will take the pain away. (It doesn't always work - so it is not a fact supported by evidence that it will work, but I hope it will - and so I take it in faith - hope made evident by action - that it will relieve my pain.)

The pain killer you have taken in the past has worked some time (hence you say it doesn't always work). So when you get a headache, you have faith that it may help you again? That is similar to say that I have faith that when I get in my car and turn on the ignition, I have faith that the engine will engage. I don't think this is a fair description of faith. I have turned on the ignition of my car countless times before, and I have no reason to believe it will not engage the next time. You have used pain killers to treat your headache before, and dependant on the efficacy, you have the same reason to believe it will work to the same efficacy as before.

I agree that faith is a misunderstood word. To me, the word under a religious context is the will to believe without evidence. In the everyday examples you have provided, evidence is there to examine and test. In the religious context, that evidence is not there for me.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[Bread_of_Life]

Nebula

My friend loves to eat sushi. I am afraid to try it because of the risk of raw fish containing worms. My friend beleives the fish is safe to eat. In this, I would say she has faith that the raw fish she eats does not contain worms.

I disagree, I think that your friend is taking a risk, as we all do every day.

For example, the other day, I ordered a sirloin steak cooked medium rare. Now, I have evidence that the restaurant uses good meat - it gets excellent reviews and I've been there many times before - I even know the guy who owns it. But what if they got a batch of bad meat this time? How do I know? Do I have faith they didn't? No, I understand that there's always a risk, but it's a risk I'm willing to take, and it's a risk I minimise with evidence and experience of this restaurant.

Notice that I ordered the steak medium rare. Now I know (from evidence) that the less thoroughly cooked the steak it, the more likely I am to get an infection or parasite from the meat, however fresh or good the meat is. Medium rare isn't *that* well cooked, but I prefer my steaks that way. So do I have faith in the nature of the steak, and that I will not be infected? No. Firstly. I do check that it's hot/warm on the inside - that it's not totally raw. This is some evidence that it has been cooked well. Then after that, I take a risk. It's a calculated risk - after all, I could have gone for rare, which would have been even riskier, but potentially tastier and juicier. But I limited the risk by opting for medium rare, and also thus limited by enjoyment.

Indeed, we take risks every day, but sensible people mitigate risks using scientific analysis and evidence. For example, I went on holiday recently, and had to take 2 flights, one there and one back. Yet, I know that planes can crash, and in that event, most passengers are killed instantly. So did I have faith that my plane wouldn't crash? No. Firstly, I knew the company I went with had a very good safety record, and was well regulated by the aviation authorities. This counts as evidence that the company used decent parts and such like, and exployed safety checks. Secondly, I am aware that there is real scientific evidence behind each of those parts, and the plane as a whole. Each part and the whole machinery has been tested and tested and tested, and has strong theoretical materials science and physical science behind it. This assures me that the plane should be, in theory, good to fly.

But what if the safety checks have failed? What if it just so happens that this plane has a defective part somewhere? What if the (very experienced) pilot somehow makes an error, just this onec? Can I fully mitigate the risks? The answer is, of course I can't account for all of these - these will remain risks - and I don't have "faith" that they won't happen. I just know that they're very rare, and thus very unlikely to happen, and I'm not willing to spoil my chances of going on holiday because a tiny risk exists that I'll die in transit.

I take similar risks every time I go in a car, or cross a road. It's not that I know for certain 100% that I won't die or be injured, I don't. It's not that I have faith I'll be alright. I don't. It's that I'm willing to take small, calculated and evidence-mitigated risks in order to have an enjoyable and functioning life. I'm willing to take the gamble, because the risk is very small, and I really need to get where I'm going, or cross the road for the shop, and I can mitigate these risks by looking both ways, and taking care when I drive.

When I have a headache, I take a pain killer in faith that it will take the pain away. (It doesn't always work - so it is not a fact supported by evidence that it will work, but I hope it will - and so I take it in faith - hope made evident by action - that it will relieve my pain.)

This case is similar to the above. Headache pills have been scientifically tested and proven to work better than placebos. That is, they relieve pain considerably more reliably and quickly than sugar pills in double blind tests.

Does that mean they always work? No. It means they've got a good chance of working in any one instance - and even if they don't work 100% and completely get rid of the pain, they'll probably help somewhat anyway.

Now, when i have a bad headache, I'll do just about anything that I think has the slightest chance of getting rid of it, even if I know that it's not 100% reliable. I'll wash my head in cold water, I'll get an ice pack and lie in a dark room, I'll take aspirin or ibuprofen. Each of these methods have been scientifically proven to work better than a placebo, and although none of them (or all of them in combination) are absolutely sure to work, they're a darn sight better in my experience than doing nothing at all. No faith involved, no weird irrational belief that they'll *definetely* work, despite the evidence that they don't always.

Does that make a little more sense on what "faith" is?

Not really. Faith is a belief lacking in evidence or proof. If one had faith, one believes in something more than one should given the evidence. If I had faith in my ability to predict a coin toss, I'd believe that I would get it right more than 50% of the time, despite the evidence saying that it should be exactly 50%.

In actual fact, I have no faith. I believe that about 99.999% of times I'll get off a plane unharmed. I believe that about 95% of times, a painkiller will work. I believe that about 99.9999% of times, I'll cross the road unharmed, or drive unharmed. I don't irrationally ignore evidence that the worst could happen, or that the pain killers might not work - I proportion my belief to the evidence, and make the decision as to whether it's worth taking the risk of going on a plane, or buying the painkillers.

No faith involved, no belief without evidence - just belief strictly proportioned to the evidence.