Timeline for Can we choose to believe in God?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 18 at 17:38 | comment | added | tkruse | Drug dealers also say that drug use is reasonable. The stated opinion if churches on cults on their practices should not be accepted without skepticism the same way. Theology is not philosophy. | |
| Oct 18 at 15:01 | comment | added | ConnieMnemonic | I really do dislike the notion that faith grounded in reason isn't faith at all. Catholicism and Anglicanism, as well as other churches, state outright that reason is a component in their beliefs. There's lots of tight, witty one-liners like this, but I really do have to question whether they have any merit or just look good written down. | |
| Oct 15 at 23:06 | comment | added | tkruse | Yes, suicide bombers do not require proof, their faith carries them. What a blessing faith is. | |
| Oct 15 at 23:04 | history | edited | tkruse | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Oct 15 at 19:35 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @NotThatGuy A dealbreaker for anybody who does not have that faith, yes. | |
| Oct 15 at 19:13 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @Peter-ReinstateMonica "The strength of faith is that it needs no proof" - not needing proof, or evidence, or anything else, is what makes faith entirely unreliable, and it means there's nothing one can't believe through faith. For anyone who cares about truth, that should be an instant dealbreaker, and that should far outweigh any benefit there might be in "needing no proof" (the main benefit presumably being that it allows you to adopt and stick to beliefs that have some emotional appeal, when you don't have any good reason to think those things are true). | |
| Oct 15 at 19:09 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | I always find it antithetic / a confusion of categories to try to logically or empirically prove a god (in modern times, Americans seem annoyingly prone to trying that). Anything provable or falsifiable is clearly accessible by the usual means of investigating our surroundings, i.e., falls into the realm of science. The strength of faith is that it needs no proof. (Whether faith is, perhaps partly, subject to volition is another question; I think we can to a degree choose to love somebody, or let that love grow -- or not --, and love falls very much into the same non-scientific realm.) | |
| Oct 15 at 18:59 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | Maybe adaption, but did you possibly mean adoption? | |
| Oct 15 at 18:56 | comment | added | J D | +1 "Religious indoctrination is not based on objective evidence and reason, but based on scripturally alleged revelation" - and yet not all religious thinkers are indoctrinated. | |
| Oct 15 at 18:55 | history | edited | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Oct 15 at 12:15 | history | edited | Lowri | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Preserving comment (which itself was an improper answer in a comment) here
|
| Oct 15 at 11:39 | history | answered | tkruse | CC BY-SA 4.0 |