Neo

I asked an innocuous question about faith. All I did was say that faith is required for rational thought, and that faith may not be religious faith, it may be faith that 1+1=2.

But what do you do? you turn around and assume that every time i mention faith, i mean it in a religious context. I even quoted a dictionary about what context i took faith in, and you still assumed that I meant religious faith. And you ridiculed me for it. Implied that i thought irrationally because i saw the minuscule possibility of error in any environment, no matter how many times it is repeated. You assumed that my question was a religious message that we must have faith in god in order to survive, and you insulted me based on a wrong assumption.

So, my question is, Why, all you atheist R&S'ers, why do you scoff at my ideas and ridicule me just because I think differently than you do? How is that different from all those people who are mean to those who do not follow the same religion they do?

I do realize that this doesn't apply to all of you out there, I've seen that a good portion of you are very kind, and I apologize for lumping you in with those who are unkind. But even those who are kind, How is doing what they were doing different from religious discrimination?

I am not a troll, hear me out.

Now, when i say faith, most people think of god(s) and/or a flying spaghetti monster. But faith is much simpler than that. Faith is supreme belief in one simple fact. To most people, that fact is that there is some sort of higher power in the universe. But can't it be much simpler than that?

We are told, from out budding days of education, that one plus one equals two. But there are no facts to back that up. Numbers, addition, and the concept of equality are all creations of man. There is no solid evidence to back this up. But, we believe , with supreme faith, that when you add one and one together, you get two. Otherwise, all of math crumbles. All from disbelieving that basic fact. If one plus one actually equaled three, all of math would be thrown into chaos. Carefully calculated numbers and all formulas would be worth nothing.

On the other hand, 1984 is a great example of the concept of faith. In that book, basic facts are constantly being rewritten for the benefit of the government. How can we assume that a certain book is true when something like that could easily be fabricated. You have faith that the facts written in the book are truth. Otherwise the book wouldn't be credible. Without that essential faith, nothing ever written down could ever be considered true.

Even trust in your own memory requires faith. Your memories are things that you sensed at a specific time. Sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. But can't your senses lie to you? What is a mirage, but your eyes leading you to believe that something is there that isn't. You have to have ultimate faith in your senses to even remotely begin trusting your memories. Unless you have that faith, your entire life is thrown into doubt. Whether or not you did something at a certain time at a certain place can never be determined. Everything that you remember ever doing could have never happened at all.

So, isn't absolute faith required for survival and rational thought?

If god is all knowing, then he must know the future. If he knows the future, then the future must already be determined. If the future is already determined, then us sinning must be set in stone already. If our sins are already set in stone, then we are helpless to stop them from occurring. If we are helpless to stop them, then why are we being judged for something that we cannot control? Why are we being punished for something that it is not within our power to prevent?

It's like sentencing a random man on another airplane for not preventing the 9/11 attacks. He was helpless to stop it, so why is he being punished for it?

To all you pro-lifers out there, what would you do?

A mother was pregnant. Should she have the baby, though, it would kill not only her, but the baby as well. The baby has no chance of surviving.

Would it still be right to have them both die when you could easily save the mother? The baby would die anyway, so why have two people die, when one could be saved?

To Dreamprotector: Is god not also a man slayer?

We define a line, circle, any geometric figure as an array of points that satisfy a given condition.

Therefore, all geometric shapes are but a single point.

my reasoning goes like this:

1: a line is a set of infinite points

2: a line has length and extends infinitely in two directions

3: a point has no dimensions (dimensions equal to 0x0x0)

4: any number times zero is still zero

5: an infinite number of points still has a length of zero

6: lines have no length, and are therefore, simply a single point.

Does this make sense? Is there a flaw in my reasoning? Please tell me, it has been bothering me for some time now.

A loving, caring god,as described in religious texts, would look after his followers, right? There are suffering devout people in EVERY religion in every part of the world. Why would someone known for such kindness be so cruel?