I'm not being deceitful here. I have always had questions about my faith, and I test my faith - always have. Perhaps it's my 'slight' o.c.d as one therapist told me, or my severe anxiety, my borderline personality disorder, or seemingly inability to live with uncertainty.

How I test my faith is by going straight to atheists, because they have a different outlook on this topic. In fact, a lot of atheists I have met (online) were once Christians. Who better to go to if I want a polar opposite viewpoint on faith in gods?

Honestly, I am not doing anything here but testing my faith. That's it. I don't stick my fingers in my ears and shout "Not listening!" I have never done that. There is another reason I test my faith.

You can read about that here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 16038.html
And here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/topic16355.html

I might be boring, I might be mental, I might be a lot of things, and you might be right about them too, but I am not trying to wind anyone up here.

To anyone with a rational mind inclined to skeptical enquiry, faith is an automatic fail criteria. It doens't need to be "tested" because it isn't held on testable grounds.

Faith is the acceptance of something as true, without the need for evidence in order to accept it. If you have to rely on faith to believe something, then they've probably already fallen into the trap of mistaking faith as being a virtue of some sort.

"I come here to test my faith." can be readily interpreted as "I come here to test views I hold that are not held on a testable basis."

And yet we still have folk posting here seemingly distressed at the notion that some of us are long past the point of having patience with such bullshit. THey can't see that the very idea of coming here to "test faith" is in itself, massively discourteous.

Passer wrote: my severe anxiety

Anxiety is a terrible thing, Passer. You have to learn how to ask yourself "if that terrible thing comes to pass, then what?" That process will keep you busy until you get bored with the question. If anxiety prevents you from keeping busy that way, then yes, that is a severe handicap. Free-floating anxiety is just shying away from the 'then what?'

If the anxiety is about 'what if there is a hell?', I don't know what to tell you. What would make you think there is such a place?

Pebble wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Can you atually provide examples through quotes? Or is this, just like zulumoose, your personal (mis)interpetation?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:You make a generalised statement about the entire thread and when asked to supply evidence you respond with one quote from one participant and that I need to look up the rest.

You did not ask that I demonstrate that the entire thread was 'X' you asked for examples.

Next time don't remove the context of my response please:

Pebble wrote:
A review of the thread suggests a passive-aggressive tone from the beginning, followed by more overt aggression within the first page.

Here you're aserting that the entire thread, not just Cito, suggests a passive-agressive and even agressive tone.
When I ask you for examples from that, I am not asking for an example of one person being agressive, as that would not support your assertion that the entire thread has that tone.

Pebble wrote:
I merely asked you to look at the first page of the thread having already provided a clear example. The subsequent post from Tuco, did not even require highlighting to see that he wished to take the piss.

And like I said, I have different interpetation of the tone of this thread, so simply telling me to go read a part of thread won't change that.
You made an assertion about the thread in general, thereby accusing the majority of participants, of posting passive- and or overtly agressive.

Pebble wrote:As to sentence 2, Cito is either unaware or ignoring the fact that there are those that believe that the 'ancients' had insights we can only begin to imagine. This would appear to be where Passer is coming from.
While vanishingly improbable given all the evidence we do have, I would like to see Cito or anyone else prove that this cannot have been so ever.

Why?
That does not change the point of contention, that said sentence isn't agressive.

Passer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Pebble wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

It's not warranted here. A review of the thread makes that clear. And if you want to go further, you can combine that with us being hacked off at hearing the same tired old bullshit we've heard countless times before.

A review of the thread suggests a passive-aggressive tone from the beginning, followed by more overt aggression within the first page. OK I know we have all been here before, and 'the same old shit' interpretation can lead to exasperation, hardly the thread starter's fault - and very unwelcoming.

Oh, come on, Pebble. Passer has been visiting here since 2010 shortly after this forum's inception. He knows which end is up, and just can't accept it. Here's his answer in the "Why do theists come to this forum?" thread from May 2010:

Passer wrote:To test my unshakeable faith

Do you see any hint of irony in that reply? Look at his post count, Pebble. After 600 posts, he knows which end is up, and as far as he's concerned, that's the truth of the bible. Inducing atheists to re-read the bible? Really?

It's fine for you to make your personal decision to assume someone is being sincere, but no one else is obliged to do that, and I don't have to be an idiot about it like some latter-day goody two-shoes.

That does sound arrogant of me. Please allow me to rephrase that.

"I come here to test my faith."

Why? Because I cannot take at face value what to me is one of, if not the most important question for me, which is our existence. Why are we here, where are we going?

What's wrong with just saying and admitting: "I don't know." And then trying to discover the answer through reason and facts, rather than believing an unsubstantiated, supernatural myth?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Passer wrote:
Why? Because I cannot take at face value what to me is one of, if not the most important question for me, which is our existence. Why are we here, where are we going?

What's wrong with just saying and admitting: "I don't know." And then trying to discover the answer through reason and facts, rather than believing an unsubstantiated, supernatural myth?

There aren't any facts that pertain to those questions. We're stuck with questions we can't answer. Let's focus on the ones we can answer.

Cito di Pense wrote:Don't worry, Passer. I don't think it's arrogant, because I don't think you came here to test your (whatever) faith.

Well to put it bluntly - you are wrong.

Cito di Pense wrote:Now you're asking pointless questions such as 'why are we here' as if that might make you seem to have more profound views.

Pointless to you, not to me, and again, I have to say that you are wrong about my intentions here.

Cito di Pense wrote:The whole point of religion is to ask 'why are we here' and 'where are we going'. That does not guarantee these are meaningful questions for anyone in particular.

I never said they were meaningful for anyone other than for 'me'.

Cito di Pense wrote: If you want to parade this as a popular discussion topic, don't advertise it as "Science and the Bible".

The thread title was relevant to my original questions, which were not to try to convince anyone the Bible is scientifically accurate, but to ask the question if it might be. The topic may have morphed slightly but I am not going to change the title every time it does that.

Cito di Pense wrote: That's not arrogant, it's just happy horseshit.

But that is just your opinion. It might even be the opinion of everyone on this forum. But my opinion is that it is important to me.

Cito di Pense wrote: There isn't any demonstrable science in the bible, and if you have to argue too long about it, you know you're already wasting your time on philosophy or semantics.

You may be right. That is what I am trying to determine for myself.

Cito di Pense wrote:If you encounter someone who does not find these questions meaningful, don't appeal to their popularity to press ahead.

If they do not want to engage with my questions, they don't have to. Others might want to, though.

Cito di Pense wrote: Rather, just stop assuming that asking the question is enough of an effort.

A question is nothing more than a starting point into researching a particular topic. Where you go from there is down to the individual involved and the nature of the question asked. You are assuming that I think asking a question is enough of an effort. Sometimes it is sometimes it isn't, and more info is researched as a result. You do not know how I go about researching topics. Sometimes I find the question is enough, sometimes it isnt.

Passer wrote:again, I have to say that you are wrong about my intentions here.

Well, to put it bluntly, your intentions are neither here nor there. So fuck your intentions. If I don't think you came here to test your faith, what's it to you?

Passer wrote:Sometimes it is sometimes it isn't

Does that pretty much sum up your epistemology, Passer? What a brilliant theory.

Passer wrote:I'm not being deceitful here. I have always had questions about my faith, and I test my faith - always have. Perhaps it's my 'slight' o.c.d as one therapist told me, or my severe anxiety, my borderline personality disorder, or seemingly inability to live with uncertainty.

How I test my faith is by going straight to atheists, because they have a different outlook on this topic. In fact, a lot of atheists I have met (online) were once Christians. Who better to go to if I want a polar opposite viewpoint on faith in gods?

Honestly, I am not doing anything here but testing my faith. That's it. I don't stick my fingers in my ears and shout "Not listening!" I have never done that. There is another reason I test my faith.

You can read about that here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 16038.html
And here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/topic16355.html

I might be boring, I might be mental, I might be a lot of things, and you might be right about them too, but I am not trying to wind anyone up here.

Faith is a mental tool used to generate confidence. Believing in something increases resolve and reduces doubt and helps to get things done, but it also blinds us to the possibility that we might be wrong and numbs the conscience, in fact that is the point, and why faith must be used carefully and not for destructive ends. Faith is used to fuel wars, achieve peak performances, increase endurance, and bind people with a common goal. The purpose of faith is exactly what blinkers were designed to do, focus on one thing by removing from sight other possibilities.

Faith is only good if it is used to achieve good results, it is the opposite of the search for truth because it's whole purpose is to "blinker" the faithful.

When someone does not have goals or their goals lose perceived value, religious faith may be an attractive substitute, but it cannot be shown to have any value whatsoever, it just generates the perception that it has value, and reinforces this perception by labelling itself as a virtue. Religion is faith misused, to achieve no end result, based on no evidence that there is a foundation In reality.

Just as drugs wouldn't work if there were no receptors for them to target, religion wouldn't work without the susceptibility to faith in the human mind. Prescription drugs may be used for good, and faith in a real achievable goal like a race win may be used to good purpose. Recreational drugs are at best calming or fun at first but almost invariably pointless and destructive self-deception when escalated, and religion has not been shown to be any different.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Passer wrote:again, I have to say that you are wrong about my intentions here.

Well, to put it bluntly, your intentions are neither here nor there. So fuck your intentions. If I don't think you came here to test your faith, what's it to you?

You are right. I don't care what your opinion is of me or even if you voice your opinions on this forum.

Passer wrote:Sometimes it is sometimes it isn't

Cito di Pense wrote:

Passer wrote:Does that pretty much sum up your epistemology, Passer?

No

Passer wrote:To test my unshakeable faith

"I come here to test my faith."

Thomas Eshuis wrote:What's wrong with just saying and admitting: "I don't know."

Nothing. I've admitted I don't know.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And then trying to discover the answer through reason and facts, rather than believing an unsubstantiated, supernatural myth?

But I am trying to find out the answer through reason and facts. That's why I came here, because I did not think anyone here would offer me anything other than reasons and facts.

Passer wrote:That's why I came here, because I did not think anyone here would offer me anything other than reasons and facts.

Why do you think 'reason and facts' pertain to the bible? It's literature, which you know from its extensive use of poetic imagery, so an analysis of it consists of opinion. You're assuming it can be addressed as potential facts because that's what it purports to do. Frankly, Passer, that's idiotic. When the bible texts were written, people did not distinguish between fact and fiction unless they could support their contention, and even then, they mainly failed unless they referred to observations anyone can reproduce How could it? It came from god! The bible does not refer to other sources that separately authenticate themselves, and if it refers to observations anyone can make, so what? Anyone could make them. The very suggestion that the bible might contain hidden factual material is the work of apologists for religious cant.

Passer wrote:"I come here to test my faith."

How do you test something which is not held on testable grounds?

Passer wrote:But I am trying to find out the answer through reason and facts. That's why I came here, because I did not think anyone here would offer me anything other than reasons and facts.

You can't answer faith through reason and facts, given that faith based positions are not held on a basis of reason or fact.

Fair enough.

Then I might not be intelligent enough to work this out for myself. My knowledge might not be enough to find the answers to the questions I have. Not all the time at least.

I can't put it any simpler than that.

Sendraks wrote:

Passer wrote:"I come here to test my faith."

How do you test something which is not held on testable grounds?

That's the beauty of it. Actually testing something includes accepting the result. If you are too lazy or cowardly to actually test your beliefs then "testing faith" is the perfect way to convince yourself you are in control and without actually doing anything. Ask some unanswerable questions, quote some "authorities", parrot some verses. Easy peasy.

Travelling the world without leaving your basement.

Passer wrote:

Passer wrote:To test my unshakeable faith

"I come here to test my faith."

Thomas Eshuis wrote:What's wrong with just saying and admitting: "I don't know."

Nothing. I've admitted I don't know.

False, you admitted you have faith in Christianity. IE you're believing Christianity is true, in the absence of facts.

Passer wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And then trying to discover the answer through reason and facts, rather than believing an unsubstantiated, supernatural myth?

But I am trying to find out the answer through reason and facts. That's why I came here, because I did not think anyone here would offer me anything other than reasons and facts.

Then try adressing the facts, rather than repeatedly saying 'I believe the opposite'.

Passer wrote:
Then I might not be intelligent enough to work this out for myself. My knowledge might not be enough to find the answers to the questions I have. Not all the time at least..

Sure, but as I asked you before, how will you value whatever you read in an anonymous internet forum unless it appeals to you. That is, assuming you're not intelligent enough to work anything else out? Why do you think anything here will supply you with facts to help you. You're looking to be persuaded by argument, which makes you a philosopher. Don't inflate the role.

Passer wrote:
Then I might not be intelligent enough to work this out for myself.

This sounds like a cop out to me. But, if you can't be bothered, you can't be bothered.

Passer wrote:. My knowledge might not be enough to find the answers to the questions I have. Not all the time at least..

It isn't a question of knowledge though, given your not talking about knowledge based claims.

For example: I can have faith that there is an invisible, intangible, pink unicorn living in my garage and that this pink unicorn, is responsible for all sorts of wonderous things, by equally undetectable means.

No amount of knowledge is going to address the matter of that unicorn's existence. It is down to the individual to be honest with themselves in self-interrogation as to whether entertaining such ideas as being true "on faith" is a robust mechanism and whether it is fundamentally dishonest and self-deceiving to entertain the existence of such things without there being any mechanism to prove such things exist.

This is not a quest for knowledge.

Passer

You are right. I don't care what your opinion is of me or even if you voice your opinions on this forum.

then quit wasting people's time with your puerile whinging....this is a community and you are NOT adding value to it.

People are just using you to play whack a mole for shits and giggles and the community in general really doesn't give fuck for an adult that can't get past the tooth fairy stage of maturity.

Passer wrote:

Passer wrote:To test my unshakeable faith

"I come here to test my faith."

Exercise 1 (in the test of Passer's faith)

Passer, "I believe there is discussion of Sauropods in this here book."

Test, "There is no mention of Sauropod in that text, the creature described reads, to a practising biologist, more like a crocodile, and Sauropods were extinct by the time the characters were in discussion about its observation."

Passer, "I still think it's about a Sauropod."

[Passer then claims its faith has been tested and has survived the test.]

Thomas Eshuis wrote:What's wrong with just saying and admitting: "I don't know."

Nothing. I've admitted I don't know.

Incorrect. You claim to have faith in an old text with a dodgy history of authorship, composition and translation.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And then trying to discover the answer through reason and facts, rather than believing an unsubstantiated, supernatural myth?

But I am trying to find out the answer through reason and facts. That's why I came here, because I did not think anyone here would offer me anything other than reasons and facts.

No, you came here to test your faith. Reason & facts are irrelevant because faith does not require any reason or fact.

You are welcome.

Edited to incorporate Passer's comment below.