pdiddy2011 said:

SchlomoThaHomo said:

Isn't it illogical to believe something that can't be validated?

There are many forms of validation. If you're just talking scientifically, that's just one form of validation.

Example: You believe your parents love you. (Anyone, not specifially you.) But, how do you prove your mother loves you? How do you prove your father loves you? You can't - scientifically. You validate it by actions, feelings, memories, etc. And that belief is faith. Nothing illogical about it.

Co sign pdiddy2011. I am with U!

pdiddy2011 said:

SchlomoThaHomo said:

Isn't it illogical to believe something that can't be validated?

There are many forms of validation. If you're just talking scientifically, that's just one form of validation.

Example: You believe your parents love you. (Anyone, not specifially you.) But, how do you prove your mother loves you? How do you prove your father loves you? You can't - scientifically. You validate it by actions, feelings, memories, etc. And that belief is faith. Nothing illogical about it.

If you never had any contact with your father, how would you know he loved you?

Graycap23 said:

pdiddy2011 said:

There are many forms of validation. If you're just talking scientifically, that's just one form of validation.

Example: You believe your parents love you. (Anyone, not specifially you.) But, how do you prove your mother loves you? How do you prove your father loves you? You can't - scientifically. You validate it by actions, feelings, memories, etc. And that belief is faith. Nothing illogical about it.

U really are comparing those 2?

Your parent can show u many acts of Love thru DIRECT interaction.

What dierect interaction do u have with God outside of your mind & thoughs that u attribute 2 that God?

Schl asked about validation. I was giving him an example that shows scientific validation isn't all there is.

But, to answer your questions, I believe I have direct interaction with God.

But, you're saying my mind and thoughts shouldn't count? Really? I believe that my parents, my friends, my family, my livelihood are all a direct interaction (blessing) from God. That is cemented in my mind and thoughts.

But, if you don't feel that way, it's no problem for me. I have faith in God and I believe all good things I have are from him. I don't need scientific validation to prove he's real, and it doesn't bother me in the least if the person I am explaining my beliefs to doesn't agree. (Anyone, not specifically you.)

I can see how it could be pretty hard for someone to understand why I feel like I have direct interaction with God if they don't have faith that he exists.

SchlomoThaHomo said:

pdiddy2011 said:

There are many forms of validation. If you're just talking scientifically, that's just one form of validation.

Example: You believe your parents love you. (Anyone, not specifially you.) But, how do you prove your mother loves you? How do you prove your father loves you? You can't - scientifically. You validate it by actions, feelings, memories, etc. And that belief is faith. Nothing illogical about it.

If you never had any contact with your father, how would you know he loved you?

Good point. I meant a parent or anyone around that you could say loves you. Girlfriend, boyfriend, wife, husband, etc. My point is, love absolutely exists, but love absolutely can't be validated scientifically.

In order to have faith, you have to suspend rational thought. It's a prerequisite, because if you apply logic and rationale to faith, it all falls apart.

Talking snake? Water into wine? A dead person magically comes back to life? Magic man in the sky judging your actions? These things don't exactly hold up to scrutiny.

If you applied the principles of faith to literally anything else that exists in our existence and social constructs you wouldn't get very far.

If one person in a marriage is beating the other person, doesn't show any affection for them, leaves them to pay all the bills and run the home on their own, doesn't take care of any children they might have, would it be reasonable for that person to say "I love you" to the other to stop them leaving and have them believe it? No, it wouldn't. Because the other person would say "Prove it."

If you witness a crime, in order to get that person convicted, there would need to be some proof/evidence of the crime. You would need a solid example that a crime had been committed, and then some proof to indict the person who did it.

If you're applying for a job, and you believe you are fully capable of doing that job, the employer will need to see your CV, take a reference, and interview you - to prove you are capable of doing it.

Faith? Religion? No proof. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. No proof. Never has been, my position as an atheist is that there never will be.

It certainly seems illogical to allow yourself to suspend your belief systems for something so life-defining.

SquirrelMeat said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

lust said:

Wow. A song promoting Pascal's wager. What next? "It's just a theory" or "if we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys"?

No, "The Bible is the Word of God. Y? Because the Bible says so!"

toejam said:

Militant said:

In order to have faith, you have to suspend rational thought. It's a prerequisite, because if you apply logic and rationale to faith, it all falls apart.

Talking snake? Water into wine? A dead person magically comes back to life? Magic man in the sky judging your actions? These things don't exactly hold up to scrutiny.

If you applied the principles of faith to literally anything else that exists in our existence and social constructs you wouldn't get very far.

If one person in a marriage is beating the other person, doesn't show any affection for them, leaves them to pay all the bills and run the home on their own, doesn't take care of any children they might have, would it be reasonable for that person to say "I love you" to the other to stop them leaving and have them believe it? No, it wouldn't. Because the other person would say "Prove it."

If you witness a crime, in order to get that person convicted, there would need to be some proof/evidence of the crime. You would need a solid example that a crime had been committed, and then some proof to indict the person who did it.

If you're applying for a job, and you believe you are fully capable of doing that job, the employer will need to see your CV, take a reference, and interview you - to prove you are capable of doing it.

Faith? Religion? No proof. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. No proof. Never has been, my position as an atheist is that there never will be.

It certainly seems illogical to allow yourself to suspend your belief systems for something so life-defining.

How about an invisble man (alien) who invented EVERYTHING and is EVERYWHERE 24 hours a day in the entire Universe.

datdude said:

Militant said:

In order to have faith, you have to suspend rational thought. It's a prerequisite, because if you apply logic and rationale to faith, it all falls apart.

Talking snake? Water into wine? A dead person magically comes back to life? Magic man in the sky judging your actions? These things don't exactly hold up to scrutiny.

If you applied the principles of faith to literally anything else that exists in our existence and social constructs you wouldn't get very far.

If one person in a marriage is beating the other person, doesn't show any affection for them, leaves them to pay all the bills and run the home on their own, doesn't take care of any children they might have, would it be reasonable for that person to say "I love you" to the other to stop them leaving and have them believe it? No, it wouldn't. Because the other person would say "Prove it."

If you witness a crime, in order to get that person convicted, there would need to be some proof/evidence of the crime. You would need a solid example that a crime had been committed, and then some proof to indict the person who did it.

If you're applying for a job, and you believe you are fully capable of doing that job, the employer will need to see your CV, take a reference, and interview you - to prove you are capable of doing it.

Faith? Religion? No proof. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. No proof. Never has been, my position as an atheist is that there never will be.

It certainly seems illogical to allow yourself to suspend your belief systems for something so life-defining.

Don't go deep on me!

I have to disagree with you, though. Faith is quite logical to me. "The ways of God are higher than the ways of men."

The miracles you mentioned (talking snake, water to wine) - don't hold up to who's scrutiny? Scientists? Thats a low standard in my opinion. We all know many, many things scientists don't have an answer for and/or continuously change their minds about.

On the flip side of your marraige tale, the other person could be doing everything right for the other person, and can say "I love you", but still have a secret family in a different city. That doesn't really seem like love, though professed... I'm just saying, you believe in love, but you can't necessarily "prove it" - at least not scientifically. And scientifically is the only way non-believers seem to feel is pertinent in regard to validating God.

Suspension of disbelief is funny to me. There are reasons that the planets hang in the sky and stars and moons keep their orbit - all of which are downright unbelievable - (because scientists have given the reasons a name), but because scientists can't prove the "Uncaused Cause" (God), He can not be real. It would take a lot more faith from me to believe atoms and molecules just miraculously created a human one fateful day, than to believe there is a being that purposefully created this existence. That would be illogical to me.

thedance said:

LittlePurpleYoda said:

Billboard chimes in:

http://www.billboard.com/...e-nordeman

^ thanks.

article:



Sure, Prince has sang about God and religion for years, but he usually doesn't release studio versions of cover songs --

I can't make you love me

Betcha by golly wow

One of us

When will we be paid

Everyday is a winding road

Purple house

Crimson & Clover

Another Love

Prince knows how to get futhamuckas up on their soapbox, that's for sure.

What if life didnt force compromises on us all where we have to chose what we become geniuses in (if in anything at all)? What if your favorite musician could be infinitely wise and infinitely talented? What if artists fans didn't have unrealistic expectations of infinite perfection in all areas? What if people could be free to believe whatever the hell they want to believe in (as long as its not impinging on you) and noone gave a shit?

lust said:

I agree. Folks are free to beleive whatever they want and sing about it BUT if that includes calling people who don't share those beliefs "simple minded" then expect blow back. It cuts both ways.

Yes. And I think it's incredibly simple-minded (and ironic) for the writer to presume that someone who doesn't share her faith isn't deep.

What if...I hadn't read this thread.

pdiddy2011 said:

SchlomoThaHomo said:

If you never had any contact with your father, how would you know he loved you?

Good point. I meant a parent or anyone around that you could say loves you. Girlfriend, boyfriend, wife, husband, etc. My point is, love absolutely exists, but love absolutely can't be validated scientifically.

But I think it can, because you can quantify behaviour between two people, and ultimately deterimine what those behaviours mean.

Ah, eww.

Typical evangelical twaddle. Odd, since Prince isnt a normal Christian--actually he isn't one.

He must have ducked Cornel West's takedown of today's music.

lust said:

I agree. Folks are free to beleive whatever they want and sing about it BUT if that includes calling people who don't share those beliefs "simple minded" then expect blow back. It cuts both ways.

He called people a lot worse than that in the song F.U.N.K. and y'all loved it.

Double standards.

2freaky4church1 said:

Ah, eww.

Typical evangelical twaddle. Odd, since Prince isnt a normal Christian--actually he isn't one.

He must have ducked Cornel West's takedown of today's music.

Cornel West is a candy-ass punk but that's off topic.

purplethunder3121 said:

What if...I hadn't read this thread.

SchlomoThaHomo said:

lust said:

I agree. Folks are free to beleive whatever they want and sing about it BUT if that includes calling people who don't share those beliefs "simple minded" then expect blow back. It cuts both ways.

Yes. And I think it's incredibly simple-minded (and ironic) for the writer to presume that someone who doesn't share her faith isn't deep.

Yes. And since Prince and 3rdeyegirl conveniently changed "the cross" bit into "the truth" and didn't change the "simple minded" bit one can only assume that it's exactly how they think.

How they want to say that someone who doesn't share this faith isn't deep and is simple minded.

What if that attitude/belief is offensive to me.

SchlomoThaHomo said:

babynoz said:

SchlomoThaHomo said:

lust said:

I agree. Folks are free to beleive whatever they want and sing about it BUT if that includes calling people who don't share those beliefs "simple minded" then expect blow back. It cuts both ways.

Yes. And I think it's incredibly simple-minded (and ironic) for the writer to presume that someone who doesn't share her faith isn't deep.

What if the "simple minded" comment wasn't in reference to people who didnt share a persons faith, but to people who didnt ask questions.. those who just think that life is about working, shopping, growing old and dying? Thats how I listen to it, at least.. What if its about the search, not the destination? P & H are not from the same strand of christianity, and he's also said things in praise of Islam before if I recall correctly. What if he cares less what your particular answer is and more about you seeking to question the greater significance of life? What if thats why he changed cross to truth? To be religiously pluralistic?

lust said:

babynoz said:

He called people a lot worse than that in the song F.U.N.K. and y'all loved it.

Double standards.

I'm not sure who "y'all" are but I don't recall ever loving funk. Nice strawman.

Riiiiiight...

lezama said:

SchlomoThaHomo said:

Yes. And I think it's incredibly simple-minded (and ironic) for the writer to presume that someone who doesn't share her faith isn't deep.

What if the "simple minded" comment wasn't in reference to people who didnt share a persons faith, but to people who didnt ask questions.. those who just think that life is about working, shopping, growing old and dying? Thats how I listen to it, at least.. What if its about the search, not the destination? P & H are not from the same strand of christianity, and he's also said things in praise of Islam before if I recall correctly. What if he cares less what your particular answer is and more about you seeking to question the greater significance of life? What if thats why he changed cross to truth? To be religiously pluralistic?

People are gonna take it according to their expectations.

I recall people whining during the Musicology era just because dude was wearing suits.

It's as if he's only allowed to run around with his ass hanging out hurling profanity every other word, otherwise he's not Prince.

lezama said:

SchlomoThaHomo said:

Yes. And I think it's incredibly simple-minded (and ironic) for the writer to presume that someone who doesn't share her faith isn't deep.

What if the "simple minded" comment wasn't in reference to people who didnt share a persons faith, but to people who didnt ask questions.. those who just think that life is about working, shopping, growing old and dying? Thats how I listen to it, at least.. What if its about the search, not the destination? P & H are not from the same strand of christianity, and he's also said things in praise of Islam before if I recall correctly. What if he cares less what your particular answer is and more about you seeking to question the greater significance of life? What if thats why he changed cross to truth? To be religiously pluralistic?

Well Prince thinks, "it's better to be a follower than a leader," and that one should "surrender" to "The Truth," which is the New World Translation of the Holy Bible, according to him. I think that's a pretty narrow view. I do like your interpretation, though.

"One of us" 2015