Do athiests understand Faith?

[Values]

If they do not have Faith can they understand it?
There is a misconception out there that you can't know something without there being some sort of verifyable evidence to support your knowledge. Not only that but your verifyable support must meet other's criteria, yet when questioned athiests readily state that they do not know many things and they also state that there is no God. How would they know this? Where is their verifyable evidence to support their knowledge?
( I realize this is another one for you athiests but I am sure you are up to this task)

[biggles53]

If they do not have Faith can they understand it?
There is a misconception out there that you can't know something without there being some sort of verifyable evidence to support your knowledge. Not only that but your verifyable support must meet other's criteria, yet when questioned athiests readily state that they do not know many things and they also state that there is no God. How would they know this? Where is their verifyable evidence to support their knowledge?
( I realize this is another one for you athiests but I am sure you are up to this task)


Very few atheists I know state that "there is no god" - and I would take issue with those that do. The most we can logically declare is that we withold belief in all deities due to the absence of any evidence for their existence.

[christian left]

Very few atheists I know state that "there is no god" - and I would take issue with those that do. The most we can logically declare is that we withold belief in all deities due to the absence of any evidence for their existence.
Isn't that agnostic?

[RayMan]

I not sure that it is possible for an atheist to understand faith at any level deeper than the dictionary definition of the word. Faith is of the heart, not the head.

[Mobulis]

If they do not have Faith can they understand it?
There is a misconception out there that you can't know something without there being some sort of verifyable evidence to support your knowledge. Not only that but your verifyable support must meet other's criteria, yet when questioned athiests readily state that they do not know many things and they also state that there is no God. How would they know this? Where is their verifyable evidence to support their knowledge?
( I realize this is another one for you athiests but I am sure you are up to this task)


Athiests do have faith, just not in god.

[Amallek]

Very few atheists I know state that "there is no god" - and I would take issue with those that do. The most we can logically declare is that we withold belief in all deities due to the absence of any evidence for their existence.

You have described an agnostic. An agnostic withholds judgment on whether there is a God, arguing there is insufficient evidence one way or the other. I would speculate that a fairly high number of church members fall in this category, and participate in religion for other reasons and perhaps to "hedge the bet".

An atheist assertively believes there is no God. Some may base that view on the absence of evidence that there is a God. Others on the plethora of evidence that there cannot be a God, generally along the lines of -if there was a God, why did he allow 9/11?

[Marleysdaddy]

Isn't that agnostic?

no...agnosticism is a position about what we can know, not what we do know

[graatz]

Very few atheists I know state that "there is no god" - and I would take issue with those that do.

Okay, let's look at it this way:

Personal God? A god of benevolence that watches over us and cares about us and wants to see good things happen? Does this kind of god exist? The classic argument against is the problem of evil.

Creator God? A god that sat in some supernatural workshop inventing the Big Bang and evolution, setting them into motion? Does this kind of god exist? This kind of god is usually dismissed, either by means of Occam's razor, or by virtue that it's a god of the gaps.

God = Caretakers of the Underworld? A god that presides over the supernatural world that exists for our souls after we die? Does this kind of god exist? Being that there is no reason to believe in a soul or afterlife, it's hard to imagine that there's a god that presides over these things.

God = Life, the Universe, Nature, etc.? The notion that there's some supernatural presence that is somehow contained in all life, or in the cosmos? Does this kind of god exist? This kind of god certainly fails by Occam's razor... if we don't know what it means for this supernatural presence not to exist, how can we know it to exist within these things? In other words, it sounds more like God becomes an unnecessary speculative addition to the definition of life, the Universe, nature, etc.

For every definition of God out there, there is reason to suspect that no such thing exists. Does that mean that I know that none of these gods exist? No. But I seriously doubt it. I find the conjecture highly suspect.

[Chuangtzu]

You have described an agnostic. An agnostic withholds judgment on whether there is a God, arguing there is insufficient evidence one way or the other. I would speculate that a fairly high number of church members fall in this category, and participate in religion for other reasons and perhaps to "hedge the bet".

An atheist assertively believes there is no God. Some may base that view on the absence of evidence that there is a God. Others on the plethora of evidence that there cannot be a God, generally along the lines of -if there was a God, why did he allow 9/11?

Not necessarily true. Atheists have only to be "without God," whilst making no assertions about God.

[Chuangtzu]

If they do not have Faith can they understand it?
There is a misconception out there that you can't know something without there being some sort of verifyable evidence to support your knowledge. Not only that but your verifyable support must meet other's criteria, yet when questioned athiests readily state that they do not know many things and they also state that there is no God. How would they know this? Where is their verifyable evidence to support their knowledge?
( I realize this is another one for you athiests but I am sure you are up to this task)

Yes, of course.

I don't have photosynthetic skin. Doesn't mean I'm incapable of understanding how chlorophyll works.

[Koushi Shinigami]

if they do not have faith can they understand it?
There is a misconception out there that you can't know something without there being some sort of verifyable evidence to support your knowledge. Not only that but your verifyable support must meet other's criteria, yet when questioned athiests readily state that they do not know many things and they also state that there is no god. How would they know this? Where is their verifyable evidence to support their knowledge?
( i realize this is another one for you athiests but i am sure you are up to this task)


Sometimes I really hate the grammar checker.
F.C.A.

[Amallek]

I not sure that it is possible for an atheist to understand faith at any level deeper than the dictionary definition of the word. Faith is of the heart, not the head.

Does that mean that the two must be mutually exclusive? Must you check your head at the Church door? If you are a thinking man, does it mean you have no heart and are incapable of faith? If you have faith, are you incapable of reason?

I don't think so. Unfortunately, and particularly recently, I feel that many insist you have it one way or the other. Dismiss God and rely entirely on reason and intellect, or reject science and rely entirely on your perception of messages from God.

[RayMan]

Athiests do have faith, just not in god.

When Christians speak of faith our basic rule of thumb for defining it is:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


Are you saying that atheists have faith somewhat along this line just not in God or are you defining faith differently?

[Vic Daring]

I think a better question might be:

Can religious people understand a lack of faith?

My experience tells me that they don't. They see a lack of faith as being the same thing as a denial.

[Marleysdaddy]

If they do not have Faith can they understand it?
There is a misconception out there that you can't know something without there being some sort of verifyable evidence to support your knowledge.
That "misconception" is shared by most of the theologians and philosophers in the history of Western thought...
perhaps it isn't a "misconception" after all...:think:

Not only that but your verifyable support must meet other's criteria, yet when questioned athiests readily state that they do not know many things and they also state that there is no God. How would they know this? Where is their verifyable evidence to support their knowledge?

Most of the atheists you have encountered in the RF do not claim to KNOW (with certainty) that there is no god...again, you are really wailing on a straw man. Why don't you address real honored guests?

[Tim]

If they do not have Faith can they understand it?
(snip)

Yes.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Yes, of course.

I don't have photosynthetic skin. Doesn't mean I'm incapable of understanding how chlorophyll works.

That about answers it for me.

Just because I don't agree with someone's point of view does not mean that I cannot understand their point of view.

You have a far stronger belief in God than I do or than I ever will. Honestly, I'm more of a deist than anything else. But I get that you have an undying belief that God will light the way for you. I respect that. It's just not the way I roll, you know?

[Greyclouds]

If they do not have Faith can they understand it?

Certainly, but only if your definition of the word "understand" does not include a clause to "exhibit" the behavior that you understand.

For instance, I could say that noone "knows" what it is like to be me, without having been in my shoes (cliche, I know).

Under my personal definition for the word "know," the above statement is incorrect; there are universal issues that come with being a human consciousness that I might share with other people. Because of similar brain architecture, I could share an understanding of base emotions and sensations with other people without having felt them. I can also tell you what it might be like to be a cow without having personally experienced rumination. Based on brain studies of other mammals, I imagine that consuming grass releases some dopamine in the cow's brain, thereby pleasing it.



There is a misconception out there that you can't know something without there being some sort of verifyable evidence to support your knowledge. Not only that but your verifyable support must meet other's criteria, yet when questioned athiests readily state that they do not know many things and they also state that there is no God. How would they know this? Where is their verifyable evidence to support their knowledge?
( I realize this is another one for you athiests but I am sure you are up to this task)

Truly, it is in terms of statistical likelihoods. I am not an atheist myself, but I can understand the philosophy; I believe that you can too.

While I am not a fan of Dawkins' militant atheistic philosophy (I just think he could be a tiny bit nicer to members of his own species :D), his analogy of a faith believing that there is a teacup orbiting the sun fits perfectly here.

Do you believe that a teacup is orbiting the sun right now? No? Why?

If not, then could your rationale include the near-zero statistical likelihood of such an event occurring? Could it also include the impossibility of our current technology to detect such an anomaly?

In order to wholeheartedly believe the teacup orbiting the sun ethos (beyond the negligible percent chance that it DOES exist), you must suspend your disbelief. If you do not suspend your disbelief of such a phenomenon, then you will forever be a teacup atheist.

[captusa]

Very few atheists I know state that "there is no god" - and I would take issue with those that do. The most we can logically declare is that we withold belief in all deities due to the absence of any evidence for their existence.

I am firmly convinced, as was Einstein, that there does not exist a Theistic Deity that involves ITSELF with humanity.
I have faith in this belief at least to the level of any religionist.

It is implied in this "call out" thread that only those who believe certain beliefs can have and understand faith.
I disagree.

[Values]

I disagree with some here on this issue of Faith.
I challenge that a true athiest does not understand what tru Faith in God actually is.
It is obvious in a number of posts on this forum that some here do not understand the basic thoughts of how a person of Faith can even have that a Faith. There is talk of not being able to actually know God exists because to them they need an evidence that they claim isn't there. As a person of Faith, I can tell them the evidence of God is all around them but if(since) they lack the understanding of Faith they cannot/choose not to see it.

[pinqy]

There is a misconception out there that you can't know something without there being some sort of verifyable evidence to support your knowledge.
It's not a misconception, it's simple logic. If there is no evidence, then you don't know, you only believe. Nothing wrong with that...if the belief is reasonable then of course you maintain that belief until/unless contrary evidence refutes the belief.

For example: Northern Hemisphere swans are all White. Southern Hemisphere swans can be Black, White, or mixed. Until the Southern Hemisphere was really explored, Europeans believed that all swans were White. This was a reasonable belief in that all known swans were White. But it wasn't knowledge, just a reasonable belief. When Black swans were discovered in Australia, and Black-neck swans in South America, it was then known that there were both White and Black swans. Can we say we KNOW that those are the only 2 colors? Not really. Since the world has been pretty well covered by now, it seems only reasonable to believe that there are no green, blue, purple or rainbow swans. And it's not wrong to simply state that Black and White are the only swan colors because there is reason to think that's true and no particular reason to think it false. But it could be false. We don't KNOW, but we can still be reasonably certain in our belief.

So now an analogy for the believers...if we were back before easy intercontinental travel and you saw a Black swan in Australia, would you really think it odd that someone doubted your story if you had no evidence?

[RayMan]

Does that mean that the two must be mutually exclusive? Must you check your head at the Church door? If you are a thinking man, does it mean you have no heart and are incapable of faith? If you have faith, are you incapable of reason?

I don't think so. Unfortunately, and particularly recently, I feel that many insist you have it one way or the other. Dismiss God and rely entirely on reason and intellect, or reject science and rely entirely on your perception of messages from God.

I would say no to all the questions you pose in your first paragraph. I was just pointing out a generality. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive but faith is somewhat different from 1 + 1 = 2.

[Values]

I am firmly convinced, as was Einstein, that there does not exist a Theistic Deity that involves ITSELF with humanity.
I have faith in this belief at least to the level of any religionist.

It is implied in this "call out" thread that only those who believe certain beliefs can have and understand faith.
I disagree.

What evidence do you have that God does not involve Himself?
Far from being a call out this is an op trying to understand what athiests can or cannot understand. If they cannot see evidence of God, why? If they do not believe in God, it follows that they cannot/do not understand fully what He is. They lack Faith, and if they lack something that is intrinsically inside one's heart can they actually understand it.

[Greyclouds]

I disagree with some here on this issue of Faith.
I challenge that a true athiest does not understand what tru Faith in God actually is.
It is obvious in a number of posts on this forum that some here do not understand the basic thoughts of how a person of Faith can even have that a Faith. There is talk of not being able to actually know God exists because to them they need an evidence that they claim isn't there. As a person of Faith, I can tell them the evidence of God is all around them but if(since) they lack the understanding of Faith they cannot/choose not to see it.

Or is it your desire for purpose in all things that fuels your beliefs? Having grown up Catholic, I certainly would like to find purpose in all things surrounding me.

[RayMan]

I think a better question might be:

Can religious people understand a lack of faith?

My experience tells me that they don't. They see a lack of faith as being the same thing as a denial.

I am perfectly willing to accept unbelief as unbelief.

[Values]

It's not a misconception, it's simple logic. If there is no evidence, then you don't know, you only believe. Nothing wrong with that...if the belief is reasonable then of course you maintain that belief until/unless contrary evidence refutes the belief.

For example: Northern Hemisphere swans are all White. Southern Hemisphere swans can be Black, White, or mixed. Until the Southern Hemisphere was really explored, Europeans believed that all swans were White. This was a reasonable belief in that all known swans were White. But it wasn't knowledge, just a reasonable belief. When Black swans were discovered in Australia, and Black-neck swans in South America, it was then known that there were both White and Black swans. Can we say we KNOW that those are the only 2 colors? Not really. Since the world has been pretty well covered by now, it seems only reasonable to believe that there are no green, blue, purple or rainbow swans. And it's not wrong to simply state that Black and White are the only swan colors because there is reason to think that's true and no particular reason to think it false. But it could be false. We don't KNOW, but we can still be reasonably certain in our belief.

So now an analogy for the believers...if we were back before easy intercontinental travel and you saw a Black swan in Australia, would you really think it odd that someone doubted your story if you had no evidence?

You have assumed there is no evidence of God in your first paragraph, why do you say this?

[Tim]

I disagree with some here on this issue of Faith.
I challenge that a true athiest does not understand what tru Faith in God actually is.
(snip)

So... help me understand something. Are you saying that when someone answers "yes" to your original question that you think that they are being less than truthful? Why ask the question if you won't accept the answers provided?

I am quite certain that I know what faith is and what "true faith" is too. (I believe that they are the same, by the way. After all, what is false faith?????)

I had and exercised faith in the God of the Bible for many years. I no longer have or exercise that faith but I definitely know what it is and what it means to believe in God with my entire being.

[Values]

Or is it your desire for purpose in all things that fuels your beliefs? Having grown up Catholic, I certainly would like to find purpose in all things surrounding me.

If you don't see purpose, I would suggest you haven't open your eyes. Nature is nothing if not purposeful.

[captusa]

If they do not have Faith can they understand it?
There is a misconception out there that you can't know something without there being some sort of verifyable evidence to support your knowledge. Not only that but your verifyable support must meet other's criteria, yet when questioned athiests readily state that they do not know many things and they also state that there is no God. How would they know this? Where is their verifyable evidence to support their knowledge?
( I realize this is another one for you athiests but I am sure you are up to this task)

I do not require you to meet any criteria to hold your point of view.
I have no interest in convincing you that my point of view is correct or that your point of view is wrong.

Why can't you accept that what I have faith in (the non-Existance of a theistic deity) is as valid to me as your faith in the contrary is to you ?
No Atheist in this discussion has challenged your faith in your beliefs yet you will not accept the fact that those with different beliefs can have equal faith in their beliefs.
In this thread you imply that those that do not share your faith are incapable of understanding the concept of faith.

[RayMan]

Hate to be a nag but none of you has answered the question I posed earlier. When you speak of having faith and/or understanding it are you using the New Testament definition of faith, or another?

KJV
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Weymouth New Testament
Heb 11:1 Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.

[Marleysdaddy]

I disagree with some here on this issue of Faith.
I challenge that a true athiest does not understand what tru Faith in God actually is.
Is the thread about 'Faith' or 'Faith in God' or 'Faith in a god'?

It is obvious in a number of posts on this forum that some here do not understand the basic thoughts of how a person of Faith can even have that a Faith. There is talk of not being able to actually know God exists because to them they need an evidence that they claim isn't there. As a person of Faith, I can tell them the evidence of God is all around them but if(since) they lack the understanding of Faith they cannot/choose not to see it.
Tim is an atheist, and he definitely understands faith - ask him about his past sometime.

[Tim]

Hate to be a nag but none of you has answered the question I posed earlier. When you speak of having faith and/or understanding it are you using the New Testament definition of faith, or another?

KJV
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Weymouth New Testament
Heb 11:1 Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.


Yep... that's the definition I'm using.

[Marleysdaddy]

Hate to be a nag but none of you has answered the question I posed earlier. When you speak of having faith and/or understanding it are you using the New Testament definition of faith, or another?

KJV
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Weymouth New Testament
Heb 11:1 Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.


To be honest, I'm confused by Mobulis' post that atheists can have faith, just not faith in god. When Mobulis clarifies that, I'll be able to fashion a sensible comment...maybe ;)

[Marleysdaddy]

You have assumed there is no evidence of God in your first paragraph, why do you say this?

Because there aren't any phenomena which can only be explained by the existence of a supernatural deity (which is what it would take to be considered "evidence" of a god)

[RayMan]

Yep... that's the definition I'm using.

I figured that. :hug:

[RayMan]

To be honest, I'm confused by Mobulis' post that atheists can have faith, just not faith in god. When Mobulis clarifies that, I'll be able to fashion a sensible comment...maybe ;)

I am looking forward to Mobulis getting back to us on that.

[captusa]

If you don't see purpose, I would suggest you haven't open your eyes. Nature is nothing if not purposeful.

I guess I should reclassify myself as a Pantheist in the universalist Spinoza model where I find awe and respect and unity with the world without regard for any theistic deity and completely seperate the mechanics of the world to science.
I hold those beliefs and now I can identify myself as a member of an Atheistic religion just as you are a member of a monotheistic religion.

And again you are not satisfied with an answer and rather than present your own belief you attack the beliefs of the one who politely responded.

"I would suggest you haven't open your eyes" is hardly a respectful response to another person's beliefs.

[captusa]

I think a better question might be:

Can religious people understand a lack of faith?

My experience tells me that they don't. They see a lack of faith as being the same thing as a denial.


Not to disagree but even better question might be:

Can religious people understand a faith in something different than theirs ?

[captusa]

Originally Posted by Values
If they do not have Faith can they understand it?
(snip)
If someone has faith in something other than yours can you understand it ?

[RayMan]

Not to disagree but even better question might be:

Can religious people understand a faith in something different than theirs ?

I can as long as we are talking faith as it is defined in the verse from Hebrews I quoted.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.

[captusa]

I disagree with some here on this issue of Faith.
I challenge that a true athiest does not understand what tru Faith in God actually is.
It is obvious in a number of posts on this forum that some here do not understand the basic thoughts of how a person of Faith can even have that a Faith. There is talk of not being able to actually know God exists because to them they need an evidence that they claim isn't there. As a person of Faith, I can tell them the evidence of God is all around them but if(since) they lack the understanding of Faith they cannot/choose not to see it.

No one made any broad attack on Theism or implied that a Theist is incapable of understanding the beliefs a non theist has.
This is an unveiled attack on the berliefs of others after baiting resopnses with a seemingly honest question.

Notice no one disparraged any of your beliefs.

[Mikko]

If they do not have Faith can they understand it?
There is a misconception out there that you can't know something without there being some sort of verifyable evidence to support your knowledge. Not only that but your verifyable support must meet other's criteria, yet when questioned athiests readily state that they do not know many things and they also state that there is no God. How would they know this? Where is their verifyable evidence to support their knowledge?
( I realize this is another one for you athiests but I am sure you are up to this task)
With all due respect, you really seem to be preoccupied with atheists. Correct me if I'm wrong.:)

[captusa]

I can as long as we are talking faith as it is defined in the verse from Hebrews I quoted.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.

I like Clemens's definition but I quote it too often.

[Values]

So... help me understand something. Are you saying that when someone answers "yes" to your original question that you think that they are being less than truthful? Why ask the question if you won't accept the answers provided?

I am quite certain that I know what faith is and what "true faith" is too. (I believe that they are the same, by the way. After all, what is false faith?????)

I had and exercised faith in the God of the Bible for many years. I no longer have or exercise that faith but I definitely know what it is and what it means to believe in God with my entire being.

I merely stated that some here have an erroneous understanding of athiesm. They have tried to change the meaning to fit their beliefs.
You say you know what Faith is, that you once believed in God with your entire being, now, you have also said that you are an athiest and do not believe in any God. Why the big swing?

[Mikko]

They kind of make me dizzy. :eek:

We seem to be going 'round and 'round in circles. Values keeps throwing out questions and then seemingly refuses to accept the answers provided even though most of the answers are merely opinions or personal experiences. I find it quite puzzling.
Oh-oh!!! You quoted my post before I had a chance to edit it. I think Values is a nice guy (or gal?), but I'm getting tired of these threads confronting and harrassing atheists.

[Values]

No one made any broad attack on Theism or implied that a Theist is incapable of understanding the beliefs a non theist has.
This is an unveiled attack on the berliefs of others after baiting resopnses with a seemingly honest question.

Notice no one disparraged any of your beliefs.

How many times have people here stated that believers could not KNOW that there is a God?
If you can ask that question, why get so bent when you are asked if you can understand Faith?

[Mikko]

I merely stated that some here have an erroneous understanding of athiesm.
According to whom?
They have tried to change the meaning to fit their beliefs.
With all due respect, it seems to me that that's what you've been doing.
You say you know what Faith is, that you once believed in God with your entire being, now, you have also said that you are an athiest and do not believe in any God. Why the big swing?
Now, that's a good sign. At least you're questioning.:)

[Mikko]

How many times have people here stated that believers could not KNOW that there is a God?
If you can ask that question, why get so bent when you are asked if you can understand Faith?

Now, there's a question I can get behind 100%.:)

[RayMan]

I like Clemens's definition but I quote it too often.

That's true...:whistle:

[Values]

According to whom?

With all due respect, it seems to me that that's what you've been doing.

Now, that's a good sign. At least you're questioning.:)

My posts are full of questions, that seems to be what you all are up in arms about even now.
Here is another question:
How can someone who professes not to know God, even presume to understand what Faith in God is?

[captusa]

What evidence do you have that God does not involve Himself?
Far from being a call out this is an op trying to understand what athiests can or cannot understand. If they cannot see evidence of God, why? If they do not believe in God, it follows that they cannot/do not understand fully what He is. They lack Faith, and if they lack something that is intrinsically inside one's heart can they actually understand it.

I have stated my beliefs.
They differ from yours.
I believe I am as capable as you of making decisions and understanding philosophical concepts such as faith.
Do not imply that I am incapable of understanding something just because I disagree with you.

I cannot understand why Theists can't accept the fact that others have faith in things they do not.

If I were to question your beliefs and attack them in the manner you attack mine, I would be long gone from this forum.
I enjoy discussing religious philosophy with many believers and non-believers on this forum and several believer have said the appreciated my point of view while still opposing it so I will not question your beliefs in the way you question mine.

[Marleysdaddy]

I merely stated that some here have an erroneous understanding of athiesm [sic].


Whether or not their understanding of atheism is erroneous is your opinion...but consider two things -

1) They are atheists, so perhaps their understanding of atheism is correct and yours is erroneous.
2) Your understanding of atheism is the minority position, while their understanding of atheism has been professed by the majority here (atheists and theists alike) so perhaps your understanding is erroneous.



P.S. Is there a reason you continually misspell 'atheism', 'atheists', etc.? MerryAtheist asked you this earlier, and I may have missed your response.

[Mikko]

My posts are full of questions, that seems to be what you all are up in arms about even now.
Up in arms? Not if your questions are really sincere attempts to learn.
Here is another question:
How can someone who professes not to know God, even presume to understand what Faith in God is?
That is a good question, as I stated before. I'm just as tired of SOME atheists' certainty that they understand the believers' mind set as I am of SOME believers' certainty that they understand the atheists' mind set.:)

[Tim]

I merely stated that some here have an erroneous understanding of athiesm. They have tried to change the meaning to fit their beliefs.
You say you know what Faith is, that you once believed in God with your entire being, now, you have also said that you are an athiest and do not believe in any God. Why the big swing?

And others have asserted that it is you who has the erroneous understanding of atheism. I don't see where the nuanced differences in the definitions add to the discussion and noone has tried to explain it to me either.

I've provided my testimony so often that I imagine most are bored with it. The "big swing" came about as a result of intense personal Bible study after having graduated from a fundamentalist Baptist Bible College, a very conservative, evangelical Baptist Seminary and years of preaching/teaching in Baptist, Non-denominational and Presbyterian churches.

My favorite Christian author, by the way, is Francis Schaeffer. Outside the Bible, itself, Schaeffer's writings influenced my doctrinal beliefs more than any other.

[jelake]

How can someone who professes not to know God, even presume to understand what Faith in God is?

You're making an assumption of denial rather than disbelief and can't really ask an atheist that question.

I confess I do not understand the need to have faith in a deity. It doesn't make logical sense when you have free will.

[TaylorW65]

My posts are full of questions, that seems to be what you all are up in arms about even now.
Here is another question:
How can someone who professes not to know God, even presume to understand what Faith in God is?

He is my two cents on this subject.

People are thinking beings. We are capable of rationalizing and contemplating our world and existence.

For some people the belief in God is a logical choice which makes complete sense to them.

For some people not believing in God is a logical choice which makes complete sense to them.

The similarities between both groups is that neither can show objective evidence to back up their beliefs.

I don't see either side as lacking faith. Both have great faith (or trust) that their beleifs are true.

To believe or not believe something that cannot be proven takes faith.

So one would think that being an agnostic is the logical choice then for all people?

But the problem is we are not just rational beings we are emotional too and our emotionals play a large part in what we will and will not believe.

[RayMan]

<snip>

P.S. Is there a reason you continually misspell 'atheism', 'atheists', etc.? MerryAtheist asked you this earlier, and I may have missed your response.

I will bet that it is a totally unconscious thing. I have seen other posters do the same thing. I think it is probably because "atheist' and "atheism" break the mnemonic rule we all learned in grammar school.

"i before e except after c."


I suppose it is another sign of how contrary atheists are. They don't even follow the rules of spelling when they describe themselves. :mrgreen:

[Values]

I have stated my beliefs.
They differ from yours.
I believe I am as capable as you of making decisions and understanding philosophical concepts such as faith.
Do not imply that I am incapable of understanding something just because I disagree with you.

I cannot understand why Theists can't accept the fact that others have faith in things they do not.

If I were to question your beliefs and attack them in the manner you attack mine, I would be long gone from this forum.
I enjoy discussing religious philosophy with many believers and non-believers on this forum and several believer have said the appreciated my point of view while still opposing it so I will not question your beliefs in the way you question mine.

I am sure that you have faith in many things, I am also sure that you do not have Faith in God. (you have intimated so yourself)
Why does this assurance that I have bother you?
Why does a question about athiest's lack of Faith in God and their ability/inability to understand it bother you?

As far as attacking your beliefs, isn't this your tag line?
THE ONLY THING THAT SEPARATES MAN FROM ANIMAL IS MINDLESS SUPERSTITION AND POINTLESS RITUAL.
What exactly do you profess to be saying with this line? People of Faith could easily take offense to this, yet you display it in all your posts. Why are you being offensive on purpose?

[Marleysdaddy]

How can someone who professes not to know God, even presume to understand what Faith in God is?

I'll go back to an example I frequently use:

My stepfather is a pastor (used to be Baptist, now non-denominational) - he loves the god of the Bible with all of his heart. His faith leads to his belief that the god of the Bible exists. He has believed this for almost 60 years. But he cannot, and will not guarantee (which is what is implied when one says "I KNOW") that the god of the bible exists.

If he could be absolutely certain beyond the slimmest shadow of a doubt that the god of the Bible existed, what would be the purpose of his faith (which is belief in the absence of evidence)? What should he think of all the verses RayMan has posted about faith?

[Marleysdaddy]

I am sure that you have faith in many things, I am also sure that you do not have Faith in God.

What sorts of things do you think humans can have faith in besides deities?

[Values]

And others have asserted that it is you who has the erroneous understanding of atheism. I don't see where the nuanced differences in the definitions add to the discussion and noone has tried to explain it to me either.

I've provided my testimony so often that I imagine most are bored with it. The "big swing" came about as a result of intense personal Bible study after having graduated from a fundamentalist Baptist Bible College, a very conservative, evangelical Baptist Seminary and years of preaching/teaching in Baptist, Non-denominational and Presbyterian churches.

My favorite Christian author, by the way, is Francis Schaeffer. Outside the Bible, itself, Schaeffer's writings influenced my doctrinal beliefs more than any other.

I would certainly understand if you do not answer this but why would a man of intense theological study choose to turn away from God in such a striking manner? Going from where youwere to where you are is about as large a Faith swing as I can conceive.
The further I get into study the more convinced I am of God, your change of heart troubles me.

[Chuangtzu]

I would certainly understand if you do not answer this but why would a man of intense theological study choose to turn away from God in such a striking manner? Going from where youwere to where you are is about as large a Faith swing as I can conceive.
The further I get into study the more convinced I am of God, your change of heart troubles me.

I cannot type for Tim - but the twin pillars of my disbelief were considered and enduring study of the Bible (whilst not ordained, I was a lay minister in an IBC, doing youth and urban missions) and dying in ICU. The one convinced me only of its tautology, the other that death is for real the end. But, these did not result in an instant "conversion to disbelief." The effects and doubts took nearly a decade to reach culmination in conscious disbelief.

[Values]

What sorts of things do you think humans can have faith in besides deities?

This is a wierd question.
I assume it is asked not because you do not have faith in things other than God but want to know what I think on it.
The answers are too numerous toanswer here but these are a few:
faith in your loved ones
faith in the the local fireman to come when needed
faith in your own abilities
faith in your favorite sports team
etc.

[Chuangtzu]

This is a wierd question.
I assume it is asked not because you do not have faith in things other than God but want to know what I think on it.
The answers are too numerous toanswer here but these are a few:
faith in your loved ones
faith in the the local fireman to come when needed
faith in your own abilities
faith in your favorite sports team
etc.

I would argue that these are not acts of faith, but rational and irrational assumptions of probability.

[Values]

I cannot type for Tim - but the twin pillars of my disbelief were considered and enduring study of the Bible (whilst not ordained, I was a lay minister in an IBC, doing youth and urban missions) and dying in ICU. The one convinced me only of its tautology, the other that death is for real the end. But, these did not result in an instant "conversion to disbelief." The effects and doubts took nearly a decade to reach culmination in conscious disbelief.

When you studied the Bible was there something you were seeking that didn't get answered?

[captusa]

I would certainly understand if you do not answer this but why would a man of intense theological study choose to turn away from God in such a striking manner? Going from where youwere to where you are is about as large a Faith swing as I can conceive.
The further I get into study the more convinced I am of God, your change of heart troubles me.

Maybe it should concern you since Tim's experiences are so intense his conclusions may have more foundation than yours.

[pinqy]

You have assumed there is no evidence of God in your first paragraph, why do you say this?
I didn't. I was responding to what you said and neither of us mentioned God.


But that then raises the question of whether or not there is OBJECTIVE evidence of God. In order to determine that, we have to first define God (or else how would we know if evidence points to God?), then look at the evidence and see if we can eliminate alternate explantions. We can't firmly say X is evidence of God if it could also be evidence of something else. And here is where we run into trouble. We are limited to testing/evaluating under natural laws and simply don't have the means to evaluate the supernatural. Let's say a burning bush did indeed speak to Moses (or anyone's personal experience). How can we eliminate alternate explanations of

a demon
another god lying about his/her identity
aliens
time travelers
time traveling aliens
a ghost
Fairies/Elves
something else we haven't thought of
So even accepting the story as true, we simply have no objective measures of determing real cause or truthfullness of the bush (or personal experience).

This is where Faith comes in and we just accept that it was YHWH and no other.

[PercyVere]

Very few atheists I know state that "there is no god" - and I would take issue with those that do.I know there is no god for the same reason that I know there is no celestial teapot. Also, I know there is no god because all societies throughout all ages have shown a propensity to invent gods.

[Marleysdaddy]

I assume it is asked not because you do not have faith in things other than God but want to know what I think on it.
no assumption required....Most people ask questions because they want to know others' opinions...

The answers are too numerous toanswer here but these are a few:
faith in your loved ones
faith in the the local fireman to come when needed
faith in your own abilities
faith in your favorite sports team
etc.
How are any of those things "unseen"?

[Chuangtzu]

When you studied the Bible was there something you were seeking that didn't get answered?

Nope. I was true blue maximalist. Warrior O' God. And even though I'd left the Catholic Church (my mother joined when pregnant with me), I still retained a deep sense of fidelity to the monastic orders, having been instructed by Jesuits, Carmelites and Xaverians.

I'd worked out a concordat of my own - beween L'Abri, La Trappe and perhaps Berdyaev's roving bands of anarcho-mystics.

[Marleysdaddy]

I would argue that these are not acts of faith, but rational and irrational assumptions of probability.

I would agree

[Tim]

I would certainly understand if you do not answer this but why would a man of intense theological study choose to turn away from God in such a striking manner? Going from where youwere to where you are is about as large a Faith swing as I can conceive.
The further I get into study the more convinced I am of God, your change of heart troubles me.

I never said that I turned away from God. I said that I went from believing in God to not believing in God. I'm only pointing this out because the way you word it does not reflect my experience.

To illustrate let us consider the belief a child has in Santa Claus. When he discovers (through whatever means) that Santa Claus does not exist, the child ceases to believe in Santa Claus. The child does not "turn away from" Santa Claus. (Please understand that I mean no disrespect for you, your God or your beliefs with this illustration.)

It would require a large book to explain all that my deconversion entailed. I've considered writing such a book but frankly I'm too lazy and I have no reason to think anyone would be interested in reading it anyway. In a nutshell, the more I read... the more I studied... the more I prayed for guidance, the more I found that I simply could not believe. I found myself unable to accept the explanations that I, myself, gave for the many contradictions and errors that I saw in the Bible. I came to realize that I did not believe in the God of the Bible any longer... eventually (not long afterward) I realized that I simply no longer believed that any god(s) exist.

Since that time my life has gotten better and better and I've come to experience a joy and excitement in life that I never could have imagined possible (and I thought my life was pretty darned good before!)

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you can imagine someone making a huge swing from being an atheist to becoming a believer. Why would it be hard to imagine the opposite occurring.

You are happy in your faith... that's wonderful! I wish nothing but the very best for you in your journey. That's one of the neat things about people... we all have different experiences and are able to learn from one another and benefit from one another's experiences.

[captusa]

I cannot type for Tim - but the twin pillars of my disbelief were considered and enduring study of the Bible (whilst not ordained, I was a lay minister in an IBC, doing youth and urban missions) and dying in ICU. The one convinced me only of its tautology, the other that death is for real the end. But, these did not result in an instant "conversion to disbelief." The effects and doubts took nearly a decade to reach culmination in conscious disbelief.

Perhaps if Values eventually attains the knowledge and the experience that you and Tim have he will recognize and accept the truth.
Until then I will maintain my hope and sympathy for him.

[Values]

Maybe it should concern you since Tim's experiences are so intense his conclusions may have more foundation than yours.

Intensity = better foundation?
Your logc is suspect on this one.
Why should his intense exerience concern me?

[captusa]

Intensity = better foundation?
Your logc is suspect on this one.
Why should his intense exerience concern me?

Because you said it did.
Originally Posted by Values
I would certainly understand if you do not answer this but why would a man of intense theological study choose to turn away from God in such a striking manner? Going from where you were to where you are is about as large a Faith swing as I can conceive.
The further I get into study the more convinced I am of God, your change of heart troubles me.

[Values]

I never said that I turned away from God. I said that I went from believing in God to not believing in God. I'm only pointing this out because the way you word it does not reflect my experience.

To illustrate let us consider the belief a child has in Santa Claus. When he discovers (through whatever means) that Santa Claus does not exist, the child ceases to believe in Santa Claus. The child does not "turn away from" Santa Claus. (Please understand that I mean no disrespect for you, your God or your beliefs with this illustration.)

It would require a large book to explain all that my deconversion entailed. I've considered writing such a book but frankly I'm too lazy and I have no reason to think anyone would be interested in reading it anyway. In a nutshell, the more I read... the more I studied... the more I prayed for guidance, the more I found that I simply could not believe. I found myself unable to accept the explanations that I, myself, gave for the many contradictions and errors that I saw in the Bible. I came to realize that I did not believe in the God of the Bible any longer... eventually (not long afterward) I realized that I simply no longer believed that any god(s) exist.

Since that time my life has gotten better and better and I've come to experience a joy and excitement in life that I never could have imagined possible (and I thought my life was pretty darned good before!)

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you can imagine someone making a huge swing from being an atheist to becoming a believer. Why would it be hard to imagine the opposite occurring.

You are happy in your faith... that's wonderful! I wish nothing but the very best for you in your journey. That's one of the neat things about people... we all have different experiences and are able to learn from one another and benefit from one another's experiences.

thank you for your candor.
You do sound happy and I do not wish to derail that.
My questions actually stemmed from knowing a person who had a large change of heart as yourself, but theirs was not from progressive personal realizations, but instead one very traumatic experience and that is why the concern.
Please permit me to say God Bless and good luck in your endeavors.

[Values]

Because you said it did.


If you want to play dumb on your insinuations in your post I will do so as well.

[Values]

Perhaps if Values eventually attains the knowledge and the experience that you and Tim have he will recognize and accept the truth.
Until then I will maintain my hope and sympathy for him.

This must be what you mean when you do not demean others.:rolleyes:

[Tim]

thank you for your candor.
You do sound happy and I do not wish to derail that.
My questions actually stemmed from knowing a person who had a large change of heart as yourself, but theirs was not from progressive personal realizations, but instead one very traumatic experience and that is why the concern.
Please permit me to say God Bless and good luck in your endeavors.

Fortunately I've had no traumatic experiences to date - not that my life has been perfect but it's been a pretty good ride so far.

Thank you for the well wishes.

[captusa]

This must be what you mean when you do not demean others.:rolleyes:

I believe my statement is similar to ones where you expressed the belief that people will eventually accept your Deity.

[RayMan]

Maybe it should concern you since Tim's experiences are so intense his conclusions may have more foundation than yours.

Actually Tim doesn't reference any intense experiences. He just mentions that his study of the Bible was intense.


The "big swing" came about as a result of intense personal Bible study

[captusa]

Actually Tim doesn't reference any intense experiences. He just mentions that his study of the Bible was intense.

It was Values that identified the experience as intense.

[Values]

I believe my statement is similar to ones where you expressed the belief that people will eventually accept your Deity.

Where did you pull that one out of?

[RayMan]

It was Values that identified the experience as intense.

Actually Values just restates what Tim said about Bible Study.


but why would a man of intense theological study choose to turn away from God

[graatz]

P.S. Is there a reason you continually misspell 'atheism', 'atheists', etc.? MerryAtheist asked you this earlier, and I may have missed your response.

I've asked before, too. This is something that was probably picked up from a different forum or discussion group. A lot of flamers and trolls use it to bait atheists, basically because we let it irk us in the same way that a lot of Christians don't appreciate when atheists don't capitalize the g when using proper-noun 'god.' I think they think it's retribution? :eh: When I asked before, Values ignored me for the rest of the thread. Personally, I'm a little sick of feeding the troll. (My apologies to Values in advance if s/he manages to prove that s/he is actually curious about atheism and not just baiting us into tired, pointless debates...)

[RayMan]

I've asked before, too. This is something that was probably picked up from a different forum or discussion group. A lot of flamers and trolls use it to bait atheists, basically because we let it irk us in the same way that a lot of Christians don't appreciate when atheists don't capitalize the g when using proper-noun 'god.' I think they think it's retribution? :eh: When I asked before, Values ignored me for the rest of the thread. Personally, I'm a little sick of feeding the troll. (My apologies to Values in advance if s/he manages to prove that s/he is actually curious about atheism and not just baiting us into tired, pointless debates...)


I really don't think Values is misspelling atheist on purpose. I believe it is the "i before e except after c" thing. I know of other people who make the same type of mistake with words which defy that rule.

He/she misspells "weird" in the same fashion in another post.

This is a wierd question.Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a spelling mistake is just a spelling mistake.

[graatz]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a spelling mistake is just a spelling mistake.

Except that I've seen Values use 'theist' and 'athiest' in the same post... Also, this isn't the first time it's been brought up and yet s/he refuses to make the correction. :shrugs: Maybe an honest mistake, maybe an under-the-radar attempt to dole out disrespect. Maybe some other option. All I know is that Values isn't here to learn about atheism, despite how s/he insists on asking us tons of questions. Every single thread turns into a debate about how atheists aren't really atheists but agnostics, and how atheists just refuse to open their eyes to the truth of God that surrounds them. I'm not sure why Values has opened so many threads to keep preaching the same sermon...

[RayMan]

Maybe there is something there. I hadn't noticed posts with "theist" and "athiest."

[Mobulis]

When Christians speak of faith our basic rule of thumb for defining it is:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


Are you saying that atheists have faith somewhat along this line just not in God or are you defining faith differently?




Main Entry: faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

[Marleysdaddy]

Main Entry: faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

:eek: How complicated can things get?

Disclaimer - unless otherwise noted, whenever I use the term 'faith', I am using it in the manner shown in definition 2.b.(1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof - but change 'proof' to 'phenomenal evidence'

[RayMan]

Main Entry: faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Hi Mobulis,
I have read the dictionary definition before but thanks. Can we narrow it down a little?

Heb 11:1 would probably best fit with the part I have bolded.

Which of the various definitions best describes your take on faith?

[Salvaterra]

Jumping into the argument midstream here, and not to speak for Values, but it seems like the question in this thread could be stated in a different way. Instead of asking if atheists are capable of understanding faith; are they capable of understanding that their position IS faith?

[Tim]

Jumping into the argument midstream here, and not to speak for Values, but it seems like the question in this thread could be stated in a different way. Instead of asking if atheists are capable of understanding faith; are they capable of understanding that their position IS faith?

Hi Salvaterra and WELCOME to the RF.

Would you mind expanding that thought a little for us? Explain what you mean by "their position IS faith"....

Are you saying that it requires faith to not believe something? For instance, does it require faith for me to say that I don't believe in vampires?

[Values]

:eek: How complicated can things get?

Disclaimer - unless otherwise noted, whenever I use the term 'faith', I am using it in the manner shown in definition 2.b.(1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof - but change 'proof' to 'phenomenal evidence'

Do you change the definition of a lot of words you have a challenge with?

[RayMan]

Jumping into the argument midstream here, and not to speak for Values, but it seems like the question in this thread could be stated in a different way. Instead of asking if atheists are capable of understanding faith; are they capable of understanding that their position IS faith?

Welcome Salvaterra,
Argument? Us argue? Never! We discuss and enjoy polite discourse with one another.

If you haven't already done so you might want to peruse the "Must Read" thread at the top of the RF index page entitled "Rules of Respect for the Religious Forum."

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=68516

It contains some very helpful info about the special rules of respect that pertain to this forum.

Cheers,
Ray

[Marleysdaddy]

Hi Salvaterra and WELCOME to the RF.

Would you mind expanding that thought a little for us? Explain what you mean by "their position IS faith"....

Are you saying that it requires faith to not believe something? For instance, does it require faith for me to say that I don't believe in vampires?

I feel a certain teapot discussion coming on ;)

[RayMan]

I feel a certain teapot discussion coming on ;)

Good time for me to go grab some grub. I have been here and done this plenty of times.

[Values]

Jumping into the argument midstream here, and not to speak for Values, but it seems like the question in this thread could be stated in a different way. Instead of asking if atheists are capable of understanding faith; are they capable of understanding that their position IS faith?

Another good question.
Btw..welcome.

[Chuangtzu]

Hi Salvaterra and WELCOME to the RF.

Would you mind expanding that thought a little for us? Explain what you mean by "their position IS faith"....

Are you saying that it requires faith to not believe something? For instance, does it require faith for me to say that I don't believe in vampires?

Seconded.

[Marleysdaddy]

Hi Salvaterra and WELCOME to the RF.

Would you mind expanding that thought a little for us? Explain what you mean by "their position IS faith"....

Are you saying that it requires faith to not believe something? For instance, does it require faith for me to say that I don't believe in vampires?

Generally, positive beliefs require some sort of justification, be it faith, inductive logic, deductive logic, etc.

I believe Allah exists - faith
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow - induction
I believe 'All bachelors are unmarried men' is true - deduction

I don't think the same requirement of justification exists for negative beliefs, i.e. things in which we don't believe (unless "there is no evidence for that thing's existence" counts as justification)

I don't believe in unicorns...do we/should we require justification for this? Technically, does this even count as a "belief"?

:think:

ETA - "Thirded"...Salvaterra or Values - can either or both of you share your thoughts on how the belief "Flying Green Elephants do not exist" requires faith?

[Salvaterra]

Thanks for the welcome Tim.

To answer your question, the arguments between atheists and people who believe in God always come to a point where evidence that does not exist needs to be applied. So neither side has been able to win the argument definitively because they both lack such evidence.

It would absolutely require faith to believe in vampires. Just as it requires faith to believe that the Universe and the Big Bang came about purely by chance and that life on Earth is due to spontaneous generation, when scientifically such beliefs are not backed by any evidence since we are incapable of observing such phenomenon.

[Marleysdaddy]

It would absolutely require faith to believe in vampires.

To clarify, Tim asked if NOT believing in vampires required faith.

[Chuangtzu]

Restating my own positions, from elsewhere, since I see the conversation veering towards them anyway:

The Insurmountable Problems of Faith -

Ontology. Being - the idea that there is an essence to consciousness, or personhood, as distinct from the physical properties of the universe - cannot be demonstrated. It can only be asserted, by the manipulation of words, commenting on and about other words.

Subjectivity. Subjectivity, the self-experience of self-experience, cannot be demonstrated as isolating a specific being, Self, as separate from the senses, materiality and the physical processes of memory and language. Awareness can be discussed, and perhaps, in the biochemistry of each moment, indicated - but it cannot be shown to be some separate subject, a Being Self.

Teleology. If Being, and a Being Self, cannot be demonstrated, then the premises of a Plan for this Self - an order, aim and function of all phenomena, towards some end, can only be asserted, since the foundation stone, the Self for Whom the Universe Plans and Aims, is missing.

Unity. The all events must of necessity be related to all other events cannot be, and has not been, shown. It can only be, and has only been, asserted.

And, in most cases, religious, devotional, mystico-poetic and mystical faith rests on these non-existent "pillars": the belief in a Being Who Saves, and/or a Being Who Can Be Saved/Enlightened/Illuminated, because that Being is somehow separate from the Universe, as a subjectivity; but is also, identical with it in complete Unity, as shown by the Plan of the Cosmos/God, towards some final end, as experienced and communicated by liberated/saved/illumed subjective communicating selves...

...It is my premise...that faith is - and I mean this literally - a mental-emotional dialogue of words about words, reinforced by social communication, about the same words and the emotional experiences concurrent with them, isolated and further reinforced in memory (including the exosomatic variety) by that emotional intensity.

That the insurmountable problems of faith are insurmountable precisely because faith is, again literally, thinking about thinking, based on the unquestioned acceptance of the premises outlined in my first post (and not necessarily according to some rational philosophical schemata or imposition)...

[Often, we find people] applying too broad a term of service to the word "faith,"... A person using equipment (or any material tool) has the verifiable (tacticle, visible, sensible) sensory data of the object in question. He can see it, touch it, use it. In doing so, he can test its operation, and establish a probability of its proper function, comparing it to memory (within in his own head, and exosomatic options) and the communicated experiences of others, to establish an experienced and verifiable definition of "working," as applies to the tool in question.

No faith is necessary. That this process is often partially unconscious, or automated because of routine, familiarity and habit, does not make the electrochemical activity of the brain (in testing the tool) any less material, or any more "faith-ish..."

...If you cannot quantify faith, you cannot discuss it. If you cannot discuss it, nor therefore communicate its objects, or its subjects, than you have only established an alternative, but still insurmountable, problem of faith: that it can be experienced - being now entirely subjective and unquantifiable - but can never actually be shared with any other, invalidating in a single gesture all claims about faith, about faith's object, and about the now purely subjective experiences of it.

[Tim]

Generally, positive beliefs require some sort of justification, be it faith, inductive logic, deductive logic, etc.

I believe Allah exists - faith
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow - induction
I believe 'All bachelors are unmarried men' is true - deduction

I don't think the same requirement of justification exists for negative beliefs, i.e. things in which we don't believe (unless "there is no evidence for that thing's existence" counts as justification)

I don't believe in unicorns...do we/should we require justification for this? Technically, does this even count as a "belief"?

:think:

I share that line of reasoning which prompted my question as to what was meant by our new friend. If we look at the Biblical definition and/or the dictionary definition, I'm hardpressed to understand how a lack of belief fits either.

One might be able to argue that a lack of belief is "the evidence of things not seen not seen." :eek: But there seems to be a double negative in there and double negatives always confuse me.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen."

[Tim]

Thanks for the welcome Tim.

To answer your question, the arguments between atheists and people who believe in God always come to a point where evidence that does not exist needs to be applied. So neither side has been able to win the argument definitively because they both lack such evidence.

It would absolutely require faith to believe in vampires. Just as it requires faith to believe that the Universe and the Big Bang came about purely by chance and that life on Earth is due to spontaneous generation, when scientifically such beliefs are not backed by any evidence since we are incapable of observing such phenomenon.

Hmmm... not sure if that answered my question???

First, I don't think it's necessary of productive to argue over whether or not god(s) exist. I tend to accept that some folks believe in god(s) and some don't.

My question didn't address the need for faith TO BELEIVE in vampires... I'm asking if it is your assertion that it requires faith to NOT BELIEVE in vampires.

BTW, I'm not into the whole Big Bang/Evolution debate... just not my bag. ;)

[Salvaterra]

Thanks again to everyone for the welcomes.

I am not saying that atheists require faith to believe that there is no God. I am saying that atheists require faith to believe that scientific observation is superior to a belief in God. The faith on behalf of atheism relies on belief in science, not disbelief.

[RayMan]

I share that line of reasoning which prompted my question as to what was meant by our new friend. If we look at the Biblical definition and/or the dictionary definition, I'm hardpressed to understand how a lack of belief fits either.

One might be able to argue that a lack of belief is "the evidence of things not seen not seen." :eek: But there seems to be a double negative in there and double negatives always confuse me.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen."

How about "the lack of evidence of things seen" for unbelief?

[Tim]

Thanks again to everyone for the welcomes.

I am not saying that atheists require faith to believe that there is no God. I am saying that atheists require faith to believe that scientific observation is superior to a belief in God. The faith on behalf of atheism relies on belief in science, not disbelief.

Oh... now I understand.

I don't really understand the connect between unbelief in god(s) and belief in science. One can be atheist without trusting (having faith) in science. I am one of those people. I don't have "faith" in science. I don't "believe" in the Big Bang or Evolution or any other theory and/or hypothesis.

I do look at the scientific evidence (regarding things that interest me) and weigh it's reliability against my current knowledge but I certainly don't just accept whatever comes down the science pike. The current man-made global warming debate illustrates my point. As with most of science there are conflicting studies and opinions on the GW thing. I have a bit of interest in this topic and have read quite a bit from both sides of the argument. After weighing the evidence presented by both sides, I am inclined to think that those who argue against man-made global warming have the more convincing evidence.

Would you say that I have "faith" in the evidence they presented? I don't because I think that faith is only required for those things "not seen"... environmental changes and the causes thereof can be seen and measured therefore no faith is required.

[Values]

Hmmm... not sure if that answered my question???

First, I don't think it's necessary of productive to argue over whether or not god(s) exist. I tend to accept that some folks believe in god(s) and some don't.

My question didn't address the need for faith TO BELEIVE in vampires... I'm asking if it is your assertion that it requires faith to NOT BELIEVE in vampires.

BTW, I'm not into the whole Big Bang/Evolution debate... just not my bag. ;)

Your arguement for a faith in not believing in vampires does not compare with a belief in how life began.
We exist, and there was a beginning to that existence.
Since we cannot prove how that beginning happenned, any thought on it requires Faith. Including, the option to not believe.

[Tim]

How about "the lack of evidence of things seen" for unbelief?

:doh: ;) Now you're just messin' with my head.

[Tim]

Your arguement for a faith in not believing in vampires does not compare with a belief in how life began.
We exist, and there was a beginning to that existence.
Since we cannot prove how that beginning happenned, any thought on it requires Faith. Including, the option to not believe.

How did we get to the origins of life? "Atheism" does not address the origin of life, ya know. It addresses the question of belief in deities.

But since you've brought it up... does it require faith for a person to NOT believe that a god created life?

[RayMan]

:doh: ;) Now you're just messin' with my head.

I admit the phrase is cumbersome but it essentially turns Heb 11:1's definition of faith upside down.

Disbelief says, "Evidence? I don't see no stinking evidence."

[Tim]

Your arguement for a faith in not believing in vampires does not compare with a belief in how life began.
We exist, and there was a beginning to that existence.
Since we cannot prove how that beginning happenned, any thought on it requires Faith. Including, the option to not believe.

By the way, this is an example of where I think the discussions get thrown off track. Some folks seem to think all atheists "believe" the same things or have more in common than we actually do. The only thing that we all share in common is UNBELIEF in god(s). When you leave that one UNBELIEF, nothing else really applies and therefore just muddies the waters.

I just think it would be helpful for our discussions if we kept unlike questions separated.

[Tim]

I admit the phrase is cumbersome but it essentially turns Heb 11:1's definition of faith upside down.

Disbelief says, "Evidence? I don't see no stinking evidence."

THERE! Now you're gettin' down to my level of communicatin'. ;) :))

[RayMan]

THERE! Now you're gettin' down to my level of communicatin'. ;) :))

We're both ex-pastors. We share a lowest-common denominator.

[Values]

How did we get to the origins of life? "Atheism" does not address the origin of life, ya know. It addresses the question of belief in deities.

But since you've brought it up... does it require faith for a person to NOT believe that a god created life?

It would take a certain amount of faith to "not believe" most things.
What is your point with the "reverse is not, not true" direction?

[Salvaterra]

I don't really understand the connect between unbelief in god(s) and belief in science. One can be atheist without trusting (having faith) in science. I am one of those people. I don't have "faith" in science. I don't "believe" in the Big Bang or Evolution or any other theory and/or hypothesis.

That position is a little too convenient. If you argue against someone else's belief without offering an alternative, how can their be debate on the subject? (BTW as a believer in design I actually believe in the Big Bang.)

And I am not just referring to you. The most prominent opponents to the design argument base their arguments on the inability to observe the scientific aspects of what believers claim.

The reason I say it is faith is because when posed with arguments and evidence that backs up the position of design, people like Dawkins say the debate is already over and Evolutionists win. This gives colleges and schools the cover they need to rid the classroom of any mention of the possibility of design, without ever having truly discredited it. Again they have never scientifically observed the events so they cannot explain definitvely what happened either.


Would you say that I have "faith" in the evidence they presented? I don't because I think that faith is only required for those things "not seen"... environmental changes and the causes thereof can be seen and measured therefore no faith is required.

There are parallels to the global warming debate, which is also supposedly over according to Al Gore. But your requirement of faith to be restrained to that which cannot be seen is pure materialism, which I think is the basis for most atheist arguments.

The fact is that many possibilities can be raised for causes of changes in the environment, just as they can be raised for how and why we are here. However, the truth is equal to the CORRECT possibility. And when that is unclear, faith is the motivation to pursue the subject and argue for what that correct possibility is.

[Tim]

It would take a certain amount of faith to "not believe" most things.
What is your point with the "reverse is not, not true" direction?

You've lost me... I don't understand what you're saying at all.

If it takes faith to not believe most things then I have a boatload of faith! :)) In the event that I am wrong about the existence of the God of the Bible, I wonder if that faith will be reckoned to me as righteousness. Hmmm..... ;)

[Tim]

That position is a little too convenient. If you argue against someone else's belief without offering an alternative, how can their be debate on the subject? (BTW as a believer in design I actually believe in the Big Bang.)

(snip)

I'm old and get confused easily so I'll just respond to this part of your post.

First of all, that I do not believe in god(s) does not automatically put me at argument with someone else's belief. It is merely a difference of belief in that one thing - belief/unbelief in deities.

You came in with your first post asking something along the lines of "will atheists accept that their unbelief requires faith". While I don't understand how unbelief in anything requires faith which we've agreed to accept the Bible definition of "the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen", if you think that requires faith to not belief something that is not seen then so be it... I don't understand but accept that is your thinking.

As I mentioned in a previous post, atheist do not have a set of beliefs on which they agree. We simply do not believe in god(s). The science questions are separate and I think would be easier discussed if kept separate..... but then, as I said, I'm old and a bit slow so maybe it's just me who can't keep up. ;)

[Marleysdaddy]

I am not saying that atheists require faith to believe that there is no God. I am saying that atheists require faith to believe that scientific observation is superior to a belief in God. The faith on behalf of atheism relies on belief in science, not disbelief.

As soon as you said the word 'observation' you left the realm of faith and entered the realm of inductive reasoning.

[pinqy]

That position is a little too convenient. If you argue against someone else's belief without offering an alternative, how can their be debate on the subject?
Because the truth of a proposition does not depend on the existence of other explanations. Either you accept the proposed evidence for a belief/claim or you don't. There's nothing wrong with "I am not convinced by the evidence that X caused Y, but I don't know what did."

Example: I leave a cookie out at work and when I come back to my desk, it's gone. My co-worker suggests that the Pope took it. Knowing that the Pope is in Rome, and would have no reason to visit my office even if he was in DC, I can reject that explanation and argue against it, even though I don't have an alternative explanation as to who did take my cookie.

[Tim]

Come on RayMan... fess up! Did you take pingy's cookie?

[Marleysdaddy]

Your arguement for a faith in not believing in vampires does not compare with a belief in how life began.
We exist, and there was a beginning to that existence.
Since we cannot prove how that beginning happenned, any thought on it requires Faith. Including, the option to not believe.

This argument hinges on the assumption
there was a beginning to that existence
In order for the argument to be valid and sound, we must demonstrate the truth of that assumption.

[Marleysdaddy]

It would take a certain amount of faith to "not believe" most things.


I disagree - I do not believe that pink unicorns exist...this requires no faith. If someone had evidence that a pink unicorn did indeed exist, and I still held my belief, perhaps you could argue I was doing so out of faith.

[Salvaterra]

I'm old and get confused easily so I'll just respond to this part of your post.

First of all, that I do not believe in god(s) does not automatically put me at argument with someone else's belief. It is merely a difference of belief in that one thing - belief/unbelief in deities.

You came in with your first post asking something along the lines of "will atheists accept that their unbelief requires faith". While I don't understand how unbelief in anything requires faith which we've agreed to accept the Bible definition of "the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen", if you think that requires faith to not belief something that is not seen then so be it... I don't understand but accept that is your thinking.

As I mentioned in a previous post, atheist do not have a set of beliefs on which they agree. We simply do not believe in god(s). The science questions are separate and I think would be easier discussed if kept separate..... but then, as I said, I'm old and a bit slow so maybe it's just me who can't keep up. ;)

So your position is based on disbelief. I say it is convenient because anyone who says that puts themselves in a position where they can take the argument in favor of a designer and break it down, thereby constantly keeping the other side on defense while they remain on offense. (BTW I do not mean argument in a negative sense. I enjoy civil arguments :D).

My position is based on the argument of the main opposition to belief in design which is united in its faith. And the argument is a faith in science. And they do deny that it is faith, but rather pose it as fact.

But if you do not subscibe to that, then I accept your position that you feel God does not exist.

[Salvaterra]

As soon as you said the word 'observation' you left the realm of faith and entered the realm of inductive reasoning.

I am simply pointing out how atheists try to invoke inductive reasoning on our beliefs, yet don't require it for their own.

[Tim]

(snip)
There are parallels to the global warming debate, which is also supposedly over according to Al Gore. But your requirement of faith to be restrained to that which cannot be seen is pure materialism, which I think is the basis for most atheist arguments.

The requirement wasn't mine. I was working off the Bible definition of "Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen." If we are talking about things that are seen then it seems to me that we move out of the realm of "faith".

The basis of most atheist arguments? I wasn't aware that there was a basis or even that most atheist argue the same things and in the same ways. You made a reference to Dawkins who is an atheist. That he is an atheist may well be the only thing he and I have in common... neither of us believes in god(s). Beyond that one singular point I can think of no reason to link him to me or any other atheist.

The fact is that many possibilities can be raised for causes of changes in the environment, just as they can be raised for how and why we are here. However, the truth is equal to the CORRECT possibility. And when that is unclear, faith is the motivation to pursue the subject and argue for what that correct possibility is.

Well, now, I definitely disagree with you on this one (or I think I do... I may not really understand what you're saying). I don't think that faith comes into play when we observe - test - observe results - retest - observe the results - retest - ...... How one interprets the observations may or may not move into the realm of faith.

The fact that there is disagreement about possible explanations for those things observed is what keeps science moving forward. There are many examples from history where science reached conclusions that had to be abandoned as new evidence was presented. This, in my opinion, is a wonderful thing!

[Marleysdaddy]

I am simply pointing out how atheists try to invoke inductive reasoning on our beliefs, yet don't require it for their own.

Can you point out an example of this?

[Tim]

So your position is based on disbelief. I say it is convenient because anyone who says that puts themselves in a position where they can take the argument in favor of a designer and break it down, thereby constantly keeping the other side on defense while they remain on offense. (BTW I do not mean argument in a negative sense. I enjoy civil arguments :D).

My position is based on the argument of the main opposition to belief in design which is united in its faith. And the argument is a faith in science. And they do deny that it is faith, but rather pose it as fact.

But if you do not subscibe to that, then I accept your position that you feel God does not exist.

I'm getting the distinct impression that we are on totally different pages. I also don't understand lumping all atheists together as regards anything OTHER THAN lack of belief in god(s).

If you wish to debate with Dawkins, he might be found on his own website. I don't think any believers or unbelievers can argue for him. ;) If you wish to debate Intelligent Design vs Big Bang I imagine there are lots of places to do that too. You will find that there are believers on this site that happen to believe that God created via the Big Bang which led to evolution and there are atheists here who do not subscribe to either theory.

Again, the term 'atheist' only adresses ones lack of belief in god(s). Beyond that we may or may not share common ideas just as we may or may not share common ideas with theists on other topics.

[Tim]

Can you point out an example of this?

That would be my question too. ;)

[Chuangtzu]

I disagree - I do not believe that pink unicorns exist...this requires no faith. If someone had evidence that a pink unicorn did indeed exist, and I still held my belief, perhaps you could argue I was doing so out of faith.

People commonly confuse "not an apple" with "not-apple." One asserts only that one thing is not some other thing. It rejects a specific identity. The other (used often by people who declare that atheists have an object of faith) is a statement of direct identity between denial and the object of denial.

For example:

Person A: That is not an apple, on the table. It's an orange.*

Person B: Are you saying that you believe in the Not-Apple? You have faith in the Not-Apple, no?

(* - alternatively: You say there's an apple on the table. I do not see any apples whatsoever.)

[Salvaterra]

Because the truth of a proposition does not depend on the existence of other explanations. Either you accept the proposed evidence for a belief/claim or you don't.

Is this what the scientific community does? No.

They deny debate based on their idea that they have won the argument. And they have come up with alternative explanations that are pretty outlandish to say the least.

[Marleysdaddy]

Is this what the scientific community does? No.

They deny debate based on their idea that they have won the argument. And they have come up with alternative explanations that are pretty outlandish to say the least.

This is a gigantic straw man - the scientific community is constantly engaged in internal debate - it is what fuels research.

[Tim]

Is this what the scientific community does? No.

They deny debate based on their idea that they have won the argument. And they have come up with alternative explanations that are pretty outlandish to say the least.

Example(s)? Oh... and is the "scientific community" a homogeneous group of like minds?

[Salvaterra]

I'm getting the distinct impression that we are on totally different pages. I also don't understand lumping all atheists together as regards anything OTHER THAN lack of belief in god(s).

If you wish to debate with Dawkins, he might be found on his own website. I don't think any believers or unbelievers can argue for him. ;) If you wish to debate Intelligent Design vs Big Bang I imagine there are lots of places to do that too. You will find that there are believers on this site that happen to believe that God created via the Big Bang which led to evolution and there are atheists here who do not subscribe to either theory.

Again, the term 'atheist' only adresses ones lack of belief in god(s). Beyond that we may or may not share common ideas just as we may or may not share common ideas with theists on other topics.

We may be on different pages. I am not expecting to find Dawkins here, but I do find a lot of the same arguments he puts forth here. The only thing lacking is a subscription to an alternative, which is fine but convenient.

The reason Dawkins and other scientists come up with alternatives is because they must after being challenged by very good evidence showing the potential for design. It is ok to believe that there is no God, but any alternative belief requires faith. To simply say "I don't know and neither do you" is logically ok but not convincing to people who actually have and understand faith in a creator due to their study of religion, which is the whole question put forth in this thread.

[7ranz]

I was a confirmed Catholic for goodness sake! Of course I know faith. For me it was a rather difficult thing to let go of.

[Tim]

We may be on different pages. I am not expecting to find Dawkins here, but I do find a lot of the same arguments he puts forth here. The only thing lacking is a subscription to an alternative, which is fine but convenient.

The reason Dawkins and other scientists come up with alternatives is because they must after being challenged by very good evidence showing the potential for design. It is ok to believe that there is no God, but any alternative belief requires faith. To simply say "I don't know and neither do you" is logically ok but not convincing to people who actually have and understand faith in a creator due to their study of religion, which is the whole question put forth in this thread.

Are you sure that you've read through this entire thread? You might want to do so (and the other "atheist" threads) before continuing... just a suggestion. I 've been here for many months and don't recall anything along these lines being proposed. Also, I have a little more than passing interest and experience regarding the "study of religion" which you'll discover as you read through the various threads.

You might be debating a phantom. ;)

BTW, you mentioned the "lack of an alternative" argument... why debate something that hasn't been presented?

[Thor]

And they have come up with alternative explanations that are pretty outlandish to say the least.

And what "explanation" do you have?

[Salvaterra]

Are you sure that you've read through this entire thread? You might want to do so (and the other "atheist" threads) before continuing... just a suggestion. I 've been here for many months and don't recall anything along these lines being proposed.

Not sure what you mean. I started out by asking if atheists understand that their position is faith. I maintain that based on my understanding of what the most prominent voices of atheism have put forth. Some of their arguments - obviously not all of them - are consistent with what people here have argued. If you say that people like Dawkins are not represented here and that no one here has an alternative, then their argument is not faith. It is a contrarian view.

Again, the question I raised is about any alternative conclusion to faith in God as the creator of the Universe and life. It is fine if you don't have one. And arguing anything in such a case - where there is only one argument - would ultimately result in debating a phantom. I am convinced that such a position is made out of convenience though. And while you may only have a passing interest, others are putting forth as fact positions that oppose the existence of God.


BTW, you mentioned the "lack of an alternative" argument... why debate something that hasn't been presented?

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have presented their argument. Scientists have also had findings suggesting a designer. To refute their positions with a better one is what I would consider constructive debate. To simply toss them out is just exercising one's right to choose.

[Thor]

Scientists have also had findings suggesting a designer.

Please cite one scientific journal or publication where a scientist has proposed that "findings suggest a designer".

[Salvaterra]

Please cite one scientific journal or publication where a scientist has proposed that "findings suggest a designer".

Richard von Sternberg published "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" by Dr. Stephen Meyer. And lost his job because of it. It only supports my point that the scientific community has made up their mind and that debate is no longer allowed.

[PercyVere]

Richard von Sternberg published "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" by Dr. Stephen Meyer. And lost his job because of it. It only supports my point that the scientific community has made up their mind and that debate is no longer allowed.Now that one was snuck in when no one was looking.

[Values]

Please cite one scientific journal or publication where a scientist has proposed that "findings suggest a designer".

Dawkins said it in a documentary...does that count?
(He also suggested that the designers were aliens but hey, he is Dawkins afterall)

[Thor]

Richard von Sternberg published "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" by Dr. Stephen Meyer. And lost his job because of it. It only supports my point that the scientific community has made up their mind and that debate is no longer allowed.

Yes, he was the editor and ID proponent who controversially handled the review and editing process of the article you reference. Unfortunately, the journal subsequently declared that this particular paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.

Hmmmm... sounds like he was skipping normal protocols in order to get an ID paper published in a scientific journal. I wonder why he would do that....

Ya got anything else?

[RayMan]

Come on RayMan... fess up! Did you take pingy's cookie?

Dude,
I am seriously low carb these days. No cookies.

[Thor]

Dawkins said it in a documentary...does that count?
(He also suggested that the designers were aliens but hey, he is Dawkins afterall)

Please provide a transcript or video link for this. And do you honestly believe that Dawkins was seriously suggesting that we were seeded by space aliens?

[Mobulis]

Hi Mobulis,
I have read the dictionary definition before but thanks. Can we narrow it down a little?

Heb 11:1 would probably best fit with the part I have bolded.

Which of the various definitions best describes your take on faith?


For an atheist 1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions

[captusa]

How did we get to the origins of life? "Atheism" does not address the origin of life, ya know. It addresses the question of belief in deities.

But since you've brought it up... does it require faith for a person to NOT believe that a god created life?

Once you evauate all your information on any real event you will never have enough information to make a perfect decision.(Scientific certainty is impossible) You can define the belief that you have enough infrormation and you can make a valid decision on that information as faith.

I have sufficient faith in my belief that a Deity did not directly create life on earth to accept it as a fact.

I have sufficient faith in my belief that a Theistic Deity that deals directly with Earth and/or humanity to accept it as a fact.

I do not have sufficient belief in the absense of a one time Creator as described by Einstein to to accept it as a fact.

Of course I have no desire to imply that I have enough objective evidence to convince anyone (or everyone) else that I they should have faith in the same conclusions as mine.

[captusa]

Not sure what you mean. I started out by asking if atheists understand that their position is faith. I maintain that based on my understanding of what the most prominent voices of atheism have put forth. Some of their arguments - obviously not all of them - are consistent with what people here have argued. If you say that people like Dawkins are not represented here and that no one here has an alternative, then their argument is not faith. It is a contrarian view.

Again, the question I raised is about any alternative conclusion to faith in God as the creator of the Universe and life. It is fine if you don't have one. And arguing anything in such a case - where there is only one argument - would ultimately result in debating a phantom. I am convinced that such a position is made out of convenience though. And while you may only have a passing interest, others are putting forth as fact positions that oppose the existence of God.



Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have presented their argument. Scientists have also had findings suggesting a designer. To refute their positions with a better one is what I would consider constructive debate. To simply toss them out is just exercising one's right to choose.

There are several Youtube sites that specifically point out that some evidence that ID is wrong.
ID is still just a conjecture with no supporting evidence.
If and when they bring the conjecture to a Hypothesis with supporting evidence the "scientific community will take notice.
IF and WHEN

[captusa]

To clarify, Tim asked if NOT believing in vampires required faith.

The debate has come to an arguement over semantics again.
I agree with Salvaterra's use of the word "faith".
When you are sufficiently convinced of a specific idea it rises to the level of FAITH.
I thank the person that cut the Gordian Knot in this discussion when he introduce the word "convinced" to descibe what some people claimed to know.

[Salvaterra]

Yes, he was the editor and ID proponent who controversially handled the review and editing process of the article you reference. Unfortunately, the journal subsequently declared that this particular paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.

A perfect illustration of the thinking behind those who refuse to acknowledge opposing points of view. My whole point is that the scientific community is suppressing debate.

Ya got anything else?

First, let's see an example of a published article on alien seeding as put forth by Dawkins in "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". Yes he did seriously offer that explanation.

Or about Michael Ruse's thought that molecules "piggybacked" on crystals until life spontaneously generated, which he put forth in the same documentary.

[captusa]

Hmmm... not sure if that answered my question???

First, I don't think it's necessary of productive to argue over whether or not god(s) exist. I tend to accept that some folks believe in god(s) and some don't.

My question didn't address the need for faith TO BELEIVE in vampires... I'm asking if it is your assertion that it requires faith to NOT BELIEVE in vampires.

BTW, I'm not into the whole Big Bang/Evolution debate... just not my bag. ;)

I think that this particular semantic discussion on "faith" is rather productive since it will help us understand each others use of the term.

[captusa]

Thanks again to everyone for the welcomes.

I am not saying that atheists require faith to believe that there is no God. I am saying that atheists require faith to believe that scientific observation is superior to a belief in God. The faith on behalf of atheism relies on belief in science, not disbelief.

No scientist or anyone else with intellectual curiousity whether a believer or not can accept "Goddidit" as a complete explaination.

[Values]

Please provide a transcript or video link for this. And do you honestly believe that Dawkins was seriously suggesting that we were seeded by space aliens?

Watch it yourself, "expelled" toward the end.
Dawkins definately suggested it as the answer to the complexities of the cell and how it first appeared on Earth.
Sorry to burst your Dawkin's a smart guy bubble.

[Mikko]

Watch it yourself, "expelled" toward the end.
Dawkins definately suggested it as the answer to the complexities of the cell and how it first appeared on Earth.
Sorry to burst your Dawkin's a smart guy bubble.
I watched it, and it is, with all due respect and in my opinion, a misrepresentation to say that Dawkins suggested it as the answer to the complexities of the cell and how it first appeared on earth. He said it could possiblly have happened, but that the question of how the alien species in question originated and evolved would remain. He was clear, however, that he didn't think that it happened that way. I'm not a Dawkins fan, but he is smart.:)

[Tim]

You guys are talking way over my head so I'll just bow out gracefully. ;)

Enjoy!

[RayMan]

You guys are talking way over my head so I'll just bow out gracefully. ;)

Enjoy!

Yeah, I'm feeling like the hound dog in the old Warner Bros cartoons.

"Which way did they go George, which way did they go?"

[Values]

I watched it, and it is, with all due respect and in my opinion, a misrepresentation to say that Dawkins suggested it as the answer to the complexities of the cell and how it first appeared on earth. He said it could possiblly have happened, but that the question of how the alien species in question originated and evolved would remain. He was clear, however, that he didn't think that it happened that way. I'm not a Dawkins fan, but he is smart.:)

I didn't get that at all, Dawkins brought up the idea that aliens could have been a possibility to the complexities of the cell. One thing was clear, Dawkins was unable to form a coherant thought as to the understanding of the beginning of life ( except that it could not possibly have been God)

[biggles53]

I know there is no god for the same reason that I know there is no celestial teapot. Also, I know there is no god because all societies throughout all ages have shown a propensity to invent gods.

I'm sorry, but even as a fellow atheist, I have to take issue with your 'certainty'.

I share your point of view that there exists no evidence for gods or celestial teapots, and I also refuse to shape my life around what I consider to be unfounded assertions, but I am unable to state definitively that such evidence will never be brought forward.

And, yes, mankind has repeatedly demonstrated its need to conjure up deities. Once again, whilst there is no evidence to support these assertions, there exists the tiniest likelihood that evidence may one day be uncovered, or that a deity will one day be 'conjured' which turns out to be real...

But, like you, I'm not holding my breath.....:)

[free2B]

If they do not have Faith can they understand it?
There is a misconception out there that you can't know something without there being some sort of verifyable evidence to support your knowledge. Not only that but your verifyable support must meet other's criteria, yet when questioned athiests readily state that they do not know many things and they also state that there is no God. How would they know this? Where is their verifyable evidence to support their knowledge?
( I realize this is another one for you athiests but I am sure you are up to this task)

"Faith as the Evidence of things Unseen
(From Forerunner Commentary) Luke 17:5 (Go to this verse :: Verse pop-up)


The apostles wanted more faith so they could meet the challenges of God's demands, but Jesus knew that it was not quantity they needed but quality. They did not need an increase of faith that would bring some reward following its use, but a faith that, although small like a mustard seed, is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). The disciple with this type of living faith is convinced of the fact that God exists (Romans 4:16-22; Hebrews 11:1-3), conscious of his intimate relationship with God (Romans 5:1-2), and concerned about absolute submission to His will (Romans 12:2)."

[captusa]

Do athiests understand Faith?

Yes!

[HardHammer]

If they do not have Faith can they understand it?
There is a misconception out there that you can't know something without there being some sort of verifyable evidence to support your knowledge. Not only that but your verifyable support must meet other's criteria, yet when questioned athiests readily state that they do not know many things and they also state that there is no God. How would they know this? Where is their verifyable evidence to support their knowledge?
( I realize this is another one for you athiests but I am sure you are up to this task)

The world is literally filled with such knowledge to discredit God, He removes His chosen Ones of the World as to see the World for what it is.

[RayMan]

Yes!

It took us 161 posts to get THAT established? Sheesh. You shoulda spoke up hours ago cap. :mrgreen:

[Meriweather]

It took us 161 posts to get THAT established? Sheesh. You shoulda spoke up hours ago cap. :mrgreen:

Good evening, Ray.

[RayMan]

Yo.

[Meriweather]

Yo.

Up to last post.

[captusa]

It took us 161 posts to get THAT established? Sheesh. You shoulda spoke up hours ago cap. :mrgreen:

If somebody cut the Gordian Knot a hundred years before Alexander nobody would have known about it.

[RayMan]

If somebody cut the Gordian Knot a hundred years before Alexander nobody would have known about it.

A point well made.

[free2B]

If somebody cut the Gordian Knot a hundred years before Alexander nobody would have known about it.

Devlin's Angle
September 2001

Untying the Gordian Knot
One day, according to ancient Greek legend, a poor peasant called Gordius arrived with his wife in a public square of Phrygia in an ox cart. As chance would have it, so the legend continues, an oracle had previously informed the populace that their future king would come into town riding in a wagon. Seeing Gordius, therefore, the people made him king. In gratitude, Gordius dedicated his ox cart to Zeus, tying it up with a highly intricate knot - - the Gordian knot. Another oracle -- or maybe the same one, the legend is not specific, but oracles are plentiful in Greek mythology -- foretold that the person who untied the knot would rule all of Asia.

The problem of untying the Gordian knot resisted all attempted solutions until the year 333 B.C., when Alexander the Great -- not known for his lack of ambition when it came to ruling Asia -- cut through it with a sword. "Cheat!" you might cry. And although you might have been unwise to have pointed it out in Alexander's presence, his method did seem to go against the spirit of the problem. Surely, the challenge was to solve the puzzle solely by manipulating the knot, not by cutting it.

capt. it appears the gordian knot could not be untied, it took a military genius to consider the problem and dispatch it,
it would have been well known if you think that the oracle would be foretold, as it was by alexander, cutting the knot would not have been a difficult problem for any who had the weapon to make the cut, the sword must have been pulled out of the stone

[captusa]

Devlin's Angle
September 2001

Untying the Gordian Knot
One day, according to ancient Greek legend, a poor peasant called Gordius arrived with his wife in a public square of Phrygia in an ox cart. As chance would have it, so the legend continues, an oracle had previously informed the populace that their future king would come into town riding in a wagon. Seeing Gordius, therefore, the people made him king. In gratitude, Gordius dedicated his ox cart to Zeus, tying it up with a highly intricate knot - - the Gordian knot. Another oracle -- or maybe the same one, the legend is not specific, but oracles are plentiful in Greek mythology -- foretold that the person who untied the knot would rule all of Asia.

The problem of untying the Gordian knot resisted all attempted solutions until the year 333 B.C., when Alexander the Great -- not known for his lack of ambition when it came to ruling Asia -- cut through it with a sword. "Cheat!" you might cry. And although you might have been unwise to have pointed it out in Alexander's presence, his method did seem to go against the spirit of the problem. Surely, the challenge was to solve the puzzle solely by manipulating the knot, not by cutting it.

capt. it appears the gordian knot could not be untied, it took a military genius to consider the problem and dispatch it,
it would have been well known if you think that the oracle would be foretold, as it was by alexander, cutting the knot would not have been a difficult problem for any who had the weapon to make the cut, the sword must have been pulled out of the stone

Cutting the Gordian Knot refers to a quick simple solution to a complicated problem.
Of course it was not in the spirit of the problem but after the knot was cut there was no challenge left for Alexander.
Your point is correct.
Without the power of Alexander's armies no one would have dared use Alexander's solution but he did have the armies.
The only error in your story is pulling the sword from the stone was part of the Arthurian legend.
Any sword would have cut the knot.

[free2B]

if you have enough faith capt.

[BillyBobUSA]

Very few atheists I know state that "there is no god" - and I would take issue with those that do. The most we can logically declare is that we withold belief in all deities due to the absence of any evidence for their existence.


You mean 'due to the absence of any evidence that you will accept'.

There is plenty of evidence, but it is not scientific evidence.

Explaining faith to an atheist is like explaining a rainbow to a bitter man blind from birth who denies any utility to being able to see.

[PercyVere]

The 'athiest' is the one who is the most athy.

[Meriweather]

You mean 'due to the absence of any evidence that you will accept'.

There is plenty of evidence, but it is not scientific evidence.

Explaining faith to an atheist is like explaining a rainbow to a bitter man blind from birth who denies any utility to being able to see.

I disagree. Atheists, in my opinion, are not puzzled by faith. They understand faith quite well. Where their curiosity/interest lies is in how and why people come to believe so strongly in a being who, if He wants our love and belief, does not provide us with physical, scientific evidence. How do people rely on faith alone?

In my experience, most atheists see us relying on faith as not a thing to sneer at, but rather a curious phenomenon. How do believers, most of whom are otherwise very practical people, come to believe so strongly when there is no physical, tangible evidence? That is the question, not, "Do you understand faith?"

[Tim]

I disagree. Atheists, in my opinion, are not puzzled by faith. They understand faith quite well. Where their curiosity/interest lies is in how and why people come to believe so strongly in a being who, if He wants our love and belief, does not provide us with physical, scientific evidence. How do people rely on faith alone?

In my experience, most atheists see us relying on faith as not a thing to sneer at, but rather a curious phenomenon. How do believers, most of whom are otherwise very practical people, come to believe so strongly when there is no physical, tangible evidence? That is the question, not, "Do you understand faith?"

This is, in my opinion, the way to foster communication! :dance:

:hug: Very nicely and diplomatically stated. You've got my ear... I'm listening! ;)

[Meriweather]

This is, in my opinion, the way to foster communication! :dance:

:hug: Very nicely and diplomatically stated. You've got my ear... I'm listening! ;)


Thank you. You are very easy to communicate with, and I enjoy listening to you, also.

[graatz]

How do believers, most of whom are otherwise very practical people, come to believe so strongly when there is no physical, tangible evidence?

The fact that an atheist can wonder this (and believe me, I have on many occasions) is probably the most overwhelming evidence that an atheist understands Faith. They can see it in others, and see how it shapes the beliefs of others.

[Meriweather]

The fact that an atheist can wonder this (and believe me, I have on many occasions) is probably the most overwhelming evidence that an atheist understands Faith. They can see it in others, and see how it shapes the beliefs of others.

Exactly. Well stated.

[Marleysdaddy]

I disagree. Atheists, in my opinion, are not puzzled by faith. They understand faith quite well. Where their curiosity/interest lies is in how and why people come to believe so strongly in a being who, if He wants our love and belief, does not provide us with physical, scientific evidence. How do people rely on faith alone?

In my experience, most atheists see us relying on faith as not a thing to sneer at, but rather a curious phenomenon. How do believers, most of whom are otherwise very practical people, come to believe so strongly when there is no physical, tangible evidence? That is the question, not, "Do you understand faith?"

You are fantastic Meri :clap:

[Thor]

A perfect illustration of the thinking behind those who refuse to acknowledge opposing points of view. My whole point is that the scientific community is suppressing debate.


Science does not deal with "points of view" like it's a political debate. Science deals with evidence that explains natural phenomena. There is no evidence to support ID. ID has no testable hypothesis. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory.

[Mikko]

I disagree. Atheists, in my opinion, are not puzzled by faith. They understand faith quite well. Where their curiosity/interest lies is in how and why people come to believe so strongly in a being who, if He wants our love and belief, does not provide us with physical, scientific evidence. How do people rely on faith alone?

In my experience, most atheists see us relying on faith as not a thing to sneer at, but rather a curious phenomenon. How do believers, most of whom are otherwise very practical people, come to believe so strongly when there is no physical, tangible evidence? That is the question, not, "Do you understand faith?"
As usual, the voice of insight and reason.:)

[Meriweather]

Marleysdaddy, Mikko--

You guys are too kind, but I thank you. You made my day.

[HardHammer]

I disagree. Atheists, in my opinion, are not puzzled by faith. They understand faith quite well. Where their curiosity/interest lies is in how and why people come to believe so strongly in a being who, if He wants our love and belief, does not provide us with physical, scientific evidence. How do people rely on faith alone?

In my experience, most atheists see us relying on faith as not a thing to sneer at, but rather a curious phenomenon. How do believers, most of whom are otherwise very practical people, come to believe so strongly when there is no physical, tangible evidence? That is the question, not, "Do you understand faith?"

Puzzled by Faith? I flately rejected it in place of my own selfish desires of the Flesh. To believe 'I' of 'myself' was responsible for everything 'I' had obtained in life, 'my house', 'my money' and above all 'my' self learned profession as a Engineer.

Oh, 'I was' so proud of 'myself', that 'I' could stand by and tell others about their faults and predict the outcome of their lives, and be correct. It was a pathetic hollow existance, one filled with my own self gratification of mind and body.

IMHO, you underestimate what the Atheist represents in todays culture and just how much they are directed by the forces of this world.

No evidence at all, really? The tranformation of one who has walked in darkness their whole life and then brought into Gods Light bears no evidence of His Power and Existance? I disagree, the tangible evidence is in He who knows the Lords Will and strives to Live by His Will and not their own. Surrendering up themself in place of self to allow His work in us to take place. Profound changes take place, is it by chance that happens, you know it's not.

The evidence is every where, many choose to reject and overlook it as senseless. 'I' used to view Believers as equivilents of those who believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as a number of our forum atheist have done in the past. I do realize that you enjoy trying to live a peaceful life where everyone gets along, and you are truly entitled to believe that, but unfortunately, that isn't how life today really is. There is a very real danger lurking in the shadows, yet to be brought under the sun of this world, and they won't have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide them.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I disagree. Atheists, in my opinion, are not puzzled by faith. They understand faith quite well. Where their curiosity/interest lies is in how and why people come to believe so strongly in a being who, if He wants our love and belief, does not provide us with physical, scientific evidence. How do people rely on faith alone?

In my experience, most atheists see us relying on faith as not a thing to sneer at, but rather a curious phenomenon. How do believers, most of whom are otherwise very practical people, come to believe so strongly when there is no physical, tangible evidence? That is the question, not, "Do you understand faith?"


Good post Meri. Thankyou for sharing it.

[Koushi Shinigami]

This is, in my opinion, the way to foster communication! :dance:

:hug: Very nicely and diplomatically stated. You've got my ear... I'm listening! ;)

Good point.

[HardHammer]

This is, in my opinion, the way to foster communication! :dance:

:hug: Very nicely and diplomatically stated. You've got my ear... I'm listening! ;)

Tim, may I say, by your own admission, you have studied the Gospel extensively and I can only assume you know it well. What is it that turned you away from Gods Word, to what you believe to be YOUR truth today?

If this is to personal a question, I would understand if you told me to mind m own business, but since you have come out to this forum with the verosity that you have, it makes me wonder to what degree life has beat you down in order for you to cast God out of your life.

I'm puzzled having come from total depravity to knowing His Will for US, how exactly one moves in the opposite direction?

[Koushi Shinigami]

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo240/koushishinigami/popcorn.jpg

[RayMan]

Tim, may I say, by your own admission, you have studied the Gospel extensively and I can only assume you know it well. What is it that turned you away from Gods Word, to what you believe to be YOUR truth today?

If this is to personal a question, I would understand if you told me to mind m own business, but since you have come out to this forum with the verosity that you have, it makes me wonder to what degree life has beat you down in order for you to cast God out of your life.

I'm puzzled having come from total depravity to knowing His Will for US, how exactly one moves in the opposite direction?

Probably better not to assume ahead of the facts. Tim stated just yesterday that there was no trauma involved in his turning away from faith in God.

[Thor]

No evidence at all, really?

Yeah, really.

The tranformation of one who has walked in darkness their whole life and then brought into Gods Light bears no evidence of His Power and Existance?

No, it doesn't. This is anecdotal evidence. Also, I'm sure there were many people in the past who would have proclaimed that "Zeus" or "Apollo" or "Woden" led them "out of the darkness". Would this be evidence of the existence of these mythical gods?

I disagree, the tangible evidence is in He who knows the Lords Will and strives to Live by His Will and not their own.

How does this qualify as "TANGIBLE evidence"?

The evidence is every where

Then please point out some of it. But be advised, if you want to say "look at the pretty flowers", I'm going to say, "look at the tornado that killed dozens and destroyed countless homes".

[Koushi Shinigami]

Probably better not to assume ahead of the facts. Tim stated just yesterday that there was no traume involved in his turning away from faith in God.

:clap:

[terri910]

In my experience, most atheists see us relying on faith as not a thing to sneer at, but rather a curious phenomenon.
"Most" probably do see it that way....but as with any viewpoint, it seems as if the more outrageous reactions get all the press. *LOL*

[Koushi Shinigami]

"Most" probably do see it that way....but as with any viewpoint, it seems as if the more outrageous reactions get all the press. *LOL*

Have you ever wondered what the spark was that caused the more outrageous reaction? :think:

[terri910]

Have you ever wondered what the spark was that caused the more outrageous reaction? :think:
Human nature.

[HardHammer]

Yeah, really.



No, it doesn't. This is anecdotal evidence. Also, I'm sure there were many people in the past who would have proclaimed that "Zeus" or "Apollo" or "Woden" led them "out of the darkness". Would this be evidence of the existence of these mythical gods?



How does this qualify as "TANGIBLE evidence"?



Then please point out some of it. But be advised, if you want to say "look at the pretty flowers", I'm going to say, "look at the tornado that killed dozens and destroyed countless homes".

I understand the rejection you have of Gods divine nature. It hasn't been that long ago I felt the same way. Though you reject/dismiss the veryreal changes God makes in ones life, does not by default make them not real. Furthermore, becauce you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

It hasn't been so long ago that science couldn't prove a great many things that were unseen, atoms, DNA sequencing, atomic particles and so on. Mankinds desire to know what is real and what isn't drives them to discover new things all the time. that by no means disqualifies that which we don't know as non-existant.

What I know is that something happened in my life, somthing that caused me to see another Truth in this life, one that superceeds what we a taught by this world as truth.

I know this doesn't help to to better understand anything, but all I do know is that it happened and it is as real as life itself as you know it.

[captusa]

Probably better not to assume ahead of the facts. Tim stated just yesterday that there was no traume involved in his turning away from faith in God.

Why do so many Theists seem to need the existance of a trauma for a Theist whose continued learning and experience reached the conclusion he had been mistaken.
If they were really interested in the reasons for a Theist to changed to a non-Theist they would not require themselves to place a precondition or pre-conclusion in their questions.
I beieve it is a defensive device to shield them from their own doubts.

Contrast the Theists on this forum that do respectfully discuss and exchange ideas totally contrary to theirs without insult, disparagement, denogration or condescention.
Meriweather and Harmonious come to mind as shining examples although there are many others that I am sorry I slight by not mentioning them.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Human nature.

Perhaps. But I have to wonder what some beliver did to the non-believer to cause the outrageious reactions you are refering to.

[captusa]

"Most" probably do see it that way....but as with any viewpoint, it seems as if the more outrageous reactions get all the press. *LOL*

I've noted this before.
I did not realize that I was a moderate Atheist until I saw some of the Evangalizing Atheists that have passed through this forum.

Many have been banned with good reason as have several zealous Theists that have leaped over the line.

[Tim]

Tim, may I say, by your own admission, you have studied the Gospel extensively and I can only assume you know it well. What is it that turned you away from Gods Word, to what you believe to be YOUR truth today?

If this is to personal a question, I would understand if you told me to mind m own business, but since you have come out to this forum with the verosity that you have, it makes me wonder to what degree life has beat you down in order for you to cast God out of your life.

I'm puzzled having come from total depravity to knowing His Will for US, how exactly one moves in the opposite direction?

I'm more than happy to share any information you'd like but it would be much easier for me to understand the questions if you could keep all the presuppositional accusations out of the dialogue.

In fact, throughout the recent "atheist" threads I've shared all the information you've requested several times.

It was my own personal Bible Study that led to my change of mind and heart regarding the existence of God. One does not "turn away from" that which he doesn't believe exists. At the age of 7 or 8 I stopped believing in Santa Claus because the evidence of his nonexistence became overwhelming (my mom told me the real scoop). I did NOT turn away from Santa Claus; likewise I did not turn away from God.

I'm not sure about the "verocity" with which I've come to these forums. I'm not familiar with that term... did you mean "veracity" or possibly "ferocity"? Since these two words have quite different meanings I will withhold comment until I find out what you mean.

However, I can address the comment "it makes me wonder to what degree life has beat you down". What have I ever said that gave you that impression? Life hasn't beat me down at all... in fact, I am in constant awe and thankfulness at just how good life has been.

It hasn't been perfect or without bumps in the road but I have been most fortunate in life. I don't take it for granted... I know that I am lucky/fortunate to have been born into a loving family. My parents provided a tremendous amount of financial and moral support to get my college degrees.

My kids never gave me any real trouble (the weren't perfect, of course, but we never had do deal with uncontrollable rebellion, drugs, pregnancy, etc.). They are now young adults getting their start in life and we share an amazing relationship (I love being able to have an adult to adult relationship).

I've got a wonderful wife who loves me unconditionally, puts up with all my foolishness and silliness and treats me like a king! And she just happens to be the best darned cook in the world too!

I've been posting here for about a year or so now and feel that I've made numerous Christian friends here via open and honest communication. I don't have any animosity toward Christians and it would be impossible to have animosity toward someone who I don't believe exists so that dismisses any question about my feelings toward "God".

Hopefully this answers your question(s) adequately. If not, feel free to ask for any clarification needed.

[captusa]

Perhaps. But I have to wonder what some beliver did to the non-believer to cause the outrageious reactions you are refering to.
One of them married me but I was a non-believer before we met.
I know you're a misogynist so don't make and extrapolations.

[Koushi Shinigami]

One of them married me but I was a non-believer before we met.
I know you're a misogynist so don't make and extrapolations.


:cool:

[terri910]

Perhaps. But I have to wonder what some beliver did to the non-believer to cause the outrageious reactions you are refering to.
So....should we believe that outrageous reactions of some believers are due to what some non-believer did? No atheist ever ridicules a believer just because it's entertaining to them?

No....everyone is responsible for their own actions, even REactions. It is human nature to act and react unreasonably.

[captusa]

So....should we believe that outrageous reactions of some believers are due to what some non-believer did? No atheist ever ridicules a believer just because it's entertaining to them?

No....everyone is responsible for their own actions, even REactions. It is human nature to act and react unreasonably.

I hated when the Freudians used the argument but there is always the possibility that the level of vehemence in a contradiction is inversely proportional the strength of the belief in the contradiction.

[terri910]

I hated when the Freudians used the argument but there is always the possibility that the level of vehemence in a contradiction is inversely proportional the strength of the belief in the contradiction.
Translation, please. :mrgreen:

[RayMan]

I hated when the Freudians used the argument but there is always the possibility that the level of vehemence in a contradiction is inversely proportional the strength of the belief in the contradiction.

Reminds me of the Scarecrow talking about triangles at the end of the Wizard of Oz.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Translation, please. :mrgreen:

People that are secure in their beliefs do not overreact when their beliefs are challenged. And vice-versa.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I'm more than happy to share any information you'd like but it would be much easier for me to understand the questions if you could keep all the presuppositional accusations out of the dialogue.

In fact, throughout the recent "atheist" threads I've shared all the information you've requested several times.

It was my own personal Bible Study that led to my change of mind and heart regarding the existence of God. One does not "turn away from" that which he doesn't believe exists. At the age of 7 or 8 I stopped believing in Santa Claus because the evidence of his nonexistence became overwhelming (my mom told me the real scoop). I did NOT turn away from Santa Claus; likewise I did not turn away from God.

I'm not sure about the "verocity" with which I've come to these forums. I'm not familiar with that term... did you mean "veracity" or possibly "ferocity"? Since these two words have quite different meanings I will withhold comment until I find out what you mean.

However, I can address the comment "it makes me wonder to what degree life has beat you down". What have I ever said that gave you that impression? Life hasn't beat me down at all... in fact, I am in constant awe and thankfulness at just how good life has been.

It hasn't been perfect or without bumps in the road but I have been most fortunate in life. I don't take it for granted... I know that I am lucky/fortunate to have been born into a loving family. My parents provided a tremendous amount of financial and moral support to get my college degrees.

My kids never gave me any real trouble (the weren't perfect, of course, but we never had do deal with uncontrollable rebellion, drugs, pregnancy, etc.). They are now young adults getting their start in life and we share an amazing relationship (I love being able to have an adult to adult relationship).

I've got a wonderful wife who loves me unconditionally, puts up with all my foolishness and silliness and treats me like a king! And she just happens to be the best darned cook in the world too!

I've been posting here for about a year or so now and feel that I've made numerous Christian friends here via open and honest communication. I don't have any animosity toward Christians and it would be impossible to have animosity toward someone who I don't believe exists so that dismisses any question about my feelings toward "God".

Hopefully this answers your question(s) adequately. If not, feel free to ask for any clarification needed.

So, you're saing that the Word of God led you away from God.
And that in doing so, you now live a happy life of peace and contentment.

*sound of someone's head exploding in the distance*

Ever wonder why God put you on that path? :)

[Tim]

So, you're saing that the Word of God led you away from God.
And that in doing so, you now live a happy life of peace and contentment.

*sound of someone's head exploding in the distance*

Ever wonder why God put you on that path? :)

:)) :)) :)) Now my wife wants to know why I'm laughing out loud while on the computer! :dance:

[Koushi Shinigami]

:)) :)) :)) Now my wife wants to know why I'm laughing out loud while on the computer! :dance:

:dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:

WOOT!!!!

[captusa]

People that are secure in their beliefs do not overreact when their beliefs are challenged. And vice-versa.

Thanks.

[Marleysdaddy]

However, I can address the comment "it makes me wonder to what degree life has beat you down". What have I ever said that gave you that impression?

You didn't say it, your wimpy, identical twin made of straw did :cool:

[Tim]

You didn't say it, your wimpy, identical twin made of straw did :cool:

If he only had a brain... :think:

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:oxkFnk_qX1W3OM:http://www.fallibleblogma.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/straw-man.jpg

[Sketch]

If they do not have Faith can they understand it?
There is a misconception out there that you can't know something without there being some sort of verifyable evidence to support your knowledge. Not only that but your verifyable support must meet other's criteria, yet when questioned athiests readily state that they do not know many things and they also state that there is no God. How would they know this? Where is their verifyable evidence to support their knowledge?
( I realize this is another one for you athiests but I am sure you are up to this task)


I am late to the game on this thread. Have you, or anyone else offered a definition of "faith".

I always read "faith" as belief in a thing in the absence of (or sometimes in direct conflict with) evidence.

[Marleysdaddy]

I am late to the game on this thread. Have you, or anyone else offered a definition of "faith".

I always read "faith" as belief in a thing in the absence of (or sometimes in direct conflict with) evidence.

RayMan offered that definition (using a verse from the Bible)... basically faith = belief in things not seen

Mobulis offered this one for atheists
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=50619731&postcount=147

[Sketch]

RayMan offered that definition (using a verse from the Bible)... basically faith = belief in things not seen

Mobulis offered this one for atheists
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=50619731&postcount=147

thanks, bother.

in that case I understand what faith is - I just don't think it's generally a good thing. Doubt, to me is better than faith as doubt is more likely to lead to discovery where faith can hamper discovery.

[Values]

thanks, bother.

in that case I understand what faith is - I just don't think it's generally a good thing. Doubt, to me is better than faith as doubt is more likely to lead to discovery where faith can hamper discovery.

Doubt didn't lead to landing on the moon....faith did.
I see doubt as a negative and faith as positive. Yes, doubt can play a strong role but without faith, dpubt would never let us get out of the gate.

[Values]

I am late to the game on this thread. Have you, or anyone else offered a definition of "faith".

I always read "faith" as belief in a thing in the absence of (or sometimes in direct conflict with) evidence.

Faith in this case, might be described as an understanding of (although limited) and an acknowledgement of, coupled with a sincere love of God. This is very simplistic and off the top of my head but, there it is as I see it.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Doubt didn't lead to landing on the moon....faith did.


Nah. The engineers and astronauts doubted those who said it couldn't be done.

[Tim]

Doubt didn't lead to landing on the moon....faith did.
(snip).

Please elaborate on this for me.

[Marleysdaddy]

Doubt didn't lead to landing on the moon....faith did.

1) First, let's figure out which definition of 'faith' you are using here, because it certainly isn't the traditional 'belief in things unseen'
2) Are you aware that long ago many people thought the moon was a disc, not a sphere? Had someone not doubted that, we never would have landed there.

[Sketch]

Faith in this case, might be described as an understanding of (although limited) and an acknowledgement of, coupled with a sincere love of God. This is very simplistic and off the top of my head but, there it is as I see it.

I understand what you wrote, but I don't have it in me to understand what it must be like to have that "faith".

[Koushi Shinigami]

1) First, let's figure out which definition of 'faith' you are using here, because it certainly isn't the traditional 'belief in things unseen'
2) Are you aware that long ago many people thought the moon was a disc, not a sphere? Had someone not doubted that, we never would have landed there.

There were several other theories about the moon that had to be doubted as well. One I can recall now is that it was a ball of loose dust and that if one landed on it, they would sink into the dust, out of sight.

[Values]

Nah. The engineers and astronauts doubted those who said it couldn't be done.

Yet they also had faith that it could be done and that they could do it.

[Values]

I understand what you wrote, but I don't have it in me to understand what it must be like to have that "faith".

Sure you do...you use faith(with a little "f") all the time. Otherwise you would be a basket case.
I.e. You eat a sandwich that someone else prepared for you, you take it on faith that it wasn't prepared in a way that would harm you.
Faith with a capitol "F" involves a higher level of understanding and trust but uses the same principles.

[Sketch]

Yet they also had faith that it could be done and that they could do it.

this is why definitions are important in argument. I can say that I have "faith" that I will eat this evening, but this is not the same as saying that I have "faith" that Thor will protect me form my enemies in battle.

[Values]

this is why definitions are important in argument. I can say that I have "faith" that I will eat this evening, but this is not the same as saying that I have "faith" that Thor will protect me form my enemies in battle.

I guess this means there are levels of faith.
I would also postulate that my levels would not mach up with yours, even if we are talking of the same instance.
You may have more faith in Thor than I do. ( no offense Thor:cool:)

[Sketch]

I guess this means there are levels of faith.
I would also postulate that my levels would not mach up with yours, even if we are talking of the same instance.
You may have more faith in Thor than I do. ( no offense Thor:cool:)

I'm sure I have no more faith in Thor than you do. I have no faith in Thor, or Jesus, or the Father, or the Holy spirit, or Vishnu, or Ra... the list goes on.

[Tim]

this is why definitions are important in argument. I can say that I have "faith" that I will eat this evening, but this is not the same as saying that I have "faith" that Thor will protect me form my enemies in battle.

Yeah. I think the kind of faith the NASA folks had in getting to the moon was based alot more on actual tested scientific and engineering data than anything resembling faith that Thor exists and will protect us from our enemies.

I'd put my faith in NASA to get me to the moon and back but if they told me they would get me there but I'd have to have faith in God to get me home.....

well, let's just say ol' Timmy wouldn't be making that moon trip anytime soon. :lol:

[Thor]

I guess this means there are levels of faith.

I would say there are basically two types of faith: reasonable faith and blind faith.

Reasonable faith is having an expectation based upon knowledge and/or experience. For example, I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. This is based upon my knowledge of how the Earth rotates on its axis and my life experience of having seen the sun rise every day.

Blind faith is simply believing something to be true with no supporting evidence (or even in spite of contrary evidence). Most religious beliefs fall into the blind faith category.

You may have more faith in Thor than I do. ( no offense Thor)

No offense taken. :)

[Values]

I'm sure I have no more faith in Thor than you do. I have no faith in Thor, or Jesus, or the Father, or the Holy spirit, or Vishnu, or Ra... the list goes on.

I believe you have faith...in fact i have faith that you have faith.:eek:

[Values]

I would say there are basically two types of faith: reasonable faith and blind faith.

Reasonable faith is having an expectation based upon knowledge and/or experience. For example, I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. This is based upon my knowledge of how the Earth rotates on its axis and my life experience of having seen the sun rise every day.

Blind faith is simply believing something to be true with no supporting evidence (or even in spite of contrary evidence). Most religious beliefs fall into the blind faith category.



No offense taken. :)

What if I had "blind" faith that actually had evidence that I knew of or saw but you you simply don't see it? Is that possible?
If so, does that make my blind faith reasonable?

[Sketch]

What if I had "blind" faith that actually had evidence that I knew of or saw but you you simply don't see it? Is that possible?
If so, does that make my blind faith reasonable?

what would keep you from sharing your "evidence"?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Yeah. I think the kind of faith the NASA folks had in getting to the moon was based alot more on actual tested scientific and engineering data than anything resembling faith that Thor exists and will protect us from our enemies.

I'd put my faith in NASA to get me to the moon and back but if they told me they would get me there but I'd have to have faith in God to get me home.....

well, let's just say ol' Timmy wouldn't be making that moon trip anytime soon. :lol:

What if they said they were going to depend on their faith in the princilple of what goes up, must come down?

[Thor]

What if I had "blind" faith that actually had evidence that I knew of or saw but you you simply don't see it? Is that possible?
If so, does that make my blind faith reasonable?

If you had evidence that would take it out of the "blind faith" category. I don't know what kind of evidence you would have that I wouldn't see. Unless you're referring to some sort of a personal experience.

[Values]

what would keep you from sharing your "evidence"?


I will answer with a question:
What eveidence would you need to have Faith with a a capital F in a Creator?

[Tim]

What if they said they were going to depend on their faith in the princilple of what goes up, must come down?

Then I'd tell them,

Okay, but you go first and let's see how it works out for ya. :dance:

[Thor]

I will answer with a question:
What eveidence would you need to have Faith with a a capital F in a Creator?

As for me, I would need a personal visit from this creator. This creator would then need to prove who he is by performing some sort of small miracle. He could change the color of my house or grow a tree to full size in a few seconds. This would provide concrete proof that I was not hallucinating.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Then I'd tell them,

Okay, but you go first and let's see how it works out for ya. :dance:

Oh, Ye of little faith in the powah of this Earth to suck.

[Tim]

I will answer with a question:
What eveidence would you need to have Faith with a a capital F in a Creator?

Here's an answer for you with another question:

What evidence would you need to have Faith with a capital F in Thor?

[Koushi Shinigami]

I will answer with a question:
What eveidence would you need to have Faith with a a capital F in a Creator?

What's all this concern about 'big faith'?


I thought all it took was a mustard seed sized faith.

[Thor]

What evidence would you need to have Faith with a capital F in Thor?

Why do you guys keep dragging me into these discussions?;)

[Tim]

Why do you guys keep dragging me into these discussions?;)

(Tim looking around and trembling)

....Is that you, Lord? :eek:

[Sketch]

I will answer with a question:
What eveidence would you need to have Faith with a a capital F in a Creator?

If this being "created" an unknown species of their choosing in a controlled environment, under the watchful eyes of a committee of several biologists and a few magicians. Three times.

[Values]

As for me, I would need a personal visit from this creator. This creator would then need to prove who he is by performing some sort of small miracle. He could change the color of my house or grow a tree to full size in a few seconds. This would provide concrete proof that I was not hallucinating.

You could still convince yourself you were hallucinating.
I think that those who don't want to be convinced won't be.

[Values]

What's all this concern about 'big faith'?


I thought all it took was a mustard seed sized faith.

I don't think it is the size of the faith but the strength of it.:cool:

[Thor]

(Tim looking around and trembling)

....Is that you, Lord? :eek:

Uhhhh.... YES! IT IS! NOW I COMMAND THAT YOU SEND ME ALL YOUR MONEY! :D

[Tim]

Oh, Ye of little faith in the powah of this Earth to suck.

Okay, we might be able to work out something that would get me on that ship to the moon. But it will involve a healthy supply of oxygen (3 months worth should do), an adequate dose of morphine for the last minutes of oxygen, plenty of beer and chips, a large screen TV and plenty of DVDs and.......







Heather Locklear.

Can you work that out for me? :dance:

[Values]

If this being "created" an unknown species of their choosing in a controlled environment, under the watchful eyes of a committee of several biologists and a few magicians. Three times.

Would you actually believe, even then?

[Sketch]

Would you actually believe, even then?i think so

[Thor]

You could still convince yourself you were hallucinating.
I think that those who don't want to be convinced won't be.

No, I couldn't. If I thought that was the case, all I would have to do would be to ask others what color my house is, or if that large tree was in my yard yesterday. I could also compare recent photos of my house's front yard and see if the color had changed or if that tree was there.

[Koushi Shinigami]

(Tim looking around and trembling)

....Is that you, Lord? :eek:

Who are you?

Margrette?