It's called "FAITH" because it's not knowledge

reply to post by awake_and_aware


wait, we were arguing?

now i get it!

Best of luck friend

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Atheists have as much 'faith' in science as theists do in God.
Don't think science is the answer to everything.
How many times has it been wrong?....
And how many times has God been wrong?
Never.
Put your faith in something that's eternal.
God.
He will never fail you.
Gods word is never wrong.

reply to post by freedish


"You can't trust science" argument. Or the "Science is always getting it wrong" argument.



This is why i have a "faith" in science, it's not blind faith like in religion, my faith is convinced by a history of practicality; telescopes, sattellites, GPS, artificial body parts etc. etc. etc. etc.

Even philosophy isn't as irrational as Religion; as philosophy doesn't deal in revealed wisdom.

Do I have to have faith in science?

Science is understanding what is known - - then creating theories on what is known.

Of course - - what is known - - can change.

If you have tested fact on what is known - - is that faith?

reply to post by Annee

I do think each person needs to "feel" their belief - - - not follow orders or dogma - - because so much of religion is really man made political control.

So in my viewpoint - - - to have true faith - - put the books away - - don't listen to anyone - - go to a quiet room or place in nature - - meditate - - clear your mind - - listen and feel - - what is right for you.

I couldn't agree more, my sentiments are more geared towards discouraging "irrational" beliefs. Again, i agree with you, it's up to the individual to listen and feel what is right for you, don't let pre-defined beliefs cloud your view. Again atheism isn't attempt to "convert" people, Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity and thus organised relgion and that our stance derrives from Agnosticism.

( Glad you like Zeitgiest, i feel it's over simplified in places, but the message is still strong )

It's always a joy to hear your thoughts and opinions - happy new year to you, enjoy your next trip around the sun

Peace, and thanks for contributing

A&A

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Again atheism isn't attempt to "convert" people, I just want to spread reasons why we have a lack of belief, and that our stance derives from Agnosticism.

Yes - - and that was a very long post for me. Very rare.

There are many ways of thinking - of having understanding of possibility - of who and why we are - - that does not involve a God.

reply to post by Annee


Definetly, i feel on the same wavelength as you - I'm more than happy to keep my mind open, entertain possibilities and probabilities but remaining sceptical without evidence.

I think you may like this song Annee

double post for some reason (please ignore mods)

reply to post by awake_and_aware

I'm referring to to the type of "faith" that requires belief before evidence.

All faith sir, requires belief before evidence. That is why it is called faith.

This is why i have a "faith" in science, it's not blind faith like in religion, my faith is convinced by a history of practicality; telescopes, sattellites, GPS, artificial body parts etc. etc. etc. etc.

Thank you. That was my point from the beginning. I rest my case.

Happy new year to you and yours!

reply to post by Klassified


Faith has several connotations; For example - "Loyalty" i could have faith in my mother. It's not blind faith. It based on a history of conviction.

"complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"

A happy new year to you too, enjoy the next trip around that big ol' star

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Kailassa

 

I don't understand why atheists attack the absurd notion of the virgin birth, (when the word translated as virgin could also mean unmarried girl,) in an effort to disprove the existance of god.

"Immaculate Conception" - They believe that no man was involved in the birth of the healthy baby Jesus.

I didn't ask what immaculate conception was. In fact my question implied I already understood that. I asked why atheists consider disproving the virgin birth to be disproving the existance of god.

Atheists are even willing to grant them this "possibility", it still does not prove the metaphysical claims of Jesus were true, or that "GOD" even exists. They believe these miracles are evidence of God, when the miracles cannot even be confirmed themselves.

This is nonsense. Atheists do not "believe these miracles are evidence of God".

Can't atheists understand that theism does not equal Christianity?

Christianity is a form of Theism. It is a mono-theistic abrahamic religion.

And oranges are a form of fruit. They are a hybrid citrus fruit of ancient cultivated origin, but so what?
Disproving the existance of oranges would not disprove the existance of fruit.

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.

Not only is this quote irrelevant, but by including it as quoted post you are falsely attributing it to me.
It is from an external souce and should be tagged as such, and including it without acknowledging its source is plagarism.

The majority of theistic beliefs are not Christian, and do not rely on belief in the cessation of the laws of nature.
Not all people who class themselves as good Christians are theists, some merely regard Christianity as going to church and behaving in a way they consider "Christian".

There are some "Theists" with "Vague Faith". They believe some of the doctrine, are willing to cherry pick what they want out of their "Holy" doctrine, they ignore the bad moral preachings, and pretend that the good moral preachings could only be achieved by means of religion and faith and believing in a God.

Right, you've proved once more you can attack Christians, for not burning witches and not killing gays . . . but you still have not explained what relevance this is supposed to have to theists in general.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


What do you mean Atheists have no goal

Everyone have goals.

Faith has nothing to do with knowledge

Duuh, but faith is derived from knowledge.

You trust someone, therefore you have faith in him/her.

People trusted Jesus, so they believed him. They had faith in him because they had knowledge regarding his words and actions.

People trusted Mohammad, so they believed him. They had faith in him because they had knowledge regarding his words and actions.

You don't have faith in someone you know nothing about.

reply to post by Kailassa

This is nonsense. Atheists do not "believe these miracles are evidence of God".

I never suggested Atheists did, Atheists are even willing to GRANT them the virgin birth story, and that Jesus rose from the dead.

It doesn't give the story any more credibility nor should be used as an argument to prove "GOD" exists and Jesus was speakin the words of "GOD.

(when the word translated as virgin could also mean unmarried girl

I explained Immaculate conception because that's what they believe, it's not just an "unmarried" woman. They believe no man interfered with the birth.

And oranges are a form of fruit. They are a hybrid citrus fruit of ancient cultivated origin, but so what?
Disproving the existance of oranges would not disprove the existance of fruit.

LOL, and your point? That's what humans do, we label and categorise things, pattern seeking mammals. Religions with doctrine to follow have been described as Theism, Christianity falls under this category. Like an orange falls under the category of fruit.

Not only is this quote irrelevant, but by including it as quoted post you are falsely attributing it to me.
It is from an external souce and should be tagged as such, and including it without acknowledging its source is plagarism.

Oh come on this is petty, i was decribing what "Theism" is, it was clearly a definition, I'll include the source here however many people kenw it was sourced externally. I had no intention to fool people into thinking you had written this. SOURCE

The description of Theism does perfectly describe Christianity. There's no getting around that, even ask a Christian Priest.

Right, you've proved once more you can attack Christians, for not burning witches and not killing gays . .

Is this what you calling attacking? Simply pointing out concerns i have, and it's based on evidence.

My point was that whether people have vague faith or are fanatical believers, it's still irrational.

I wasn't attacking, i'm debating, if you want to respond to my points, do so.



Please watch and maybe learn before hopelessly attacking my arguments.

Happy new year to you.

A&A

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Hey, I agree here. To me, Faith means I believe in something, that something will happen that I read in a book, or someone told me it would. Belief means something I have cemented in my brain for all time, set into stone, as it were, and nothing, nobody, and not thing will ever change that belief. This is the kind of belief the religious types have.

Knowledge, on the other hand, means something I have accumulated over time by reading books, and webpages, and meditating on things, and yes, even ET contact. The accumulation of knowledge breeds Ideas. Ideas are not like beliefs, or faith, Ideas can easily be changed with more, or new information comes to bear.

All said and done, I would rather have Ideas than any amount of Faith or Belief. But, that's just me, isn't it?

reply to post by autowrench

Belief means something I have cemented in my brain for all time, set into stone, as it were, and nothing, nobody, and not thing will ever change that belief. This is the kind of belief the religious types have.

So i ask, who is the open minded one? the Agnostic or the person who is willing to believe on blind faith. To accept the unprovable thoughts of other men?

See, i AM willing to change my mind, providing that evidence is presented. Present evidence of God, or even more specifically, the God of the Christian faith and i will happily renounce my Atheism.

That would mean you'd have to prove God sent floods, god killed his own son, and then you'd have to prove which breed of the Christian faith God most represents. When that day comes, i'll eat my hat.

Originally posted by lurkee
reply to post by awake_and_aware

What do you mean Atheists have no goal

Atheists have personal goals, Atheism doesn't ask anything of you, there are no goals, it's just a lack of belief in claims made my other men.

Duuh, but faith is derived from knowledge.

So which religion has knowledge of God correct?, each of them has a different "faith" in God, different faith in his rules and commands that they must accept.

You trust someone, therefore you have faith in him/her.

I have "faith" in my mother, this is the loyalty connotation of the word "faith". I have faith in her because i have convinction of her love, and evidence to see her actions.

The faith i associate to religions, is blind faith, in a supernatural deity. The willingness to buy the other descriptions of God by man (man who wrote doctrines) and to abide by those rules and descriptions they claim to know.

"Faith" is not knowledge, it's not scientific. Science inherently generates knowledge, if you say it doesn't explain why.

-religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
-complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
-loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

I have "faith" in science, for example, because i have loyalty to it's cause.

You don't have to be loyal to science to be an Atheist, as i state, Atheism, by itself has no "goals". But you will find that MANY Atheists hold critical evidence very close to their hearts.

A&A

Originally posted by autowrench

All said and done, I would rather have Ideas than any amount of Faith or Belief. But, that's just me, isn't it?

Would it be Faith - Knowledge - Belief - - - that the sun will rise in the morning?

I prefer Knowledge - - - knowing that the sun will rise in the morning.

Do I believe it? Yes - because of the knowledge I have.

Do I have faith it will rise in the morning? I would not use that terminology. Faith almost implies if I don't believe (due to knowledge) that the sun will rise - - - it might not unless I believe through faith. That my faith belief is in somehow directly responsible for the sun rising.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Klassified

 

Faith has several connotations; For example - "Loyalty" i could have faith in my mother. It's not blind faith. It based on a history of conviction.

"complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"

A happy new year to you too, enjoy the next trip around that big ol' star

edit on 31/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Sorry I didn’t get back to you earlier A&A. Got sidetracked, and life got in the way. Maybe I’ll also be a little more coherent in my articulation now, instead of sounding like a madman. I understand the different meanings and connotations of faith. The original point I was trying to get across was that faith is a part of the human experience. I’ve never met anyone in my life without it. And we ALL live by it.

As to blind faith. Even blind faith is “based on”, or as someone else put it better, “derived from” knowledge. And not all faith in a god is blind faith. Just as not all faith in atheism or science is blind faith. Yes, some were raised in a religious or non religious atmosphere, and therefore, believe one way or another because they have never questioned it, or have not known any better. And further, have no desire to hear dissenting views. This is what I might call near blind faith. But others, such as myself, have made a decision based on extensive study for many many years. So from my perspective, and aside from extreme cases, belief in a god, is no more blind than a belief in no god. Because there is no irrefutable evidence either way that can be measured scientifically. Nor is it likely there will ever be. Because it is outside the realm of what science is meant to be.

Also from my perspective, any evidence outside of [irrefutable personal evidence], is faith.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Kailassa

 

This is nonsense. Atheists do not "believe these miracles are evidence of God".

I never suggested Atheists did, Atheists are even willing to GRANT them the virgin birth story, and that Jesus rose from the dead.

you said:

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Atheists are even willing to grant them this "possibility", it still does not prove the metaphysical claims of Jesus were true, or that "GOD" even exists. They believe these miracles are evidence of God, when the miracles cannot even be confirmed themselves.

Grammar lesson time.
"Atheists" is the subject of the first sentence. When you follow a sentence with a defined subject with a sentence in which the subject is "they", then the word "they", grammatically speaking, refers to the subject of the sentence it has immediately followed.

If you did not intend "they" to mean atheists, you should have specified a new subject.

It doesn't give the story any more credibility nor should be used as an argument to prove "GOD" exists and Jesus was speakin the words of "GOD.

So what?
Theism does not equal Christianity, as I've already pointed out.
You started this thread with an OP clearly indicating it was to be about theism.

Clearly highlighting some of the key arguments that the theists have for their belief in "GOD" and their particular religion,

Yet you keep using arguments which only relate to Christianity.
Why attack theism as a whole if you are unable to produce any arguments against theism as a whole?
Since when did Hindus, pagans, Jews, or Muslims believe in the virgin birth?
Come on, Christianity is not the be all and end all of theism, any more than oranges are all there is to fruit.

(when the word translated as virgin could also mean unmarried girl

I explained Immaculate conception because that's what they believe, it's not just an "unmarried" woman. They believe no man interfered with the birth.

Sure, you explained to me what I had made clear I already knew. But you obviously still don't understand that your explanation does nothing to disprove theism. Even many Christians don't take the bible literally, let alone followers of other theistic beliefs.

And oranges are a form of fruit. They are a hybrid citrus fruit of ancient cultivated origin, but so what?
Disproving the existance of oranges would not disprove the existance of fruit.

LOL, and your point? That's what humans do, we label and categorise things, pattern seeking mammals. Religions with doctrine to follow have been described as Theism, Christianity falls under this category. Like an orange falls under the category of fruit.

Would you start a thread saying it was about fruit, use it only to discuss oranges, and then claim you had proved all fruit could be squeezed to make orange drinks?
You are trying to disprove theism by disproving Christianity, when Christianity is irrelevant to most theistic beliefs.
Belief in God existed long before Christianity.
Christians didn't even invent their own god; they worship the god of the bible, the god of the Jews.

Not only is this quote irrelevant, but by including it as quoted post you are falsely attributing it to me.
It is from an external souce and should be tagged as such, and including it without acknowledging its source is plagarism.

Oh come on this is petty, i was decribing what "Theism" is, it was clearly a definition, I'll include the source here however many people kenw it was sourced externally. I had no intention to fool people into thinking you had written this. SOURCE

There is nothing petty about plagarism and misattribution of quotes. If you so resent being schooled in appropriate formatting which abides by forum rules, there are plenty of forums available with lower standards.

The description of Theism does perfectly describe Christianity. There's no getting around that, even ask a Christian Priest.

You are still not getting it.
Firstly, Most Christian sects do not even have priests.
The description of theism you quoted which I am putting into external text tags for you . . . applies to many religions, only one of which is Christianity.

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.

However there are also many polytheistic beliefs, and there are many theists who have no religion or dogma.
Your anti-Christian arguments are all slightly off-topic because they are not referring to the majority of theistic beliefs.

Right, you've proved once more you can attack Christians, for not burning witches and not killing gays . .

Is this what you calling attacking? Simply pointing out concerns i have, and it's based on evidence.
My point was that whether people have vague faith or are fanatical believers, it's still irrational.
I wasn't attacking, i'm debating, if you want to respond to my points, do so.

Call it debating if you prefer, but it's a pretty poor debate when you avoid the bulk of a debate topic you have set for yourself.
I have already responded to your point about the virgin birth, by agreeing with you, but you apparently lack the understanding of the English language to comprehend that fact.

Please watch and maybe learn before hopelessly attacking my arguments.

Bugger off. Why should I waste my time listening to a follower of one belief attack, (it's not a debate because the other side is not represented,) followers of another belief when I believe in neither?

As for, "hopelessly attacking your arguments," I'm begging you to please present some arguments.
A few ancient videos of someone else's atacks on Christianity, plus a suggestion that, !!!!surprise, surprise!!!! Mary might not have actually been a virgin, do NOTHING to disprove theistic beliefs in general.

Happy new year to you.

Happy course in English grammar, comprehension and debating to you.

reply to post by Klassified


Science is not blind, it uses rational evidence. Science is always at the brink of the "known", and of course scientists may get it wrong, but they are willing to admit and move on when they are. That's what makes a good scienctist that values "truth".

Religion is blind, know human can claim to know God ("human experience" is meaningless) Yet the theists that form these religions not only claim to know of God existence, but of his/her/it's desires. THis is wrong and irrational. Teaching this to our children can shape their mind for life, and all on "faith". It's what scientologists are doing, it's what religion has done for years.

I love the backwards comments in your signature, by the way, really quite provocative; and needlessly so when the evidence and reason of argument stand against those two statements.

Charles Darwins principle theories of evolution and his obervations in nature are apparent, there is evidence, you can't deny the fundamentals. He may have got a few things wrong. But this doesn't negate his principle theory. I don't think Richard Dawkins would be a very credible microbiologist if he was to give Charles Darwin a bad name like that.

Ayn Rand's babbel has long since been defeated:-