It all Boils Down to Faith

Originally posted by Glass

My statement depends on the assumption that "Gods" are defined by existing outside the physical realm.

If that is the definition, or the definition falls into the unfalsifiable, there really shouldn't be any need to disprove it or rely on faith to not believe in it. The difference between an unfalsifiable god and any piece of fiction or nonsense is marked only by the credulity of its believer.

reply to post by Glass

Just out of curiousity; in what form did this confirmation come to you? Was it verbal, or more of a sign from nature or the stars? Did your lights flicker or cupboard doors flap? I ask this not in an attempt to mock you, but to try to understand. I've been looking for answers, but God has been silent. I've been told in order to understand I must have faith, but how can I be sure that I'm putting faith in something real and not just reinforcing my own delusions?

Good question. The actual question that I prayed for was "Is the Book of Mormon true?" . When I asked Heavenly Father this question I was lying on my bed and praying, and I felt an overpowering feeling of pure love and joy that started in my chest and spread throughout my whole body. I was laying there crying for joy and saying "it is true, it is true". In my mind this was an undeniable answer from the Holy Spirit confirming that "The Book of Mormon" is true scripture. Prior to praying, I had never read a word in the book. Since praying, I have read the book many times, and have had my feelings reconfirmed. I realize that some people will not accept my testimony, that's to be expected. But, in my mind, it is the perfect witness. I have seen many things with my own eyes, magic tricks, etc. that I can't explain. So even your eyes can deceive you. This was something that started inside me, in my heart, and it was like nothing I'd ever felt before, or since.

reply to post by TupacShakur

So basically what you're saying is even though there are many parts of the Bible that are incredibly unrealistic and even you know that they're BS, you still believe in it because there are some good morals? The same could be said for any fiction book. Also, yesterday after badmouthing God and religion in this thread, I had a fever of 102.4 for absolutely no reason. Maybe Gods out to get me lol

LOL! Thanks for the joke about the fever.It made me laugh. But seriously, I'm going to be upfront with you, so be gentle. The church I prayed about and received answer to , is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or more commonly known as Mormons. I believe the Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God, and therefore is perfect. The Bible however, was translated by man, and therefore does contain some errors.

reply to post by MitchL61


Unfortunately, i can't help what I believe in. Yes, man has been known to steal and to lie. God is a creation of man, although it may be that man is a creation of God, like you say, we can't falsify thae latter postulate.

And of course, if we grant that religion is man made, it's easy to understand why there are so many different types of God.

How do you know that God doesn't lie? He certainly kills, or his universe does. Faith is what it is, believing before having evidence.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
You sir, have faith there is no god. No proof is not proof of nonexistence.

Saying you don't believe there is a god, without proof of gods nonexistence, is the same as saying you have faith that there is no god.

This is ridiculous. Non-belief in, say...bigfoot does not require faith. Nor does non-belief in god(s). Disbelief in deities requires a complete lack of faith.

You're either trying to misconstrue my statement or you've failed to comprehend its meaning.

Granted, one who does not have a belief because they don't know of something or simply because they chose not to form a belief can be described as having a non-belief or rather an absence of belief. However, in the context of my statement, I was referring to those who have a belief and that their belief is an existence or nonexistence.

Being an atheist is to believe in the nonexistence of god. They are not absent a belief. Since there is no evidence to disprove god, their belief is faith.

I think you're getting your nonbelievers confused. Agnostic are those who do not have a belief - atheist aren't.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
Being an atheist is to believe in the nonexistence of god. They are not absent a belief. Since there is no evidence to disprove god, their belief is faith.

There's no evidence to disprove Russels Teapot. Does that mean, believing in it or not requires the same amount of faith? Is not believing in the Teapot no more valid than actually believing it.

Is it faith on your part to not believe in the flying spaghetti monster? Is your faith there isn't one no more valid than faith there is one? No more valid than Allah, Vishnu, Xenu, Odin, Yggdrasil, and every other in the endless list of gods. You're definition of faith requires 'betting on infinity', which is something no reasonable person would find logical.

~
Also, while a deistic god cannot be disproven, being as it can redefine around facts, the typical dogmatic god, such as the biblical one, can be ruled out on the basis of contradicting facts, and logical absurdities. You can rule out a god like that, taking no 'faith' to disbelieve it.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
There's no evidence to disprove Russels Teapot. Does that mean, believing in it or not requires the same amount of faith? Is not believing in the Teapot no more valid than actually believing it.

I have no idea what Russels Teapot is. Since you mention it and it has a weird title, I'm incline to believe Russels Teapot is false. I believe its false, and since I am without evidence of it being true or false at this moment, my belief is faith. As far as the amount of faith required, I don't know. How do you measure faith or a belief? Is there a test that can be conducted by an MRI?

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Is it faith on your part to not believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

I don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster, but I do believe in a straw man argument. My belief that there is no flying spaghetti monster is faith, because I do not have undeniable proof of it's nonexistence.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Is your faith there isn't one no more valid than faith there is one? No more valid than Allah, Vishnu, Xenu, Odin, Yggdrasil, and every other in the endless list of gods.

I don't quite understand the answer you're after. The validity of my faith verses the validity of gods and monsters?

If you're asking if my personal faith structure is more exceptional than others' faith, then I'll be biased and vain and say, absolutely. I believe my faith is much more accurate than most others faith, which is why I have the faith that I have. Everyone's faith comes from the belief that their rationality is the most accurate. When I or anyone else conspires or comes into contact with a faith that seems more accurate than the faith we previously held, we adopt that faith or a part of it, if emotions permit it of course.

If you were asking something completely different, please rephrase the question.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
You're definition of faith requires 'betting on infinity', which is something no reasonable person would find logical.

Are you saying that before I can accept no god as a personal faith I require an infinite amount of proof for gods nonexistence? If so, then I assure you I would settle for just one piece of undeniable evidence.

For the record, I didn't contrive the definition of faith. The terminology was already in place before I was conceived.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Also, while a deistic god cannot be disproven, being as it can redefine around facts, the typical dogmatic god, such as the biblical one, can be ruled out on the basis of contradicting facts, and logical absurdities. You can rule out a god like that, taking no 'faith' to disbelieve it.

You could be right as I have no evidence that what you're saying is wrong, but I wont take what you're saying on faith alone. I think if you want to prove any god(s) of the past as being false god(s) you're going to need a time machine.

reply to post by Watts


I have been busy, so I haven't had time to respond to your post, so let me respond now.

Attempting to do word tricks with a dictionary doesn't really change the fact that atheists have "faith" that there is no god or all powerful being

Stating a clear and obvious definition for a term you misrepresent and misinterpret by making false assumptions as to my "beliefs" or "lack there-of" is not word trickery, it's simply pointing out facts, and in this case it's pointing out your lack of understanding in the word "Faith".

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.

I can agree that this would be a partial definition for faith, however your point is again misrepresented because Atheists don't have faith because we DON'T HAVE A BELIEF in your god until it is proven otherwise. LACK of belief does not equal belief in NOTHING. (a common theist straw argument)

1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

reply to post by WhoKnows100

"Just be glad you have someone else to blame when you make mistakes, it must be pretty easy to get away with anything then right? "

With this statement and belief, you show that you do not understand Faith. Jesus Christ is not someone to BLAME when one makes a mistakes, he's the one Who's guidance we seek in helpng us follow His Father's Word and Will.
There is a huge difference. We ourselves are to BLAME because we are human. And he understands this.

I understand faith completely, I just don't have any in your deity, or any other for that matter. Besides, Jesus isn't God, he was a man supposedly, it says so right in your own bible with an apparent quote by the man himself. However, your bible also contradicts itself by saying that he is and he's not at the same time, so the whole book is basically irrelevant for any purpose other than to show it's contradictions, so scratch that.

His Will? This topic has always fascinated me, and always provides me with a very interesting set of questions/answers to which no theist has really been able to accuratly define to date, so I'll pose them to you since you think I don't understand....teach me oh wise one........

If you follow "god's" will, then you are not in control of your life because you are only the puppet in his master plan correct? If so, then there is no point in seeking guidance from "him" (jesus, god, santa, whatever) because he's going to do what he wants regardless of you anyway, so your will and choices are irrelevant.

Do you believe he has a plan? Of course you do. So do you pray? Of course you do. Why bother praying for guidance, or for anything for that matter if he is going to stick to his plan despite your pleas for help? This is not a kind and loving god is it? If he does break his plan for you, then what is the point of having a master plan? If he answers all of the theist prayers, then he isn't really following a plan, he's just winging it, and that is not omnipitent is it? More like incompetent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I use the word "blame" because man, and any non believers will always focus inward to find the answers to their questions, or their fellow man. They push on and learn from their mistakes, they create and follow laws (most of the time) and they generally are nice to each other. Any action taken by man usually has a reaction by man.

The theist however uses "god" as a crutch, thinking that their life is guided by a magical man who will make everything better, while passing on second hand information in the world's longest running telephone game in an effort to convert more people to their cause so they won't feel so alone when they "talk" to "god" and he never answers.

I'm not trying to be mean, i'm simply pointing out that I understand the words faith and belief probably more so than you do, much more to the point that I have the ability to think about it without the bias of belief, or the fear of hell as a consequence.

It's much easier to live your life to the fullest when you aren't scared to death all the time.

King

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Betting on infinity, means that there's a near infinite amount of beliefs that could be follow under the concept of "faith". This means that, if only supported by faith, a beliefs chance of being right is almost infinitely small after dividing the chances with the other beliefs that can get that much support.

This is why, I only make assumptions(everything in life is, in one way or another, an assumption) that have had enough evidence to support that they are likely conclusions.You can't disprove that next time you drop something, it'll fall up instead of down, every instance of gravity we've seen, could have had other factors. You may say it takes faith to accept that the next thing you drop will go down, but semantics, I'd say that it's reason. And I would heavily disagree that it takes just as much 'faith' to say things will fall downwards instead of upwards.

Catch my drift? Even if there's some uncertainties in everything, that doesn't mean every belief is equal. And that was the message portrayed by the OP.

While I don't know exactly why you belief your faith is superior, I'm assuming it's because of some rational you have behind it. And once we're talking about reasons why certain beliefs are more likely than others, you can cut faith out of the argument and talk about evidence and reasoning to determine what's more likely.
~
Pointing out the flying spaghetti monster isn't a strawman, it's a thinking exorcise. One I often practice by myself. Any conclusions reach from a line of reasoning, if the reasoning is true, would also be true. An arguement can't be right going one way(the way that agrees with your beliefs) if it can also go another way that contradicts your beliefs.

Reasoning like this, needs to be either modified, to explain why it leading to one belief works but not to another. Or, the arguement needs to be abolished, and replaced with one more consistent.

Reason (It all boils down to faith, so it's all just as likely and valid.), leads to (my beliefs are just as valid or likely as anything else), but also leads to (FSM is just as valid or likely as anything else). If you don't agree to that, don't subscribe to the reason. If that makes sense.

And that's not even going into the beliefs being right or wrong, that's just saying that the reasoning being used here isn't right.

~
Russels Teapot, is a teapot floating in space where we can't see it. It's an analogy that points out that, even if you can't disprove something(which in your words would mean it would take faith to belief it didn't exist), doesn't alone mean belief in it is justified.

reply to post by Kingalbrect79


google: define: atheism
a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun: The theory or belief that God does not exist.

websters dictionary: atheism
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
2 b : the doctrine that there is no deity

dictionary.com: atheism
a·the·ism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.



The ideologies of Atheism and God based religions are bound by their very definition to faith. To have a belief that there is no god, or there is a god, without proof, is to have faith. No amount of word play can escape that. If you want to redefine atheism and faith I think you're going to have a hard time, but good luck.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
reply to post by Bleeeeep

 

Betting on infinity, means that there's a near infinite amount of beliefs that could be follow under the concept of "faith". This means that, if only supported by faith, a beliefs chance of being right is almost infinitely small after dividing the chances with the other beliefs that can get that much support.

This is why, I only make assumptions(everything in life is, in one way or another, an assumption) that have had enough evidence to support that they are likely conclusions.You can't disprove that next time you drop something, it'll fall up instead of down, every instance of gravity we've seen, could have had other factors. You may say it takes faith to accept that the next thing you drop will go down, but semantics, I'd say that it's reason. And I would heavily disagree that it takes just as much 'faith' to say things will fall downwards instead of upwards.

Catch my drift? Even if there's some uncertainties in everything, that doesn't mean every belief is equal. And that was the message portrayed by the OP.

I cannot say for sure who uses faith more. A person who assumes something will fall when dropped, or a person who believes in God or those who don't believe in god. Some people express opinions like their beliefs are actual facts so I assume for some, the leap of faith is not very far for them.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
While I don't know exactly why you belief your faith is superior, I'm assuming it's because of some rational you have behind it. And once we're talking about reasons why certain beliefs are more likely than others, you can cut faith out of the argument and talk about evidence and reasoning to determine what's more likely.

I was being sarcastic. I don't know if my faith is more accurate than the next persons. I was pointing out that our minds choose what we have faith by way of choosing what it thinks is most accurate. The joke was because my mind chooses faiths based on what it feels is most accurate, then I must think that my faiths are the most accurate.

..and the rest of your post just points our more reasoning and conclusions based on what you feel is the best way to assign beliefs without proof, your faith, through reasoning. I'm not arguing what is the best way to pick your faith, I'll leave that for someone else to decide.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I agree that there's not one certain way to decide belief(or faith). There's two main categories; Realism, and Idealism. Seeing what seems more factual, more real, or seeing what's more emotionally appealing, or ideal.

I'm a realist, but I'll never say that's the only way to reach beliefs. Though it is the best way to be a close to being right as you can be, if that is what you want.

As a realist, I try to minimize uncertainties(or faith, in you're vernacular). Which is possible to do approaching from that perspective.

~
I apologize I didn't see you're sarcasm. Most people have certain reasons why they feel the thing they believe in is right, thus making the belief superior to the ones without those reasons. And 'just feels more accurate' is one of those. More of an Idealist one, but as I said, I'm not gonna put down different approaches, just not subscribe to them.

~
Which draws back to the original point. That lacking belief in a god requires faith. If everything(since nothings 100% certain) requires 'faith'; then with that definition atheism would need faith too. But most atheists(some christians too) go from a realist standpoint of taking less 'faith' and trying to be in tune with known facts. That's why I disagree with simplifying it down to 'Every belief amounts to needing faith'.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I could sit here and go round and round playing semantics, arguing about word context, belief systems and anything else that distracts from the point at hand, and that is evidence. This is exactly what the theist wants, it's their prime motivation, to distract from reality and try to get you to discuss some side topic that has nothing to do with your initial query or demand for evidence for their claims that a diety exists.

Regardless of any other arguments, no matter what definitions the athiest or thiest puts out there, the original question will always remain until it is proven otherwise:

Where is the evidence that "god" or a "creator" in fact created the universe, us, or anything else for that matter?

This debate can jump from semantics, to evolution, to science and back to the bible a thousand times, just as it always does, but until the thiest puts up some concrete, verifiable and testable evidence that ANY "god" exists, then the athiest holds the upper hand, and common sense. To believe in anything else is just silly because you can talk to yourself all day long, and when you make a descision to do something and then give praise to a magical man for your descision, that is not really proof of existance, it's just proof that you've been brainwashed by the theistic.

For those of you who try and pull the argument "You can't prove he DOESN'T exist!", well, you should all be slapped silly. No person, now or anytime in the future will EVER be able to prove a negative. Disproving Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the Purple People Eater is utter nonsense and anyone who tries and says "AH-HA, you can't, so god exists" just needs to see a psychiatrist. Such an illogical argument and absolute garbage is what is putting us in the conflicts we are in now; we are concentrating too much on trying to be right that we attack our fellow man instead of learning from them.

This is important because unfortunately (and i'm sure most athiests will agree with me on this) athiests ask rational questions for which thiests give irrational and impossible answers. Athiests have gotten so fed up with trying to reason with the thiest because of circular arguments, "absolute truths", misdirection/misleading wordplay, or just downright impossible claims that the thiests ultimately succeeds in surviving on sheer ignorance of their own subject that it is almost frustrating just to look at someone who has been indoctrinated by religion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to conceed with this asinine argument about belief and faith because that isn't the point, and just as I posted several times before, is nothing more than a distraction from the real questions posed by athiests. I am not giving up because I was proven wrong, nor am I giving up because I don't have anything else to say, I am simply going to revert back to the original subject matter to which humans have had 4000+ years to provide evidence for a creator, and to date we have 0.

I tell you what, create a new word, spread it around, make it common enough among humans and i'm sure it will be added to the dictionary as well, plenty of slang words have been added to the dictionary in the last several years, so you have a good chance. I'm sure we can argue over the specifics of that too, but in the end it will still be a distraction from the original point, and the ONLY point that athiests have ever tried to make:

Provide evidence that a CREATOR created the universe through testable, verifiable and calculatable means, and we will conceed that you are correct.

Until such time as you are able to do so, your beliefs, faith and claims of absolute truth through a creator are nothing more than fairy tales told to children in an effort to scare the hell out of them. (no pun intended)


King

reply to post by Watts


You wrote:

["Actually even atheism boils down to faith. They're putting all their eggs in the basket that says "there is no god therefore I can do whatever I want because I will never have to pay for any wrong doings or face any punishment for how I lived my life.".. so really its all faith. Everyone has faith, even if they don't realize it or refuse to admit the obvious, its just a matter of where that faith is put. Even scientists use faith once they reach the extremes of what science can prove, i.e. the "before" the big bang."]

This is true from a philosophical perspective. However is the amount of applicating philosophers minimal in a mankind, which usually rely on pragmatism.

Your knowledge of science could do with a bit of refinement. Science has practically zero 'proofs' (or intentions of 'proof') concerning pre-Big Bang, excepting quantum-entanglement. And 'faith' doesn't come into the picture at all.

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79
reply to post by Bleeeeep

 

I'm going to conceed with this asinine argument about belief and faith because that isn't the point, and just as I posted several times before, is nothing more than a distraction from the real questions posed by athiests.

Faith, belief without proof, is the very point of the topic and the point I was defending. You want to argue santa and purple people eaters but whether or not you believe them is of no concern to me - I do not care what your faith is. I was just pointing out atheist and theist alike, use faith in their belief or disbelief of god(s).

Faith is simply when your mind chooses to believe something without proof - faith is not some magic to be afraid of.

If it is absolute proof you're looking for, you will not find it. Our Heavenly Father has purposely not given us proof of His existence so as to not interfere with our free agency. By proving to us that He exist, He would defeat His own plan to allow us to choose for ourselves. There has to be an element of faith involved, that way God knows we chose Him because of desire and faith, not because we were compelled to.

Originally posted by MitchL61
If it is absolute proof you're looking for, you will not find it. Our Heavenly Father has purposely not given us proof of His existence so as to not interfere with our free agency. By proving to us that He exist, He would defeat His own plan to allow us to choose for ourselves. There has to be an element of faith involved, that way God knows we chose Him because of desire and faith, not because we were compelled to.

Faith like this is probably why atheist are so afraid to admit, that they too, use faith.

Edit to add: My second line. The faith I'm referring to, in the above statement, is that you believe god hides in order for us to have faith in him.

Originally posted by MitchL61
If it is absolute proof you're looking for, you will not find it. Our Heavenly Father has purposely not given us proof of His existence so as to not interfere with our free agency. By proving to us that He exist, He would defeat His own plan to allow us to choose for ourselves. There has to be an element of faith involved, that way God knows we chose Him because of desire and faith, not because we were compelled to.

Why then, did him having an open existence, not interfere with 'free agency' in the old testimate? How did jesus, with his miracles, not interfere with 'free agency'?

Why can't he provide, even the remotest bit of evidence, when he was so very open about it in the past?

Through God's design, I am unable to believe something so out there without tangible evidence. And he provides none. I have basically been set up to lose. Am I gonna be punished for losing a game that was rigged against me? Gandhi was also rigged to lose, mostly because of the geological location of his birth.

And, compare him to a parent for a second. Imagine a parent that decided not to tell his little children to be weary of shady strangers. Thought they should only be blessed with that knowledge if they figure it out on their own. Is that the right mentality to use for raising children? A good parent, would make sure the rule was known and understood, so the child has a reason to accept it. If a parent could know that's the right way to do it, I think a divine father could also know not to leave his children clueless and only let the lucky survive.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

Why then, did him having an open existence, not interfere with 'free agency' in the old testimate? How did jesus, with his miracles, not interfere with 'free agency'? Why can't he provide, even the remotest bit of evidence, when he was so very open about it in the past?

You contradict yourself in these two sentences. You give examples of when He has given evidence, and then ask why can't He give us evidence. In my mind, He has given us more than enough evidence of His existence. To me, the very earth, moon, planets, and universe, with their perfect motion, and all the creations testify of a supreme creator. God sent His Son, Jesus Christ to witness for Him. Think about this for a moment: Christ was not rich, He was not a king, a ruler, He was not exceptionally beautiful, and yet He lived a life so meaningful and impressive that we measure our years by His birth. BC and AD. Too many people underestimate the importance of Christ's life and His mission. God is perfect. If He is perfect, then He must possess certain attributes. Among them are merciful and just. How can God be both merciful and just? Through His Son, Jesus Christ. We are all sinners, and therefore a punishment is assigned for our transgressions. This punishment must be applied in order for the demands of justice to be met. But those who are willing to recognize Christ for who He truly is, The Son of God, and be baptized in His name, and keep His commandments, can receive forgiveness through the merits of Christ's atonement, and God's grace, That is the only way that mercy can be given and the demands of justice satisfied.