A question to atheists.

[Superrock]

Shouldn't this post be in off-topic?

I don't agree with aethism because it offers no explanation for happens after you die. "You just cease to exist" doesn't sit well with me because I believe people have souls and are more than just the sum of their parts working in concert. I don't believe we are superior to animals for the sole reason we are smarter.

I call BS on whoever believes they only believe on whatever can be proven through science because even the most fundamental laws of science have to start on beliefs that cannot be proven and I don't believe athiests individually work through every scientific fact that they come across. People believe what experts tell them and new hypothesis are created on a foundation of beliefs. I don't see anything wrong with the contention that athiests "believe" in science unless they're trying to redefine belief as something absurd. IMO, everyone should believe in science.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Vic
No offense, and I'm not religious, and I couldn't care less about the OP and his argument, but this is a ridiculous straw man, and a horrendous "logical conclusion." Posts like this are why I avoid these discussions here anymore.

You actually do have an active disbelief in the Tooth Fairy (as do I) because you (and I) know for a fact that it's not the Tooth Fairy that puts the money under the pillow. Same thing with Santa Claus -- he didn't put the presents under the tree, I did.

As I already explained before in this thread, religion and God are entirely separate. Completely so. IF God exists, then he does so fully independent of religious belief or lack thereof. Same thing vice versa if He doesn't exist. Likewise, a person may believe or not believe in God independent of involvement in any religion.
Most atheists, when using Tooth Fairy examples and explaining their absence of belief, are speaking in regards to religious belief. And I agree. I as well do not believe in ANY religion. I as well put my trust mostly in empirical knowledge, and have disdain for the dogmatism of religions. But that is NOT the same thing as being an atheist. Your God then is objective reality, and your religion science.

I'll concede a poor choice of words on my part. I'm not the most intelligent person on here by any means. Let me try to put it another way.

Objective reality and science are not my God and Religion. Religion and God hold a certain context or meaning to them that cannot be applied to what I believe. I will allow that the scientific process is something that I trust and believe in. But it cannot be thus stated that it is then my religion. Religion is a unified belief through a certain codex or scripture in a certain entity. God is an entity that cannot be proven. They aren't even the same thing. You might say I'm just argueing semantics but oft times words hold a lot of meaning.

And yes, I shouldn't have mentioned the tooth fairy. It is too much used as an example. I simply made that statement to show how I feel about God. For instance, I could think of something random right now... say a three-headed dog that breaths fire and steals peoples ice cream. I don't wake up every morning and say "I don't believe in a three-headed dog that breaths fire and steals peoples ice cream." Nor any other of the near infinite things I could not believe in. The same with God. I never think about it, which is what I mean by not having an active disbelief in God. Some atheists do have an active disbelief, specifically, in God. I don't, which is another reason you can't categorize "atheists" as a group in my opinion.

 

[ZzZGuy]

WTF is with the "I don't have any beliefs" vs "Yes you do" debate.

I believe the room across from me is not on fire, it's entirely possible it is but I don't believe so.
I also believe that the sink is still in the bath room, it was there last time I checked.

For this threads argument:
You can believe that the world around you is so much of a mind f*** when you really think about it that some higher power must have made it happen.
You can also believe that no matter how unlikely it was for the universe to be as it is we are here talking about it so it happened anyway.

Both are just as valid. A scientist can say "HA, this is how it works, god did not have to lift a finger to make it happen" an a priest can say "because god made this universe that way", neither statement diminishes the other as it's all just a matter of opinion.

I really don't see where everyone is going with this "belief" you keep throwing around at each other but I don't see the point of it, it doesn't make the religious look better/equal/worse compared to atheists and vis versa.


Now for religion, I can't get past "I have to take some guys word for it". Unlike god, religion is bound to this world and is subject to examination by man.

I believe I am hungry, I shall go have some chicken. (sarcasm btw)

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Eh, I have no problem with the thought of some force that created the universe. What I find foolish is what Einstein thought foolish, namely the belief that if such a being exists, he gives a crap what you wear, who you marry, what you eat, whether you're bad or good, whether you pray, and what you do after you die, i.e. the "personal god."

I don't think you really understand what theists say when they say "personal God", and I think that Einstein did better (*). He fairly clearly expressed if not a belief, at least a mild interest in the notion of the impersonal God, and a fairly decent description of an attitude which further expresses itself in the admiration of the impersonal God, once it finds It.

According to some theists, the worship of the impersonal God can also be a very fine thing for the embodied soul, but the proper worship of the impersonal God ultimately converts to the discovery and appreciation of the personal God, which necessarily supersedes the former. I believe Jesus said essentially this too.

(*) Edit: Well, after writing this, I searched online, and found some quotes attributed to Einstein which expressed pretty much the same idea as sirjonk, so I owe him a correction on this. From that, I now doubt that Einstein successfully framed another conception of a personal God which wasn't as "childish" as the one described above. However, I think that he instead did something to express and live his appreciation of the impersonal God.

Cheers.

 

[ericlp]

I consider myself an Atheist just because I don't buy the whole white god BS. I can't stand evangelicals views....

Tho, I do believe in a god. It's called the Universe. Yes, all the building blocks of life and all the elements came from star dust.... some 18 billion years ago... the big bang did happen...

And this is it. Right here. Right now....

There is no BS going up to heaven and the pearly gates... When we die we go back into the ground and become worm and plant food.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: ericlp
I consider myself an Atheist just because I don't buy the whole white god BS. I can't stand evangelicals views....

Tho, I do believe in a god. It's called the Universe. Yes, all the building blocks of life and all the elements came from star dust.... some 18 billion years ago... the big bang did happen...

And this is it. Right here. Right now....

There is no BS going up to heaven and the pearly gates... When we die we go back into the ground and become worm and plant food.

Unfortunately, Evangelicals have ruined God for many. I don't know why some Christians have to be so unlike their Christ. Christ really does have an awesome message about love and understanding. Today people are so concerned about who or what he was, and his importance, that they lose sight of the message. Regardless of who he actually was, the message is to be admired.

I still believe in God, but I don't associate myself with Evangelicals. My view of Him has changed as I've aged. I now view him much like you do but in a more metaphysical sense.

 

[theblackbox]

here is my take.

when i was young, perhaps 11-12 i spent every night in bed wondering what was to happen to me when i died. i can't tell you how many sleepless nights i had due to this, but it weighed heavy on me. I wasn't raised in a religious family, although my parents did once in a while attend church.
To answer my sleepless nights, i began reading, i read all forms of philosophy, theology and other sources to see if i could find an answer. i didn't. what i realized then and still subscribe to is it is silly to worry about anything and just live. if you spend your life worrying, whats the point in living.
What do i believe? Nothing. I lack belief. I found nothing in my reading that could be construed as truth. Christianity excluded me, atheism spent too much time creating an argument against, and most other religions made it impossible to believe in them through some form of mutual exclusion. I realized in reading that in some ways everyone looks for an answer, whether it is an answer or a lack of one.
The closest i came to reasoning was krisna, who says that no matter what you believe in, if you believe in it faithfully, you will find me. (poor paraphrasing, but thats the gist of the message)
Religion was created by man to answer questions of the unknown before science existed. Science came along, and now tries to explain away everything through some sort of reasoning. I guess you could call science religion 2.0.
for example. the old testament was written at a time that there weren't too many people to control and sway, so it's methods and messages were simple. Once society grew and expanded, religion had to come up an answer, and that was the new testament ( i call it an amendment to the original book) to handle larger groups of people. Instead of the old eye for an eye, as society evolved, the new amendment had to evolve, and offer more civilized direction. It's happened in other religions too, take hinduism for example. the early writings fit the times, and as society grew, the people realized the old books wouldn't work, and amended them, offering krisna as a new solution.
Science is no different, it goes under many names, but follows the same patterns. it reinvents itself as we evolve with technology and ability.

Can you believe in nothing? If you do, whats your motivation?
Do you have to have motivation? My heart beats on it's own, my body breathes automatically, i function. i don't have to believe anything to function. on a daily basis i do what i want, but i don't need a directive guiding me to know that i shouldn't do things that hurt other people intentionally, no compass to keep me from straying.
I just do what i do cause i do. I don't believe in anything, i don't fear death, and i don't pine away my time wondering what will happen to me. I am a full time rv'er and i spend my time enjoying the open road, and everything i do.
everything around me is here just like i am here. trees, mountains, rivers, animals, other people are all here because they are. i don't need faith or belief to tell me that.
Everything doesn't need a system to function. things seem to do pretty well when left alone. it's rather egocentrical to think that man is better or superior to any other thing because we can debate, type, discern, etc... I've never seen a cat spend it's day, it's week, it's life pining away trying to find a reason to exist or to be something. Ask me, i think every other creature is better off then us, because they seem happy and carefree. Maybe we should be too, and not be so petty in who is right and who is wrong. Like it or not, we're all the same, it's just some people need an answer, need guidance, and can't find what they want for themselves, and thats a dam shame.

 

[Siddhartha]

I am not a theist. I do not believe in the Great Pumpkin or Easter Bunny either.

I know people who believe in god(s). When they talk about their beliefs all I hear is another people who believes in something. But belief is not enough for me.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Superrock
Shouldn't this post be in off-topic?

I don't agree with aethism because it offers no explanation for happens after you die. "You just cease to exist" doesn't sit well with me because I believe people have souls and are more than just the sum of their parts working in concert. I don't believe we are superior to animals for the sole reason we are smarter.

I call BS on whoever believes they only believe on whatever can be proven through science because even the most fundamental laws of science have to start on beliefs that cannot be proven and I don't believe athiests individually work through every scientific fact that they come across. People believe what experts tell them and new hypothesis are created on a foundation of beliefs. I don't see anything wrong with the contention that athiests "believe" in science unless they're trying to redefine belief as something absurd. IMO, everyone should believe in science.

You think atheism is false because "it doesn't sit well with you"? That's the problem with our society. Everything has to be based on feelings rather than fact and what's right, and as a result we are the most ignorant and poorly educated country in the developed world, the last to abolish apartheid, and one of the last that still discriminates against some groups of people, elected a guy who'd "be cool to have a beer with", don't mind violations of our Constitution. Everything just has to feel good, and that's good enough.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What do atheists believe?

I would assume that atheists believe in atheism, simply that there is no god.

It follows that any religion that worships a god is erroneous.

You can't make any generalizations beyond that and some might even disagree that it's erroneous to believe in a god. Atheism is NOT a philosophy. It doesn't provide any guidance. It is merely a held position on a philosophical issue. In the scope of your philosophy, if you're an atheist, it's a teeny, tiny little issue. If you were an atheist and a book were written on your philosophy, it might be a footnote or an aside. "Oh, by the way, billions of crazy people believe that there is a deity". Note that because billions of people do believe in a deity and because those beliefs do have real world consequences for atheists, the subject might garner more attention in such a book that it actually merits from a philosophical perspective. Otherwise, as an atheist, it wouldn't even occur to you to think of the issue anymore than the issue of the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bigfoot, or the Boogie Man would present itself.

For a good example of what I described, see the book Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand

If you agree with that premise, please read on.

But it's not enough to simply say what does not exist. What do atheists truly believe in? What do they propose gives order to the universe? I would expect science and reason. I wouldn't expect an atheist to say he or she believes in nothing, because atheists tend not to be nihilists, and nihilism doesn't really exist anyway.

Assuming atheists do believe that rational, scientific reasoning is the only way to discern truth, then it follows that atheism must be a religion unto its own, simply with a different god. When I think about it, people engage in a religion generally out of a search for the truth, and they find God. An atheist engages in the same thing for the same reason, and finds reason and logic.

That's my point. If atheists are atheists because they seek the truth about order to the universe, then they're behaving just as religions behave, although atheism has no organization like the Papacy or such.

What do atheists believe? Everything and anything. Some believe in ghosts, ESP, and/or UFOs. Some of them are subjectivists and believe either that man is incapable of possessing knowledge of reality and/or that reality is all in your head and/or that emotions should be your guide to knowledge. Many advocate reason and logic. Some advocate altruism and some advocate rational egoism. Some advocate laissez-faire capitalism, some advocate having a mixed economy, some advocate socialism, and some advocate communism. It might be possible to make broad generalizations like you suggested (most believe that people should use reason) but as a general rule, atheism is not a philosophy and it really means nothing other than not believing in the existence of a deity.

That's my point. If atheists are atheists because they seek the truth about order to the universe, then they're behaving just as religions behave, although atheism has no organization like the Papacy or such.

In my opinion, religions don't worship God. They worship Truth, and to them, that truth is God. How are atheists any different, except that they name their God something else?

Everyone has a philosophy of some sort whether they realize it or not and whether it's well-defined and consistent or ill-defined and inconsistent. Religion is a primitive form of philosophy and as such it offers a guide to life. Atheists, as human beings, have their own philosophies and guides to life as well, so in that sense, it might appear that they do have something in common with religionists.

How are atheists different? If you want to play a game of semantics that serves no purpose and that does not advance knowledge and understanding then you could say that being atheist is no different from having a religion since everyone "worships truth". Basically, all you're really saying is that, "Every sentient human being has a philosophy." If you take ideas seriously, you'd want to know more about the distinctions between religious belief and atheism than merely that everyone has a philosophy.

I hope that my post has helped you to get started on that.

Over the years I've seen and read many posts from religionists who cannot contemplate how atheists can live without a religion. I suspect that much of the difficulty stems from huge differences in your typical religionist's and atheist's views of metaphysics and epistemology. (Once again, it's impossible to make an absolute statement on this matter that would apply to all atheists.) To the religionist the universe is a construct within God's consciousness and everything else can be framed within that context. They "feel" God all around them and interpret everything within that frame of reference and emotions can thus become a means of knowledge about the world. How can an atheist not "feel" it in some sort of a way? Let's take an Objectivist (an adherent of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy) and his metaphysics and epistemology as an example. (Once again, it's hard to really generalize and different atheists will have different thoughts and views.) To an Objectivist reality exists as an objective absolute independent of any consciousness (such as an alleged deity's) and reality is the object of consciousness (what your consciousness observes) and not the subject (not created by your thoughts--you can't think a bag of gold into existence). For an Objectivist sensory perception and the use of reason are the only means of gaining knowledge of reality. So the Objectivist does not "feel" that a God exists not would he treat feelings as being a reliable form of information about reality. So when the issue (raised by other people's beliefs) of whether a deity exists comes up, the Objectivist says to himself, "Where is the evidence? Show me! I don't see it! This idea that a magical omniscient and omnipotent being magically controls everything merely by just willing it or thinking about it is ludicrous. It's physically impossible and contradicts everything I know about reality." It's really that simple. An Objectivist has his own philosophy that he believes is true and has no need for belief in a God nor a faith-based religion nor silly rituals. For an Objectivist, being an atheist is not a struggle with feelings that a greater being and purpose exist; it almost comes naturally and is an afterthought.

I'm sure that that doesn't make much sense if you have difficulty understanding understanding how anyone could be an atheist since, as a religionist your view of metaphysics (the nature of reality and existence) and epistemology (the science of knowledge--how you know what you know and what you may regard as true) is radically different from that of a great many atheists.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: hopeless74
i wonder how many atheists turn to god on their deathbeds..

If 100% of all atheists suddenly "turned to God" on their deathbeds, how would that constitute a proof of the existence of a deity? If 100% of all atheists suddenly "turned to worshiping Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Lochness Monster would that be a proof or even evidence that Flying Spaghetti Monster and/or the Lochness Monster exist?

What exactly are you trying to get at?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: ricochet

What he should have said is that both atheists and theists require faith in their beliefs. One cannot move forward into believing anything without faith. Atheists tend to put a greater faith in the scientific method for the establishment of truths while theists have already accepted a certain amount of truths (through giant leaps of faith).

What you're saying is that humans cannot possess knowledge of reality and that it's all in our heads; reality is subjective in your view. If you believe that it's all just a matter of faith, I invite you to question people's faith in gravity by walking off of a 21st story balcony.

Open your eyes and look around. Do you see the world out there? Is that "faith" or actual knowledge of reality? Many people claim that they take their sensory perceptions as a matter of "faith" but they sure do take them pretty seriously. (You would hope that those who don't would do us a Darwinian service by questioning gravity or vehicles on the expressway.)

 

[Codewiz]

How is this Politics or News?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: ericlp
I consider myself an Atheist just because I don't buy the whole white god BS. I can't stand evangelicals views....

Tho, I do believe in a god. It's called the Universe. Yes, all the building blocks of life and all the elements came from star dust.... some 18 billion years ago... the big bang did happen...

And this is it. Right here. Right now....

There is no BS going up to heaven and the pearly gates... When we die we go back into the ground and become worm and plant food.

That's called Pantheism. It's essentially Atheism, but with replacing the words nature, universal laws, and life, with the word god. It's simply a wrapper to sum up the belief in science and that there are natural laws of the universe that shape and explain everything we know. It's a chaotic nature, but there are laws that come from how the assorted variations of matter and electromagnetism work together, essentially providing the stipulations of how everything came to be. This all coupled with the evidence of an expanding universe from the Cosmic Background Radiation, age old radiation from the edges of the universe and is everywhere, all point to a beginning... and the laws as we understand them now are due to how everything structured into what we see today.

A lot of atheists are actually pantheists, but they don't describe nature as god, rather as nature and the laws of the universe.
But it's far from faith, which is what the OP is actually describing when he mentions believing in a deity. Faith and belief are quite different in this context. Faith in a deity can essentially be summed up as belief without physical evidence. Those with faith often think what they observe and experience is physical evidence, but nothing can be derived from what they claim as evidence. There is no evidence of what they describe.
Belief in science is natural. We believe that science can and will find the answers through evidence.
The OPs confusion of faith and belief has completely screwed this entire thread up. I have to ask how old the OP is too, because I think he might need to age a few years to understand the depth of the human mind and why we think about and interpret things the way we do. Everything to him, is about faith.
I believe there is no deity, but I do not have faith that there is no deity. Evidence that proves a deity exists may make my change my stance. But I am not agnostic. With the evidence out there, and my personal philosophies about the human race and why we have become what we are today, I will readily stand by my assertion that there is no deity. I don't state there can't be being more superior to us, and possible 'divine' in nature, with the possibility to rule over us as if it were a god, albeit Hitler-esque in nature (and btw, this God that everyone believes in... I swear it has to on the level of Hitler, but dressed up with prettier descriptions), but it would not be the creator of worlds, the ultimate being of the Universe. It would have to have been a product of the Universe, or of a greater multiverse if our universe is not the only one out there (parallel or multiple universes)... and hell, on that note, an old acquaintance once put it this way: everything in our universe may compose what to us is an atom of some larger structure. Or everything may be one magnificent ant-farm of some youth at the next level of structures.
Now, I don't believe in any of the nonsense, but its something to ponder.

And, I firmly hold my current knowledge and beliefs, and at this rate, will take them to my deathbed. I will have the peace of mind, hopefully, that I led what could can considered a good life, and that it is all over. I thoroughly enjoy sleep, and the idea that the stresses of life are over, and I can 'rest' for an eternity, that will be my 'heaven'. Life is a bitch, and is pointless being beyond breeding. But we are such a social animal, that we also like to better the lives of those around us through research. Yet, it still all comes back to the idea that we are merely an animal. But that is something that people do not like to accept. The idea that our only purpose in life, is to breed and consume other life, all part of the circle of life, of life and death, and being at some part of the food chain. We are destroying all of that. So we developed everything we know today, all through problem solving, with religion at our side, to prove to ourselves we are more than an animal, that there is more to life. But in this process, we have completely destroyed the balance of nature. We have been the reason many species of animal have gone extinct, or are severely endangered. Life that once was plentiful and a part of a grand hierarchy of the food chain, because of our ways.
I'm not peace pusher or anything. I'm a pessimist and a realist, and ultimately hate humanity. But in my strive to make my life enjoyable, and to protect my family, I also have the drive to protect 'my people'... my country. We are a tribal and social creature, and that is why we have split into all these tribes.
That may have come from some point in time, where recent research has pointed to a near extinction of the human race due to struggles with famine and nature. We split apart, going separate ways in order to find food and safety, adapted for the climates found, and here we are today... different skin colors, cultures, etc etc. We're all the same damn animal, and ultimately - although very unlikely to happen anytime in my lifetime, or in the lifetimes of upcoming generations - we need to unite as the human race once again.

I believe humans are a disgrace to the ways of nature, and we either need to be wiped out, or figure a way to 'evolve' to the next step, past the bullshit of todays world. At that point, I think we'll have a better chance of being able to explore new worlds, and set up colonies and explore the far reaches of space. With the research power of a united globe, versus the individual research of different groups, we'd have a lot more minds working together to solve the problems.
With that in mind, we are strictly a problem solving creature, that figured out how to use tools. That, and conflict between tribes, is the ONLY reason we are where we are today. No other reason.

+

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: destrekor
With that in mind, we are strictly a problem solving creature, that figured out how to use tools. That, and conflict between tribes, is the ONLY reason we are where we are today. No other reason.

Don't forget the opposable thumb.

 

[Ricochet]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: ricochet

What he should have said is that both atheists and theists require faith in their beliefs. One cannot move forward into believing anything without faith. Atheists tend to put a greater faith in the scientific method for the establishment of truths while theists have already accepted a certain amount of truths (through giant leaps of faith).

What you're saying is that humans cannot possess knowledge of reality and that it's all in our heads; reality is subjective in your view. If you believe that it's all just a matter of faith, I invite you to question people's faith in gravity by walking off of a 21st story balcony.

Open your eyes and look around. Do you see the world out there? Is that "faith" or actual knowledge of reality? Many people claim that they take their sensory perceptions as a matter of "faith" but they sure do take them pretty seriously. (You would hope that those who don't would do us a Darwinian service by questioning gravity or vehicles on the expressway.)

That's not what I'm saying at all. Reality is not subjective. Our perception of reality is subjective. One person's interpretation of reality could be closer to the true reality than another. Knowledge of reality occurs when the person's interpretation matches with true reality. So humans are capable of knowledge.

You're so use to defining faith in the context of religion. Faith is merely a conviction of one's belief. From early on we use our five senses to learn about our surroundings. We put strong faith in those senses to learn about the world around us. We put faith in math and logic as they seem universal and follow observable patterns then continue to build upon them.

Your example about gravity is mute. Most of us accepted the fact that if we fall from 21 floors we'll splat on the ground and die. That belief is built upon by faith of what we perceive of reality. That very conviction of belief (that we take our sensory perceptions very seriously) is what faith is about.

Things are not always black and white, however. We sometimes do realize that our perception may not match another person's. For example, how do we know we see the same hue of the color green or blue?

 

[RightIsWrong]

I would argue that we didn't put any faith at all in our sensory functions as small children. Faith, to me anyway, implies a conscious decision to believe something that you know has a possibility of not being true. I don't think that children have that capability during early, developmental years.

I would also argue that you are being very generous in your definition of faith with regards to knowledge being a subset of it. I have no "faith" that my belief in certain death from a 21 story fall. I know without a doubt (which is what negates it being faith) that it will occur.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would argue that we didn't put any faith at all in our sensory functions as small children. Faith, to me anyway, implies a conscious decision to believe something that you know has a possibility of not being true. I don't think that children have that capability during early, developmental years.

I would also argue that you are being very generous in your definition of faith with regards to knowledge being a subset of it. I have no "faith" that my belief in certain death from a 21 story fall. I know without a doubt (which is what negates it being faith) that it will occur.

Here we go again.

I know I already pointed this question at you once, and we never resolved it.

Suppose you met someone who said they had seen God, and they knew it, without shadow of a doubt. Would you still say it's only faith?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Foxery

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't see how any of the reasoning is disjunctive. When you say you don't believe that God exists, you simultaneously say that you believe that God does not exist.

Disbelief in something requires belief in something contradictory to it.

No matter how many times you say this, it still isn't true. You can't prove your point with false reasoning. Atheists simply don't accept that everything in the world happens by magic.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why you don't believe / disbelieve in Greek Mythology.

A simple answer is that I believe I know the truth, and that Greek Mythology isn't true.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would argue that we didn't put any faith at all in our sensory functions as small children. Faith, to me anyway, implies a conscious decision to believe something that you know has a possibility of not being true. I don't think that children have that capability during early, developmental years.

I would also argue that you are being very generous in your definition of faith with regards to knowledge being a subset of it. I have no "faith" that my belief in certain death from a 21 story fall. I know without a doubt (which is what negates it being faith) that it will occur.

Here we go again.

I know I already pointed this question at you once, and we never resolved it.

Suppose you met someone who said they had seen God, and they knew it, without shadow of a doubt. Would you still say it's only faith?

Could they duplicate it? If not, then yes, I would.

 

[Atreus21]

Some of the responses are amazing. It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would argue that we didn't put any faith at all in our sensory functions as small children. Faith, to me anyway, implies a conscious decision to believe something that you know has a possibility of not being true. I don't think that children have that capability during early, developmental years.

I would also argue that you are being very generous in your definition of faith with regards to knowledge being a subset of it. I have no "faith" that my belief in certain death from a 21 story fall. I know without a doubt (which is what negates it being faith) that it will occur.

Here we go again.

I know I already pointed this question at you once, and we never resolved it.

Suppose you met someone who said they had seen God, and they knew it, without shadow of a doubt. Would you still say it's only faith?

Could they duplicate it? If not, then yes, I would.

So just because he can't prove something he knows, you know he's wrong? If I see a space shuttle go into space, can you tell me I'm wrong because i don't know how to send a rocket into space?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would argue that we didn't put any faith at all in our sensory functions as small children. Faith, to me anyway, implies a conscious decision to believe something that you know has a possibility of not being true. I don't think that children have that capability during early, developmental years.

I would also argue that you are being very generous in your definition of faith with regards to knowledge being a subset of it. I have no "faith" that my belief in certain death from a 21 story fall. I know without a doubt (which is what negates it being faith) that it will occur.

Here we go again.

I know I already pointed this question at you once, and we never resolved it.

Suppose you met someone who said they had seen God, and they knew it, without shadow of a doubt. Would you still say it's only faith?

Could they duplicate it? If not, then yes, I would.

So just because he can't prove something he knows, you know he's wrong? If I see a space shuttle go into space, can you tell me I'm wrong because i don't know how to send a rocket into space?

Actually when someone says they've seen god and know it without a shadow of a doubt that's usually called insanity.

The hypotheticals you're using are getting really out there at this point. The difference between the space shuttle going into space and some crazy person babbling about how they saw god is that the space shuttle will launch again, and even if it didn't the event has been witnessed by large numbers of people disinterested in proving its existence and has been recorded in impartial media for review. If your hypothetical man happened to videotape his interview with god I would be a little more inclined to hear what he has to say.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Some of the responses are amazing. It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

Like I said, it's not about belief. Your confusion stems from the fact that you believe religion is the search for truth. Religion is the search for meaning. Science is the search for truth. If you are a Christian fundamentalist, then you believe you already know all of the truth there is to konw and it has meaning for you. If you are a mainstream Christian then you use science to discover truth and religion to attach meaning to that truth. If you are an athiest, then you seek truth but don't attach meaning to it.

You would look at the Universe and say, "We are here because God..." This is your meaning. It explains the why. An athiest would look at the Universe and say, "We are here." The athiest might throw in some scientific theory about bubble universes, brane theory, or the big bang, but all of the explanations will focus on how.

 

[KIRBYEE]

What evidence is there of a god?