RE: Can an Atheist argue someone out of faith?
November 6, 2010 at 5:57 am
(This post was last modified: November 6, 2010 at 5:57 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 22, 2024, 6:14 pm
Thread Rating:
|
Can an Atheist argue someone out of faith?
|
 (November 6, 2010 at 4:51 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote:(November 5, 2010 at 10:54 pm)Godschild Wrote:
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
 RE: Can an Atheist argue someone out of faith?
November 6, 2010 at 10:51 am
(This post was last modified: November 6, 2010 at 10:53 am by Captain Scarlet.)
(November 6, 2010 at 8:37 am)Godschild Wrote: Other religious faiths have no satan, with them you only have to over come self, in the christian faith one must trust in God to over come the temptations of a being that has great powers than mankind. Satan knows each of our weaknesses and preys on them. He does not make us sin,that is our choice (freewill). Just as it is our choice to rely on God to over come the temptations put before us. Now please do not misunderstand me, Satan is often used as a scape goat for our on personal failures, when the blame falls squarely on our shoulders for not trusting God to help us, the sin is ours not satan's. As Jesus says satan has already had his judgement and found guilty before God.Don't understand your rejoinder on satan, but your response seems to indicate you will only believe what you want to anyaway. On faith. You can make up whatever explanation fits the evidence you want to see, your own level of conviction, the biblical quote mining you seem to think is important. Religious faith is faith is faith is faith and any distinction between it and blind faith is casuistry. The fact is when you want to argue faith is better than proof, you do; largely becuase there is not a jot of evidence for any of your claims (or for that matter any supernatural claims), and conveniently side step the faith issue on ANY other topic. You don't put your faith in engineers, you beleive they have precisely built and tested their work and have the evidence of other cars successfully crossing the bridge; therefore you rely on empricism NOT faith. If you trust in god so much and the next life is so much better than this one, when you are ill why bother with medical science and the proven methods for treating illness? Why not trust in god, you seem to think its better?
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
well EV when ever you want to come to an agreement that it's far more unlikely for an atheist to fully understand faith in God, than a theist and thus commonly confuse http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith with their own colloquial use of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blind+faith I'll stop bringing it up. Faith isn't about proof, it's in confidently trusting that the gaps that experience has are proven to be just as consistent as the experience. It's not being in denial of anything, nor self-justification or rationalization.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari  RE: Can an Atheist argue someone out of faith?
November 7, 2010 at 6:36 am
(This post was last modified: November 7, 2010 at 6:36 am by ib.me.ub.)
 RE: Can an Atheist argue someone out of faith?
November 7, 2010 at 10:11 am
(This post was last modified: November 7, 2010 at 10:34 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(November 7, 2010 at 6:29 am)tackattack Wrote: well EV when ever you want to come to an agreement that it's far more unlikely for an atheist to fully understand faith in God, than a theist and thus commonly confuse http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith with their own colloquial use of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blind+faith I'll stop bringing it up. Faith isn't about proof, it's in confidently trusting that the gaps that experience has are proven to be just as consistent as the experience. It's not being in denial of anything, nor self-justification or rationalization.We agree that faith isn't about proof then. But then, science isn't about proof either. Maths and (other) tautology are about proof. Science is about evidence. And faith doesn't even have evidence. Without evidence faith can never be validly evident to anyone, it's just delusive magical and nonsensical thinking. If faith-based thinking were to be evidentially supported it would no longer be faith-based thinking: It would then be evidence-based thinking. Since faith lacks evidence that's what makes it blind. Faith therefore=blind trust. Trust without evidence, belief without evidence=faith. The colloquial term "blind faith" is handy because it expresses how faith actually is. But then on the other hand it is but a tautology. It's a tautology like a lot of colloquialisms are. 
I like this quote from http://bornatheist.com/1.html
The atheist has nothing to prove. As an atheist, I have no belief in god--not in the Jewish god, not in the Christian god, not in the Muslim god and not in the Hindu gods. When comparing myself to a religionist, I like to picture each of us holding an old mayonnaise jar. Perhaps when you were a child you poked a few holes in the lid of a mayonnaise jar and collected insects for observation. But in this instance, instead of putting insects in the jar, picture it full of religious beliefs. The religionist's jar contains all of the beliefs of his religion. For example, a Catholic's jar would include heaven and hell, a bearded man in the sky and his human son, virgin birth, walking on water, people rising from the dead, saints, miracles and the Pope as the infallible spokesperson for god. My jar is empty. Often religionists feel atheists should prove there is no god. Perhaps because they have been in power for so long, they think they can set the terms of the debate. But atheists have no belief in god. My jar is empty. I have nothing to prove. All of the shouting in the world will not change this fact. It is the religionist who has a jar full of beliefs. And the religionist lacks facts to support his beliefs. So he labels them faith. Religion requires faith because it has no facts. (November 7, 2010 at 10:11 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Without objective evidence faith can never be validly evident to everyone. Subjective evidence can be indicative of subjective belief based in reality. You're presupposing faith has no evidence. That it's reasoned without experiential evidence and therefore a delusion. From your perspective it seems perfectly valid, because you've had no experiential data to factor into the equation. However, from my perspective, I experience something then try to reason why and how I came to experience it. I don't limit evidence to only the material, nor do I care about it's objectivity. I'm not trying to prove it to anyone. I'm merely trying to validate what's true to me. I believe in the existence of God based on a trust that experiences I can't explain and can't measure lead to the inclination that God exists and is working and has been revealed in my life. Luckily I know lots of other people who have had the same experiences and reached the same conclusions independently, lending even more credence to my own subjective, indicative evidence; thus overcoming the threshold for reality for me.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari 
Considering how pervasive and ingrained is christian cosmology and doctrine in the culture you and most of the people who reached the same conclusion share, hardly is it possible that you reached the conclusion independently. I somehow expected more from people then "nor do I care about it's objectivity"
Of course nothing is independent. We're all influenced by our environment throughout the years. I was indoctrinated in the Church and it did influence my early development. Because there was no understanding or substance or experience though I walked away from those beliefs. I did come back to the Church though because of experience, and then grew in understanding, then sought confirmation.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
