(October 9, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: Faith back in the day meant to place your trust in something or someone and clearly if you want to accept Jesus or the Church fathers at their word you still have to place your faith in them as credible representatives of the one supreme God. It didn't mean "belief in something without evidence if you're some kind of an idiot" which is the moden day understanding of the word.

But that is precisely what faith means - believing in something for which there is no evidence.

And, great video - thanks.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:29 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: False. You read it with rose-colored glasses. Most likely, you were having troubles in your life at the time, and false biblical words persuaded you in your time of weakness.

You weren't there. Most certainly you are wrong. For many years, I tried to rationalize materialism. It fell apart every time I tried to account for mental properties, semiotic relationships, and basic human dignity.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:38 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 7:29 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: False. You read it with rose-colored glasses. Most likely, you were having troubles in your life at the time, and false biblical words persuaded you in your time of weakness.

You weren't there. Most certainly you are wrong. For many years, I tried to rationalize materialism. It fell apart every time I tried to account for mental properties, semiotic relationships, and basic human dignity.

So your faith is based on your failure of imagination? Your intellectual limits?

(October 9, 2013 at 7:38 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: For many years, I tried to rationalize materialism.

That seems more like a personal problem rather than one associated with atheism. Then again, I would not expect one such as you to know the difference.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:39 pm)Chas Wrote: So your faith is based on your failure of imagination? Your intellectual limits?

Not any more than your own. I find that positing the existence of transcendent principles produces a more consistent philosophy that explains reality better than the alternates.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I find that positing the existence of transcendent principles produces a more consistent philosophy that explains reality better than the alternates.

One horrible alternative to reality is religion.

Non-reality cannot explain reality. Paradox.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:15 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 3:01 pm)Zazzy Wrote: What is it that you think atheists are missing in their lives that religion could give them?

Intellectual consistency.

Because all the sects of Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and every other religion have that. Right. Get back to me when you religious folk quit slaughtering each other over your wildly varying theological claims. I'll just keep doing experiments in the lab with no intellectual consistency.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 2:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Naked assertion<=pull crap out of their ass<=desired outcome

Yours works like this:
Demand evidence, don't listen, piss and moan that your not convinced, insult Christians.

More like:

Demand Evidence...........waiting...........still waiting........

Nobody has to believe claims which are based on faith. The fact that there are an increasing number of atheists in (say) most of western and Northern Europe, with a trend being demonstrable throughout the west per se, surely highlights the failures of the religious messages in trying to convert and indoctrinate people and nothing else.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 7:39 pm)Chas Wrote: So your faith is based on your failure of imagination? Your intellectual limits?

Not any more than your own. I find that positing the existence of transcendent principles produces a more consistent philosophy that explains reality better than the alternates.

But it doesn't provide any evidence. Explanation without evidence is hypothesis.

When you have evidence of the existence of a god, then I will be able to take your hypothesis seriously.