(April 5, 2014 at 2:02 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Faith (and thus religion) will always be built upon believing in something that has no evidence. This is why the 'arguments' to support it will never vary. Because there will never BE evidence, the definition of what draws people to faith, will never change.

What I'd like to see change, is theists to stop pretending like there is evidence to support their beliefs. There isn't. It's an exhausting strawman game if you get into a discussion with a theist. When I was a theist, I didn't really try to convince anyone to believe as I do. But, that's the problem with many theists, is that they want to assist people to converting, and thus...they think 'evidence' will help in this venture. But, either they don't know how to define evidence, or they just think non-theists/atheists are stupid. Not sure which is worse. lol

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Your statement isn't well enough defined. It's been my crusade (oops, stigmatised word lol ) since joining here to quash the myth that there could ever be transferable/ independent/ verifiable/ empirical evidence.

I think you're on my side so I'll give you credit

(April 5, 2014 at 7:35 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 5, 2014 at 2:02 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Faith (and thus religion) will always be built upon believing in something that has no evidence. This is why the 'arguments' to support it will never vary. Because there will never BE evidence, the definition of what draws people to faith, will never change.

What I'd like to see change, is theists to stop pretending like there is evidence to support their beliefs. There isn't. It's an exhausting strawman game if you get into a discussion with a theist. When I was a theist, I didn't really try to convince anyone to believe as I do. But, that's the problem with many theists, is that they want to assist people to converting, and thus...they think 'evidence' will help in this venture. But, either they don't know how to define evidence, or they just think non-theists/atheists are stupid. Not sure which is worse. lol

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Your statement isn't well enough defined. It's been my crusade (oops, stigmatised word lol ;)) since joining here to quash the myth that there could ever be transferable/ independent/ verifiable/ empirical evidence.

I think you're on my side so I'll give you credit :great:

Because the death of millions of people is hilarious, and I came here to let everyone know: we have no evidence for why it happened!

Isn't God great? He just loves murder, torture and killing in his name, even though we can't prove he even exists! Aren't Christians a fun bunch?!

(April 5, 2014 at 7:35 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 5, 2014 at 2:02 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Faith (and thus religion) will always be built upon believing in something that has no evidence. This is why the 'arguments' to support it will never vary. Because there will never BE evidence, the definition of what draws people to faith, will never change.

What I'd like to see change, is theists to stop pretending like there is evidence to support their beliefs. There isn't. It's an exhausting strawman game if you get into a discussion with a theist. When I was a theist, I didn't really try to convince anyone to believe as I do. But, that's the problem with many theists, is that they want to assist people to converting, and thus...they think 'evidence' will help in this venture. But, either they don't know how to define evidence, or they just think non-theists/atheists are stupid. Not sure which is worse. lol

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Your statement isn't well enough defined. It's been my crusade (oops, stigmatised word lol ) since joining here to quash the myth that there could ever be transferable/ independent/ verifiable/ empirical evidence.

I think you're on my side so I'll give you credit

I meant that if one is religious, he/she chooses to believe in something unseen, and that has no verifiable proof. (the Bible isn't proof)

It's a choice to believe in something that has no proof, and that is what religion is built on. Faith is not about evidence, if it were, it wouldn't be considered, 'faith.'

Conversely, it takes understanding. It's not something you need to see, like your hands in front of your face.

Proof can also be non verifiable, non transferable, personal. It's still proof, none the less.

(April 6, 2014 at 4:11 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Conversely, it takes understanding. It's not something you need to see, like your hands in front of your face.

Proof can also be non verifiable, non transferable, personal. It's still proof, none the less.

You know, you just keep stacking claims on top of claims, and can't back any of it up.

Every time someone challenges a claim, you either pretend it's not your claim, or just go

Quote:proof
pro͞of/
noun
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation More
LAW
the spoken or written evidence in a trial.
the action or process of establishing the truth of a statement.
"it shifts the onus of proof in convictions from the police to the public"
archaic
a test or trial.
a series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem.

The only evidence or argument you have is "well, it's true to me, and I have proof, I just can't share any of it."

That's not proof. It's a delusion.

Babbling about something you can't prove, and can't come up with a compelling argument for supports nothing but the power of your delusion.

Yea, it seems that religious people need to keep moving the goal posts. Changing the definitions to fit with their worldview. I once did this, because I knew that my faith wasn't based on objective truth. It was based on what I felt truth was. (as I was indoctrinated to believe as a child)

One minute religious claims never change, the next they're always changing

If you only had a feeling that what you believed was truth, then no wonder you think faith is groundless. My faith is rationalised.

Rampant : you seem to be scared to address me directly. Nothing you write following any of my posts is remotely pertinent to me or anything that I've said here on AF. That's called trolling.

(April 6, 2014 at 4:11 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Conversely, it takes understanding. It's not something you need to see, like your hands in front of your face.

Proof can also be non verifiable, non transferable, personal. It's still proof, none the less.

It's certainly proof to the individual who experienced the revelation, saw Jesus, a sign, or whatever.

I don't have a problem with that. The problem I have is thtat they try to use their personal revelations to convince the rest of us that what they experiened is true and that we should take their word for it.

Nope. Not gonna happen.

Of course not. The rationalisation has to be realised by you. A 3rd party just telling you isn't a substitute for you working it out for yourself. "God has no grand children ".

I don't take superstitions as evidence of anything. Especially personal proof of deities.

(April 6, 2014 at 5:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: One minute religious claims never change, the next they're always changing

If you only had a feeling that what you believed was truth, then no wonder you think faith is groundless. My faith is rationalised.

Rampant : you seem to be scared to address me directly. Nothing you write following any of my posts is remotely pertinent to me or anything that I've said here on AF. That's called trolling.

Your definition of "rational" is clearly different than what it actually means thus, changing the goal posts. Faith isn't rational no more than believing that the tooth fairy or big foot actually exist. It isn't rational to believe in hearsay stories that have never been proven to be true. The Bible isn't proof that your god exists. It only seems that way because you have rationalized it as such.

But to those who believe in such things, they will attempt to "rationalize" if only to themselves.

You're proving my point about a strawman game.

---

And you don't know me, and you have no idea what my thoughts about faith were. You are not better than atheists because you choose to believe in a deity.