Evidence Verses Faith

[Daystar]

Daystar, I mostly agree with your 'take' on this.

You said:

'Faith is the expectation of things though there is no convincing evidence beheld, but that doesn't mean that there is not good reason to believe it unless you are wrong yourself.'

I would add that to have faith you do need to have a starting point, or some 'evidence' that does convince you to some extent, otherwise you would then have 'blind' faith. (I agree that my 'evidence' may not be someone else's evidence). Because I want there to be a loving God as this could very well mean an eternal purpose for us humans, seems a very good reason for me to believe in Him, but I am honest enough with myself and know that I need more than just this to belive in Him. I need 'evidence'. I believe I have sufficient 'evidence' for me to maintain a fairly strong belief (it does waver somewhat from day to day).

I understand. For me wanting there to be a God wouldn't be a starting point, for me not wanting one was a starting point. As an atheist whos intent was to debunk the Bible. But the Bible was my evidence and the more I learn about it the more I am convinced. It proves itself to me.

If I may ask . . . how does your faith waver from day to day, because you are presented with contrary evidence or because it is all too much for you to understand or accept?

[CoxRox]

Daystar, it is very interesting that you started off an atheist. I have been 'exposed' to religious influences all my life hence why I want there to be a God. My faith falters a lot mainly due to the problem of evil (there's been a particularly distressing story in the news the last few weeks regarding Baby P, who was tortured and killed by those who were meant to love and protect him). This sort of thing always makes me wonder how God could look on and not act. It is very difficult to comprehend, well actually we cannot comprehend this. Then of course there is the lack of supernatural evidence ie miracles, the Holy Spirit manifestations or rather the Spirit witnessing to one's spirit the certainty of God (it's meant to apparently, but not happened to me). If God is in His Heaven, then He doesn't like interreacting that much with His Creation, or so it seems. That's me. By the way, I too come from a JW background. I didn't become one but I studied with them when I was a teenager. I couldn't live the perfect life...........

[Edwardo Piet]

Sounds like intuition to me. It was based on past experiences of past evidence. Not faith.
Besides IF A person of faith makes up some idea that ISN'T supernatural but there is NO evidence of it and ends up being write. Could just be a complete fluke. There wasn't evidence but then once it was proved then you realize of course there WAS evidence before. It just hadn't been proved yet.
The thing about faith is its holding beliefs that you have no evidence of and standing by them despite the fact that your 'faith' never works. All the times it apparently 'works' aren't related to the faith at all. They're related to evidence and science. Its just the religious person likes to think its part of faith when it isn't.
For example on 'God TV' they always go on and on about two things: the the existence and truth of God. And good morals.
But they act like its connected and one thing! The existence of the supernatural is an entirely different issue to morality. Whether God exists or not that's got nothing to do with if you're a good person.
Dogmatically having fundamentalist faith in God can cause big problems and immorality though. Whether is a God or not.
And of course I don't think there is. Almost certainly.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I am a retired homocide detective. Not rich or educated by any means, but I love to learn and talk about the Bible. More so with atheists because they don't have as much religious influence. Actually they have it but it is sort of second hand. Their limited understanding comes from the pagan / Xian myths.

I have good reason to lack "faith" in the UK legal system (and my understanding is the US one is broadly similar) ... partly because I have been a juror twice (and Jeremy Clarkson was right when he wrote about the jury's being scarier than the criminals) and my experience of the law from "the other side" has been rather negative and I finally realise that the law is about anything but truth, it's simply about winning.

I want to talk about the importance of faith and evidence. One of the last cases I worked on was that of a man who was shot in his own apartment. The gun was dropped beside his body. I walked into the place and saw only that much and knew that he had been shot by a woman most likely; possibly a child, elderly person or imigrant but most likely a young woman. The rookies couldn't understand how I could have thought that and were amazed when two days later a young woman turned herself in for shooting the man.

How did I know? Faith or evidence? I had faith in my experiences on the job and thus all the evidence I needed. When a woman shoots a man out of passion she will most often drop the gun as if to separate herself from what she realizes she has just done. She doesn't think to hide the weapon and she doesn't care about the gun anymore.

Inexperienced killers having been backed into some corner might do the same but since this was a young man in his own apartment it was most likely a woman. I could have been wrong but I wasn't

That isn't faith though, it's intuition (if you like) based on (presumably) a great deal of experience, it's no different in principle that me making an intelligent guess about what might be wrong with a computer system based on minimal evidence (to many computer novices what I do apparently can seem like magic, I would imagine that to be true of science and scientists too, indeed anyone with expertise in a given field.

Another case I worked on years ago a man was witnessed in a park standing over a man shot to death holding the murder weapon in his hand. I didn't think he had done it even though most would have taken the scene as evidence of his guilt. It turned out he didn't do it.

Faith and evidence can both be wrong. Faulty.

And again that is not hard evidence although I would agree it would certainly have made him a strong suspect. Legal evidence requirements (at least in the UK) are not as strong as those required for science.

I have faith in the Bible because it proves itself to me. I have gotten to know it well and it never fails me. Its evidence speaks to me. Not so with you. Primarily because you believe in the myth of Christendom and observe its bloody history.

Good for you but it ain't science.

The soul, for example. I could write a big post on what the soul actually means from the Bible and you wouldn't be at all interested other than to say that it doesn't fit with what most Xians teach. That is because they teach a pagan influenced version of the soul.

I'm sure you could ... despite the lack of evidence for a soul and the contra-indicative evidence that in fact the soul is not the seat of whatever it's supposed to be ('spose you're gonna have to clarify what you mean by soul here, I'm going on standard Rat Catcher claims).

What does it matter to an atheist? Well - for one thing you would be dismissing the Bible through someone elses biased interpretation without investigating what the Bible itself says, which by the way, you shouldn't do with my interpretation either, but also because when a Xian says to you that your soul is going to be tormented in hell forever it would be nice, I would think, to point out to a Xian that that isn't true.

An awful lot of atheists have read the bible, cover to cover ... I admit I haven't but I have one (2 actually and that's not counting the one my wife has, I have 2 Koran's as well) so can look up what I want and it is on my list of things to do.

It is important to know what you are dealing with if you are going to deal with it.

I agree on that one, but I don't think it necessarily invalidates referred opinions.

Kyu

[Daystar]

CoxRox, I don't know if you have read my post on the Hebrew Ra (Evil) or even if I posted it here, but what you have to realize is that when God created mankind he did so intending that we would live forever in peace and without sickness. He only had one rule and that was that we recognize his right as creator to guide and protect us. The knowledge of good. Adam and Eve chose the knowledge of good and evil which was a judgement against God's right. It was, in effect, a rejection of only good as God intended. We wanted to do it our way. All of the evil you see is a result of not only that event told in the Bible but a continuation of it as well.

I think of it as adult children going off on their own in a bad direction and there isn't much the parents can do about it. God can't wave a magic wand and make it all disappear and he can't include himself as a part of that evil even as a solution. It can't work that way.

He gave us his word and in that way we have the opportunity to seperate ourselves from evil as much as possible and to have faith in the knowledge that God's intention will be fulfilled. The meek shall inherit the earth and live forever upon it.

[CoxRox]

Daystar, I will reply briefly regarding your last reply as I am conscious that I am on an Atheist forum and it may not be appropriate for us two 'believers' to be discussing our understandings of things pertaining to the Bible etc. I used to believe this - it is what the JWs believe and teach, however I am persuaded to believe that we had to know evil as well as good, or even that we would have always chosen to 'know' evil. I will PM you with the rest of what I want to say. Anyone else interested in this, I am happy to PM them as well. I don't want to offend anyone here.....

[Daystar]

Sounds like intuition to me. It was based on past experiences of past evidence. Not faith.

If by intuition you mean knowledge without conscious reasoning I don't think that that would apply. What I meant by faith is that I had faith in my knowledge through past experiences and reasoned that that was the most probabal outcome.

Besides IF A person of faith makes up some idea that ISN'T supernatural but there is NO evidence of it and ends up being write. Could just be a complete fluke. There wasn't evidence but then once it was proved then you realize of course there WAS evidence before. It just hadn't been proved yet.

Could have been a fluke, could have been right or wrong. It was a probability. When I study the Bible I have faith in that it will always prove to be right because it always has in the past. Do I have evidence that it will in any particular occurance? Not until it turns out to be right in that particular occurance but the faith comes from that it always has in the past.

The thing about faith is its holding beliefs that you have no evidence of and standing by them despite the fact that your 'faith' never works. All the times it apparently 'works' aren't related to the faith at all. They're related to evidence and science. Its just the religious person likes to think its part of faith when it isn't.

Religious people tend to put faith in things that have nothing to do with God or the Bible. They have have faith that God will help them get through some life threatening crisis or even help them win a football game and God has nothing to do with that. That isn't faith, that is ignorance.

For example on 'God TV' they always go on and on about two things: the the existence and truth of God. And good morals.
But they act like its connected and one thing! The existence of the supernatural is an entirely different issue to morality. Whether God exists or not that's got nothing to do with if you're a good person.

That is just ignorance. I agree with you there. I would advise not to watch God TV.

[CoxRox]

Daystar, I whole heartedly agree with your last post and yes, God TV is bad and does not represent 'true' Christianity.

[Daystar]

I have good reason to lack "faith" in the UK legal system (and my understanding is the US one is broadly similar) ... partly because I have been a juror twice (and Jeremy Clarkson was right when he wrote about the jury's being scarier than the criminals) and my experience of the law from "the other side" has been rather negative and I finally realise that the law is about anything but truth, it's simply about winning.

That is human nature. That is a big part of what religious (or human) 'thinking' is all about. People want to cut corners and from a perspective of wanting to win: "I'm a good guy, I'm on the right side." sort of attitude justifies the means. You can't expect to see that diminish in law enforcement, sports, politics or religion but often that is a sort of unrealistic expectation.

That isn't faith though, it's intuition (if you like) based on (presumably) a great deal of experience, it's no different in principle that me making an intelligent guess about what might be wrong with a computer system based on minimal evidence (to many computer novices what I do apparently can seem like magic, I would imagine that to be true of science and scientists too, indeed anyone with expertise in a given field.

Yeah, that is my point, though. Experience in Bible study which inspires faith. Not blind faith in something I know nothing of. I don't really like the term intuition because it implies - at least to me - a superstitious prediction of the future with no conscious reasoning.

And again that is not hard evidence although I would agree it would certainly have made him a strong suspect. Legal evidence requirements (at least in the UK) are not as strong as those required for science.

No. It wasn't hard evidence and I knew that, but there is that importance of faith or trust. Faith has become a generic term for those who believe in God and Trust his word through the Bible with the implication that there is no reasoning behind it. When that is applied to me on a personal level by atheists and I disagree with it I come off as being arrogant; I point out that there has been a great deal more conscious thought and reasoning on my part than they themselves have given. That is why in my upcoming Observations On Atheism the political, social and emotional aspects of what I see as Atheism are much more important to them than God or the Bible.

Good for you but it ain't science.

Science is often used in a similar generic term without the acknowledgement of the potential abuse being there the same as it is with any human endeavor. Much the same as we addressed with the legal system above. I am very well aware that there is a gross example of that in religion but see that most Atheists have a really difficult time acknowledging that possibility in 'Science!'

I'm sure you could ... despite the lack of evidence for a soul and the contra-indicative evidence that in fact the soul is not the seat of whatever it's supposed to be ('spose you're gonna have to clarify what you mean by soul here, I'm going on standard Rat Catcher claims).

You just proved my point. The Bible says the soul is the mortal life of any breathing human or animal. The blood. That is what the Bible says and pagan influenced Xianity says it is something else.

You can say that science has no evidence for the pagan Xian soul but science has no problem at all with what God's word the Bible says about it. Ignorant of what it says you judge the God you don't believe in on those who misrepresent him and are irritated at a more accurate correction in the guise of 'science' and 'reason' and all while assuming that I have no reasoning ability because I know the Bible and believe in God.

You see what I am saying?

An awful lot of atheists have read the bible, cover to cover ... I admit I haven't but I have one (2 actually and that's not counting the one my wife has, I have 2 Koran's as well) so can look up what I want and it is on my list of things to do.

It is an admiral thing for an atheist to read the Bible and I encourage it, but I don't think that an Atheist or a Believer for that matter has to read the Bible in order to form an opinion one way or the other on God. Some people on both sides choose to believe or not believe without being informed in accurate knowledge. That is their choice and - you know? I respect that. It is a personal responsibility much like anything else. I make the distinction between that and those who criticize in ignorance, and those that make an uninformed statement without criticism. Or in the case of believers who represent God in ignorance as well. The point is that one is free of course to believe (or not believe) as they will without knowledge but to criticize or represent requires a more active responsibility. Accurate knowledge and study.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sounds like intuition to me. It was based on past experiences of past evidence. Not faith.

If by intuition you mean knowledge without conscious reasoning I don't think that that would apply. What I meant by faith is that I had faith in my knowledge through past experiences and reasoned that that was the most probabal outcome.

Yeah, but I thought you meant it was past experiences that you weren't currently conscious of/couldn't remember at the time. If you could remember exactly what experiences you were basing your judgment on then that is indeed flat out logic.
If you however were basing your judgment on past experiences, but you had no memory of what those past experiences were, so it was at least partially unconscious or whatever - then isn't that intuition.
If intuition isn't based on past experience at all, not even unconscious or preconscious experiences...what the hell IS it based on?
I get my philosophers mixed up sometimes - but wasn't it Hume who said that we get all our imagination from parts of our experience? E.G the idea of an angel comes from the experience of a man or woman and wings - combined.
So surely even intuition must come from past experience. Isn't that what this event was? Or was it just a lucky guess? Or was it flat out logic?
If its flat out logic why call it 'faith'. Is making a cup of tea 'faith'? If you would then SURELY this is simply a matter of semantics?

Besides IF A person of faith makes up some idea that ISN'T supernatural but there is NO evidence of it and ends up being write. Could just be a complete fluke. There wasn't evidence but then once it was proved then you realize of course there WAS evidence before. It just hadn't been proved yet.

Could have been a fluke, could have been right or wrong. It was a probability. When I study the Bible I have faith in that it will always prove to be right because it always has in the past. Do I have evidence that it will in any particular occurance? Not until it turns out to be right in that particular occurance but the faith comes from that it always has in the past.

Yeah but you can make anything fit the pattern.
If you play poker and God doesn't let you win all the time you can simply say that God doesn't approve of gambling.
But there are expert poker players who do in fact believe in God and when they win they thank God. And when they lose they think they went wrong or its part of God's plan for their fortune.

The thing about faith is its holding beliefs that you have no evidence of and standing by them despite the fact that your 'faith' never works. All the times it apparently 'works' aren't related to the faith at all. They're related to evidence and science. Its just the religious person likes to think its part of faith when it isn't.

Religious people tend to put faith in things that have nothing to do with God or the Bible. They have have faith that God will help them get through some life threatening crisis or even help them win a football game and God has nothing to do with that. That isn't faith, that is ignorance.

But your INTERPRETATION of the bible is the same sort of ignorance. You are ignorant to think that your interpretation is correct because there are so MANY interpretations. And so many 'EXPERT' interpretations.
The most consistent interpretation is the entirely literal one. And when you interpret the bible literally not only is most of it an utter load of nonsense - but a lot of it is HIGHLY immoral. Grotesquely immoral in fact if you consider a lot of the old testament.
So bible interpretation is the same kind of ignorant bullshit that you criticise. And in fact the stuff you were giving examples of is just like what I said about the poker player. He's stupid because he thinks it has relevance with 'God'. But its also a load of total bullshit to make it fit the pattern so you can excuse things when things go wrong or simply say 'God' doesn't apply to certain things because he doesn't approve of them. When you can't know that. Especially when you consider that there's no evidence that he even exists!
So if you're not believing stupid things like some religious gamblers do - that God is going to let them win - you are however making things fit the pattern through your interpretations.
Yeah its got nothing to do with the bible, but what the hell has your personal interpretation of the bible got to do with the bible.
Once more: As I said, there are many interpretations of the bible and many so called 'EXPERT' ones. Why on earth do you value your own so? Because you want to? Because it suits you? Because it fits your pattern? because you don't realize you are doing it or you think that God is guiding your soul that there is no evidence of the existence of? Just like God?

For example on 'God TV' they always go on and on about two things: the the existence and truth of God. And good morals.
But they act like its connected and one thing! The existence of the supernatural is an entirely different issue to morality. Whether God exists or not that's got nothing to do with if you're a good person.

That is just ignorance. I agree with you there. I would advise not to watch God TV.
[/quote]
I'm glad we agree here. Except that I like to watch God TV when I'm really bored and for entertainment.
And besides considering there are a lot of fundamentalists in the world and they are the real threat why only learn about the more 'reasonable' ones.
Besides I think even the so called 'reasonable' believers like yourself are still delusional. I'm not going to pretend people of faith are all 'more reasonable' like you.
Its important for me to know what a lot of religious people believe and indeed actually watch on TV seriously. Because it has an effect on society.
But most of all; I actually don't really have any personal experience with religious people myself, OFF-LINE. Its interesting to get an idea of the sort of shit that a lot of religous people watch. And how fundamentalists think rather than just the basics and how they are delusional.
ASWELL as of course talking to and knowing about more 'reasonable' believers like yourself. Who are sadly in the minority or so I've heard.
After all a lot of more 'reasonable believers' - at least of the past - are/were in fact closet atheists perhaps.
But most of all I watch God TV for entertainment and I am still frankly baffled that people can ever actually believe that bullshit. And I still to this day find that fact interesting. Especially since I have had no real (off-line) personal experiences with the religious. As I have said above.
Over and out. I feel like ending with a perhaps entirely irrelevant quote from George Carlin because its one of my favourite quotes and it occurred to me for some reason, its totally off-point but oh well, I like it:
'Its called the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe in it'. - George Carlin.