On Non-belief

[Darkstar]

Again, faith does not mean "I trust completely with no backing". We are not called to blind faith, but informed faith is encouraged because it strengthens.

Might I ask, what is this "backing", exactly? If it is the number of people who agree that Christianity is true, the I will have to point out that there are a lot of Muslims too.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Again, faith does not mean "I trust completely with no backing".

Yes it does. The definition of faith is a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

It is total blind faith. And you know what, whatever floats your boat. I have friends who are religious who completely acknowledge that their religion is on nothing but faith.

I'd like you to acknowledge it as well.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

If there was proof of the specific Christian creator of the universe, faith in that creator should not be necessary to find it (where is it said that God would completely conceal himself from every possible method of observation in order to test everyone's faith, I must have completely missed that part of the Bible). The only reason Christians assert that faith is necessary for proof is because there is no proof to be found, other than the worthless variety which results from confirmation bias.

The 'faith is necessary' idea was invented because it is the only way to possibly justify believing in a being which is in every way indistinguishable from any other character in fiction.

Strawman. You don't know Christianity. You're attacking an imaginary other-thing and calling it by the same name. If Christianity was a person, you'd be sued for slander.

"Faith" is a relationship, the main component being trust. When a child chooses not to touch the stove, the kid has demonstrated faith in his parents. When I am handed an English translation of Aristotle, I can have faith it is a good translation or not. Usually, I begin with trust. If the book seems iffy, then I'll go check the Greek and see if I am wrong or the translator is wrong.

Again, faith does not mean "I trust completely with no backing". We are not called to blind faith, but informed faith is encouraged because it strengthens.

What parts of the bible (if any) do you reject as evidentially false?

[fr0d0]

I see you avoided the question FTR.

I presume you were talking about your god's justice. If so, then no, I didn't avoid the question.

"Forget the dogma... if you do bad stuff do you expect justice not to apply to you?"

[FallentoReason]

I presume you were talking about your god's justice. If so, then no, I didn't avoid the question.

"Forget the dogma... if you do bad stuff do you expect justice not to apply to you?"

No. It most definitely applies to me.

[Godscreated]

Secondly, while it might be true that Christians disagree on the nature of salvation (surprise surprise...) I guess I'm approaching it from what I know, and what I know is that in my every day life, the Christians I know act and talk like it's about knowing and believing in Jesus. I unfortunately had to live through the hardship of losing a friend to suicide, and when I told a leader at youth group that he was a Buddhist, he started sobbing. Pretty evident that even my entire church believes that there's a bunch of propositions that need to be confessed with one's mouth in order to get to the pearly gates.

I lost one of my youth to a car accident when I was a youth leader in my church. I will never forget walking into our kitchen and hearing the news of her death, tears flowed, my heart sank because I loved her as I loved the rest. I believed her not to be saved because of comments made in class, this is one of the reasons it hurt so much. Your youth leader was showing his sense of loss even though he/she did not know your friend, that is a response when one is in a relationship with God, most wouldn't cry but would have a sense of loss, it's all about being a part of God.

[FallentoReason]

Secondly, while it might be true that Christians disagree on the nature of salvation (surprise surprise...) I guess I'm approaching it from what I know, and what I know is that in my every day life, the Christians I know act and talk like it's about knowing and believing in Jesus. I unfortunately had to live through the hardship of losing a friend to suicide, and when I told a leader at youth group that he was a Buddhist, he started sobbing. Pretty evident that even my entire church believes that there's a bunch of propositions that need to be confessed with one's mouth in order to get to the pearly gates.

I lost one of my youth to a car accident when I was a youth leader in my church. I will never forget walking into our kitchen and hearing the news of her death, tears flowed, my heart sank because I loved her as I loved the rest. I believed her not to be saved because of comments made in class, this is one of the reasons it hurt so much. Your youth leader was showing his sense of loss even though he/she did not know your friend, that is a response when one is in a relationship with God, most wouldn't cry but would have a sense of loss, it's all about being a part of God.

Yes, and the reason he was crying is because he believed that my friend wasn't in heaven. It goes to show that there are Christians (e.g. everyone I know in real life) who believe there are necessary things we have to believe about Christianity in order to go to heaven.

[Tex]

Again, faith does not mean "I trust completely with no backing". We are not called to blind faith, but informed faith is encouraged because it strengthens.

Might I ask, what is this "backing", exactly? If it is the number of people who agree that Christianity is true, the I will have to point out that there are a lot of Muslims too.

Nah, argument by popularity is a fallacy. Similarly, I don't ascribe to utilitarianism and would greatly prefer a merit-based political promotion style rather than a vote from the mob.

The "backing" (which technically isn't required and people ignore it for God knows why) is most accurately understood in logical formula, but it is still present even without that. I have a really strange concept of how even a child can potentially know God even if blind and deaf. First, assume people are body and soul. These two work together, and so as the body develops, the soul gets to do its job better. Once the rational ability is able to be accessed, a kid can make the connection of some things being objective, thus creating some sort of god. Usually there is truth to whatever religion is made, such as in the vedas or nature worship or whatever, but there are simultaneously flaws. This is because it's man made. We can't actually get the whole of the situation, but we do get part of it.

To summarize, the more answers receive from our questions on reality itself, the more backing we have for God.

Again, faith does not mean "I trust completely with no backing".

Yes it does. The definition of faith is a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

It is total blind faith. And you know what, whatever floats your boat. I have friends who are religious who completely acknowledge that their religion is on nothing but faith.

I'd like you to acknowledge it as well.

Your friends are wrong. Plus, I've been defining faith as "relationship with God/trust in God" this whole time. Assuming your friends are Christians, the book of James states that the demons believe in God. Belief with respect to salvation obviously is a little more than the recognition of existence.

What parts of the bible (if any) do you reject as evidentially false?

I like to play this game sometimes. The entire bible is infallible. What area would you like to tell me contradicts?

[Esquilax]

I like to play this game sometimes. The entire bible is infallible. What area would you like to tell me contradicts?

What do you mean by infallible? Because it obviously doesn't mean "always correct," in your parlance, because the bible is factually wrong on numerous points. So... you know, help us out, define your terms before we begin shooting these fish you've so helpfully put into a barrel for us.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

What parts of the bible (if any) do you reject as evidentially false?

I like to play this game sometimes. The entire bible is infallible. What area would you like to tell me contradicts?

You are presupposing my own presuppositions.

There's a non-answer somewhere in there, so please remedy it and answer.