Faith, what is it?

[tackattack]

tackattack said "My personal definition of faith is a little different though. It is the conviction of the truth that, while God can not be proven/unproven absolutely, he exists and is testifiable to; from an individual perspective."

I disagree with you here in stating in your own words that the existence of god itself is a "truth" and that he "exist". Faith itself is not a fact and your individual perspective is just that. Subjective evidence or in this case declarations of certitude do not qualify as objective facts.

Maybe I should redefine. Of course Faith is subjective. Experience is objective though. I define the distinction as http://www.asdatoz.com/Documents/Website...%20ltr.pdf
. I try to define Faith as the belief in something (God in this case) , based on a personal objective perspective, despite logic to the contrary. While my personal perspective does hold a lot of my thoughts and ideas it also holds a lot of observable, describable and repeatable incidences. I guess because of my belief in God. atheists automatically deem my personal perspective subjective. But there is a degree to objectivity and based off of what I've observed in the spirit, it's nowhere close to the landslide I think most atheists wish it were (not that I can speak for any).

[theVOID]

tackattack said "My personal definition of faith is a little different though. It is the conviction of the truth that, while God can not be proven/unproven absolutely, he exists and is testifiable to; from an individual perspective."

I disagree with you here in stating in your own words that the existence of god itself is a "truth" and that he "exist". Faith itself is not a fact and your individual perspective is just that. Subjective evidence or in this case declarations of certitude do not qualify as objective facts.

Experience is objective though.

It absolutely is not objective, experience is one of the single most subjective things i can think of.

I guess because of my belief in God. atheists automatically deem my personal perspective subjective.

No, we deem everyones experience as subjective, including our own - we hold the verification of truth claims to a far higher standard than the religious.

But there is a degree to objectivity and based off of what I've observed in the spirit, it's nowhere close to the landslide I think most atheists wish it were (not that I can speak for any).

Commonality is not objectivity, especially when none of you can say you came to the conclusion on your own but you rather were convinced of pre-existing ideas, case and point there has never been an isolated community who never knew of the Christian myth that still came to the same spiritual 'truth' because of the spirit.

Also, it's a common anecdote that the same experience of the spirit that the religious feel in church is the rush that someone else gets at a rock concert or on the waves etc, in fact it is quite well understood and is neurophysiologically defined simply as exhilaration. I am unaware of any extra neurophysiological effects enticed by what people call 'the spirit' compared to any of the other forms of exhilaration.

[tackattack]

tackattack said "My personal definition of faith is a little different though. It is the conviction of the truth that, while God can not be proven/unproven absolutely, he exists and is testifiable to; from an individual perspective."

I disagree with you here in stating in your own words that the existence of god itself is a "truth" and that he "exist". Faith itself is not a fact and your individual perspective is just that. Subjective evidence or in this case declarations of certitude do not qualify as objective facts.

Experience is objective though.

It absolutely is not objective, experience is one of the single most subjective things i can think of.

I experienced my blood getting drawn and got the conclusive results that nothing was wrong. If scientific observation can be observed is it not experienced?

I guess because of my belief in God. atheists automatically deem my personal perspective subjective.

No, we deem everyones experience as subjective, including our own - we hold the verification of truth claims to a far higher standard than the religious.

Generally I agree. What are your standards for truth specifically though? So what you're saying is you could not of your own vision believe what you see to be objective?

But there is a degree to objectivity and based off of what I've observed in the spirit, it's nowhere close to the landslide I think most atheists wish it were (not that I can speak for any).

Commonality is not objectivity, especially when none of you can say you came to the conclusion on your own but you rather were convinced of pre-existing ideas, case and point there has never been an isolated community who never knew of the Christian myth that still came to the same spiritual 'truth' because of the spirit.

Yet many different cultures have some form of God or Gods. Are you combating theism or Christianity with this statement?

Also, it's a common anecdote that the same experience of the spirit that the religious feel in church is the rush that someone else gets at a rock concert or on the waves etc, in fact it is quite well understood and is neurophysiologically defined simply as exhilaration. I am unaware of any extra neurophysiological effects enticed by what people call 'the spirit' compared to any of the other forms of exhilaration.

The only medical definition I can find for exhilaration is that exhilaration is the emotion elicited by humor.
(ref) You're going to have to be more specific on definition and forms of exhilaration.

[solarwave]

So, IOW, you have "belief" and not "evidence."

Don't feel bad. None of the rest of you have any evidence, either.

No repeatable laboratory evidence no. If that is what you require?

Somethings are too important to be limited to that extent and must be understood with all our experiences not much repeatable ones.

Explain to me how someone a few thousand years ago was ment to know God before science? I believe the answer is that God is a person and so is known personally not by data.

[Purple Rabbit]

So, IOW, you have "belief" and not "evidence."

Don't feel bad. None of the rest of you have any evidence, either.

No repeatable laboratory evidence no. If that is what you require?

Quite frankly, yes I would require real evidence on big claims. As real as we can get.

Somethings are too important to be limited to that extent and must be understood with all our experiences not much repeatable ones.

Of course not, somethings are too important to leave people guessing for it. Mysticism is a way to veil things, not to reveil things. There is no reason why a god you allegedly can have a personal relation with, should make a puzzle out of it, if these truths are that important.

Explain to me how someone a few thousand years ago was ment to know God before science? I believe the answer is that God is a person and so is known personally not by data.

Supposing that there was a god, in that time the best possible evidence were miracles and apparitions and they are all over the bible. Those people could see all of that with their own eyes! Sadly for us they are all written accounts and have to compete with many other magical stuff from other religions. Only in this time we are told to believe on basis of even less evidence than those miracles in ancient times. Isn't it strange that we should believe on basis of less evidence than in ancient times? A possible explanation of this is of course that ancient people were more perceptible to make belief than modern man nowadays (at least some of us).

[Minimalist]

Somethings are too important to be limited to that extent

First, I don't agree that your superstitions are all that important and Second, if they were (for the sake of argument) THAT important then they should not be limited to the imagined rantings of believers.

[solarwave]

Quite frankly, yes I would require real evidence on big claims. As real as we can get.

The point I'm trying to make is that you should believe what seems reasonable to you and not hold out for absolute evidence for it.

Somethings are too important to be limited to that extent and must be understood with all our experiences not much repeatable ones.

Of course not, somethings are too important to leave people guessing for it. Mysticism is a way to veil things, not to reveil things. There is no reason why a god you allegedly can have a personal relation with, should make a puzzle out of it, if these truths are that important.

So you know for a fact that if God were real He would have no reason to be as veiled as He is?

Explain to me how someone a few thousand years ago was ment to know God before science? I believe the answer is that God is a person and so is known personally not by data.

Supposing that there was a god, in that time the best possible evidence were miracles and apparitions and they are all over the bible. Those people could see all of that with their own eyes! Sadly for us they are all written accounts and have to compete with many other magical stuff from other religions. Only in this time we are told to believe on basis of even less evidence than those miracles in ancient times. Isn't it strange that we should believe on basis of less evidence than in ancient times? A possible explanation of this is of course that ancient people were more perceptible to make belief than modern man nowadays (at least some of us).

So you would say then for those people then miracles were a reasonable reason to believe in God? I would also like to point out that the Old Testament is over hundreds of years, so there arn't all that many miracles for individual people. I think back then and now the reason people follow God is because they have had some kind of revelation of Him or for Christianity they know God.

I disagree that there are no miracles nowadays, in fact there are many healings nowadays, and I don't mean by 'amazing big time healers' but from the prayers of normal people who have faith in God. Its happened many a time to people in my church and by heals I mean instant ones (few seconds).

Somethings are too important to be limited to that extent

First, I don't agree that your superstitions are all that important and Second, if they were (for the sake of argument) THAT important then they should not be limited to the imagined rantings of believers.

What should not be limited to believers rants?

[Purple Rabbit]

Quite frankly, yes I would require real evidence on big claims. As real as we can get.

The point I'm trying to make is that you should believe what seems reasonable to you and not hold out for absolute evidence for it.

There is no such thing as absolute evidence and I do not claim that. The closest thing to it is deductive evidence and that applies to mathematics. Empirical evidence is (to some extent) inductive evidence, not deductive. Biblical account is the worst possible kind of 'evidence' around. It is anecdotal and often the author is unknown. All effort of 'bible study' and 'theology' however is targeted at this content without any scepticism about sources, context, and historical references of alleged biblical facts.

I think we should believe in what works. Science works, we can cure diseases with it, fly to the moon with it, help amputees with it, understand the world we live in with it, accurately model and predict a broad range of phenomena with it. What does religion have to offer us? It cannot cure diseases, it cannot heal amputees, prayer has shown no effect at all, it has no predictive power (though claims of that sort have been ed) and its explaining capacities, once maybe impressive and effective to delude tribal illiterates, are an insult to intellect.

Somethings are too important to be limited to that extent and must be understood with all our experiences not much repeatable ones.

Of course not, somethings are too important to leave people guessing for it. Mysticism is a way to veil things, not to reveil things. There is no reason why a god you allegedly can have a personal relation with, should make a puzzle out of it, if these truths are that important.

So you know for a fact that if God were real He would have no reason to be as veiled as He is?

You are hypothesizing about a god. Your question therefore is pointless. But I will answer your hypothetical question nonetheless if you answer the following: Do you know for a fact that if a Purple Rabbit in the 26th dimension accidentally burped the universe into existence He would want you to worship him?

Explain to me how someone a few thousand years ago was ment to know God before science? I believe the answer is that God is a person and so is known personally not by data.

Supposing that there was a god, in that time the best possible evidence were miracles and apparitions and they are all over the bible. Those people could see all of that with their own eyes! Sadly for us they are all written accounts and have to compete with many other magical stuff from other religions. Only in this time we are told to believe on basis of even less evidence than those miracles in ancient times. Isn't it strange that we should believe on basis of less evidence than in ancient times? A possible explanation of this is of course that ancient people were more perceptible to make belief than modern man nowadays (at least some of us).

So you would say then for those people then miracles were a reasonable reason to believe in God? I would also like to point out that the Old Testament is over hundreds of years, so there arn't all that many miracles for individual people. I think back then and now the reason people follow God is because they have had some kind of revelation of Him or for Christianity they know God.

Good point about he difference between now and ancient times. I do indeed think that without the scientific knowledge available today things would seem very different. I think that religion in those days was a way to cope with the world. There was much more reason to follow some religion in ancient days than now. Today however the results of science are available to everyone who is willing to investigate and everybody is profiting of it (just look around you in a nearby hospital). I indeed think this means each one of us has an obligation, the obligation to question the claims of religious dogma. Science is open to critique and actually thrives on it. Creationists are actually contributing to fortifying the theory of evolution by delivering their critique. It is a pitty however their critique has so little quality to it.

I disagree that there are no miracles nowadays, in fact there are many healings nowadays, and I don't mean by 'amazing big time healers' but from the prayers of normal people who have faith in God. Its happened many a time to people in my church and by heals I mean instant ones (few seconds).

It does not happen under conditions controlled by scientific experiment. Also we have numerous anecdotal accounts of kidnapping by aliens. Do you believe those too? You should question it and choose an explanation that is most reasonable as you yourself suggested in the opening of this post.

[solarwave]

Quite frankly, yes I would require real evidence on big claims. As real as we can get.

The point I'm trying to make is that you should believe what seems reasonable to you and not hold out for absolute evidence for it.

There is no such thing as absolute evidence and I do not claim that. The closest thing to it is deductive evidence and that applies to mathematics. Empirical evidence is (to some extent) inductive evidence, not deductive. Biblical account is the worst possible kind of 'evidence' around. It is anecdotal and often the author is unknown. All effort of 'bible study' and 'theology' however is targeted at this content without any scepticism about sources, context, and historical references of alleged biblical facts.

I think we should believe in what works. Science works, we can cure diseases with it, fly to the moon with it, help amputees with it, understand the world we live in with it, accurately model and predict a broad range of phenomena with it. What does religion have to offer us? It cannot cure diseases, it cannot heal amputees, prayer has shown no effect at all, it has no predictive power (though claims of that sort have been ed) and its explaining capacities, once maybe impressive and effective to delude tribal illiterates, are an insult to intellect.

But I am not asking you to believe because the Bible tells you to or because theology does.

You are trying to put religion into the domain of science though. The main point isn't to cure diseases or to predict the future, that is what science is for. Religion (Christianity at least) is for having a relationship with God, morals, purpose and meaning, salvation. Christianity has shown to change lives. And I think to say prayer has been shown to have no effect misunderstand prayer. Under what, laboratory conditions? Pray isn't a magic that can be used when ever to prove a point, it is talking to a person. God doesn't want to people to believe He exists, He wants people to follow Him and have a relationship with Him.

Explain to me how someone a few thousand years ago was ment to know God before science? I believe the answer is that God is a person and so is known personally not by data.

Supposing that there was a god, in that time the best possible evidence were miracles and apparitions and they are all over the bible. Those people could see all of that with their own eyes! Sadly for us they are all written accounts and have to compete with many other magical stuff from other religions. Only in this time we are told to believe on basis of even less evidence than those miracles in ancient times. Isn't it strange that we should believe on basis of less evidence than in ancient times? A possible explanation of this is of course that ancient people were more perceptible to make belief than modern man nowadays (at least some of us).

So you would say then for those people then miracles were a reasonable reason to believe in God? I would also like to point out that the Old Testament is over hundreds of years, so there arn't all that many miracles for individual people. I think back then and now the reason people follow God is because they have had some kind of revelation of Him or for Christianity they know God.

Good point about he difference between now and ancient times. I do indeed think that without the scientific knowledge available today things would seem very different. I think that religion in those days was a way to cope with the world. There was much more reason to follow some religion in ancient days than now. Today however the results of science are available to everyone who is willing to investigate and everybody is profiting of it (just look around you in a nearby hospital). I indeed think this means each one of us has an obligation, the obligation to question the claims of religious dogma. Science is open to critique and actually thrives on it. Creationists are actually contributing to fortifying the theory of evolution by delivering their critique. It is a pitty however their critique has so little quality to it.[/quote]

I have no problem with science or with questioning religious dogma. I am all for stopping creationism and for understanding Christianity in a way which makes sense with reality, through science and philosophy.

I disagree that there are no miracles nowadays, in fact there are many healings nowadays, and I don't mean by 'amazing big time healers' but from the prayers of normal people who have faith in God. Its happened many a time to people in my church and by heals I mean instant ones (few seconds).

It does not happen under conditions controlled by scientific experiment. Also we have numerous anecdotal accounts of kidnapping by aliens. Do you believe those too? You should question it and choose an explanation that is most reasonable as you yourself suggested in the opening of this post.
[/quote]

I do many things outside of controlled conditions does that mean most of my life isn't real? They may be what is needed for people who are outside the situation to believe a healing actually happened but I'm not really asking you to believe because of that. The difference is that I have seen people healed and know some people who have been healed. I don't simply accept anything that appears to be a healing, but some cases to seem to be genuine healings. For more than a year now I have been questioning many of my beliefs and this has changed some of those beliefs and how I see the world, so I would like to think I am taking my own advice.

[Purple Rabbit]

But I am not asking you to believe because the Bible tells you to or because theology does.

You are trying to put religion into the domain of science though.

That's not quite my ambition, really. I'm trying to make sense out of religion. I am asking what religion has to offer. On face value, what have you got?

The main point isn't to cure diseases or to predict the future, that is what science is for. Religion (Christianity at least) is for having a relationship with God, morals, purpose and meaning, salvation. Christianity has shown to change lives. And I think to say prayer has been shown to have no effect misunderstand prayer. Under what, laboratory conditions?

Isn't there purpose and meaning in the curing of diseases, in trying to understand and discover the world and ourselves, in tracing our roots, in defining human relations without reference to blind obedience to a supernatural being? You tell me. Humanists have moral and meaningful lifes too. Why should you worship a god you cannot authenticate? One that you have to invent yourself before he is 'on the phone' with you. Salvation is a thoroughly perverted concept, it means salvation from inherited sin, alleged sin of your ancestors. Think about it. How deranged must a fairy tale be before you open your eyes for it?

The experiment was a double blind research, not in a laboratory but in a hospital.

Pray isn't a magic that can be used when ever to prove a point, it is talking to a person.

With what goal? Therapeutic, to lend an ear? To answer questions? Why delude yourself with prayer? The answers you get are the answers you give yourself by means of introspection. Real people can do all that.

God doesn't want to people to believe He exists

Then atheists are his friends. But is there any reason involved or is this just how religion accounts for his appaling absence when your kid or partner gets cancer?

, He wants people to follow Him and have a relationship with Him.

I have a relationship with my wife, kids, family and friends. You can have a surrogate relationship with an imaginary friend, sure, but it's nothing like the real thing. Don't believe me, compare it for yourself.

I have no problem with science or with questioning religious dogma. I am all for stopping creationism and for understanding Christianity in a way which makes sense with reality, through science and philosophy.

Then tell me, isn't it odd that there is not a shred of evidence in science of god?

It does not happen under conditions controlled by scientific experiment.

Ask yourself why that is so. Why should god hide for us? What is the point? Is he playing hide and seek? Or is there a much more straightforward explanation? Question it. I mean, you are living in a time after Darwin, Newton, Kant and Einstein, you owe it to yourself.

I do many things outside of controlled conditions does that mean most of my life isn't real?

Did I suggest that? Don't think so.

For more than a year now I have been questioning many of my beliefs and this has changed some of those beliefs and how I see the world, so I would like to think I am taking my own advice.

Questioning is a moral obligation you have to your intellect. And I do not mean that it it is restricted to religion. Everybody should do it, always. Keep on doing it.