Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 21, 2019, 8:13 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Truthworthy claims that...
#21
RE: Truthworthy claims that...
As a theist I agree with TW's original assessment when qualified by the average Christian operating on blind faith...

I was there in my life, I didn't believe , I had faith and adopted what my parents believed. I suffered those "emotional consequences" then seperated myself from those beliefs and tried other beliefs. I then lost trust in the whole system and was an agnostic atheist by the definitions here. Then after some revelation in my life and some analying of those and other notions I was able to rationalize God. I looked for a belief that suited what I saw. My partents and I still differ on symantics but we enjoy sharing those points with each other. I still have faith on top of my belief now, but without understanding why you believe something you must seperate yourself from blind faith.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#22
RE: Truthworthy claims that...
Exactly what I'm getting at. In order to challenge your outlook you need to adopt the point of view which you don't agree with. I am occasionally a theist during those moments where I'm trully questioning my belief itself (which I don't have) but in order to ironically I adopt a believer's frame of reference. If my mind were to freeze by some change of the wind's direction, etc I would maintain a theist outlook. I just don't remain in that state of mind because I know it's akin to identification, which for all intensive purposes could be accomplished with any object/thing/idea.
(February 10, 2010 at 11:24 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: @ TW

Can you not hold a belief that entirely lacks evidence, that is entirely faith-based... and yet still attempt to search for evidence (without actually finding/believing and holding any) - I don't see why not?
You could continue to attempt to search but you wouldn't actually be challenging the supposed "evidence" in the truest sense.
Where "evidence" is faith or belief interchangably so scrutinising means attacking that head on.
Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
Reply
#23
RE: Truthworthy claims that...
I cannot "adopt the position of a believer" in order to test my 'non-belief' more thoroughly TW. I am unconvinced, belief is not a matter of choice.

And furthermore - I don't need to test my non-belief because it's a blank slate. Until I know of reason to believe I can't adopt theism or deism. So there's nothing to test yet, it's theism that needs testing because theism holds a belief in a deity (as does deism, it's just deism is an impersonal one(s)). Atheism doesn't hold any belief at all. What's to test? Am I supposed to go out searching for celestial teapots? Because that's no less futile.

Finally.... there is a difference between adopting a viewpoint and holding a belief. One can take up Devil's Advocate, that is playing from another view - but it is not believing in the opposite side, just playing from their side of the argument(s).

EvF
Reply
#24
RE: Truthworthy claims that...
your belief in and of itself isn't a matter of choice. It's a matter of faith. You believe the chair you sitting in will hold you and your acceptance of that belief is founded on the faith that it hasn't failed yet. However, just 2 days ago my faith was shaken when a weld broke and my chair fell apart. The faith required is miniscule because it has a plethera of physical evidence to support it, but it could just as easily melt when you sit on it. The fact you chose to have faith in that evidence is a choice.

I agree adopting a viewpoint isn't believing, but it's choosing faith to allow the chance to accept other evidence, which could lead to belief..
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#25
RE: Truthworthy claims that...
I'll accept any evidence of course.

I wouldn't call it faith unless it was in some way an effort. When someone "has faith" in God, I would have thought that's a bit different to having faith that the sun will come up? There's clear evidence that the sun will come up, to anyone sane really I would think? Why would faith be needed? We cannot know for sure that it won't fail to come up one day.... but I don't have to strain at all, or put any effort in, I don't have to "have faith" that the sun will come up, if you know what I mean. Surely faith is shakable in some way or it wouldn't be required... unless is absolute, 100% confident faith but then that's even further away from evidence-based.

How can "faith" be chosen? Please explain that. For me it's not a matter of having faith in anything it's a matter of being convinced or not. And some things I'm more convinced of than others.

EvF
Reply
#26
RE: Truthworthy claims that...
all faith requires the minimum effort of focusing the will. It's scalable. It requires little faith for you to believe your chair will hold you until it breaks. Next time you sit in a chair you will find yourself having less belief that it will hold you and hesitate or sit gingerly. Consciously you will still sit and then you write off the previous experience as a fluke, and continue to maintain the minimalist faith in the chair and believe it will hold you. Subconsciously that one time isn't erased and still maintains as a nagging doubt in your head./ That is what faith is for, to help silence those nagging doubts.

My faith in God is very similar to the sun coming up tomorrow, It's proven to me so very little faith is necessary. Sometimes good arguements on here to shake the faith, but they have to surmount all of the belief I have before I rely solely on faith. Then I could easily switch beliefs to something else. Faith in God appears to require tons of faith to you simply because you don't believe in it, so to come to that conclusion you'd have to rationalize away all your proofs against it then "have faith" to switch.

In case I didn't clarify the last question. Faith is chosen because your will is focusing on wanting something consciouly, dredging it from the endless possibilities of the subconscious into "reality". That is a choice.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#27
RE: Truthworthy claims that...
(February 11, 2010 at 11:26 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: How can "faith" be chosen? Please explain that. For me it's not a matter of having faith in anything it's a matter of being convinced or not. And some things I'm more convinced of than others.

EvF

I say that I assume the view of a theist in the same way you say that you look at the argument from their perspective. I used belief there to make a comparison, but it's a very poor one, I shouldn't have made it.
My point is that God's existence is a sort of hypothesis. While the truth statement in the material implication (of God (g) caused [)] everything else (e)) can't be falsefied since e = true at all times; the challenge of god is to look for another cause which requires relinquishing belief in god in order to make that consideration.

(February 11, 2010 at 5:35 pm)tackattack Wrote: My faith in God is very similar to the sun coming up tomorrow, It's proven to me so very little faith is necessary. Sometimes good arguements on here to shake the faith, but they have to surmount all of the belief I have before I rely solely on faith. Then I could easily switch beliefs to something else. Faith in God appears to require tons of faith to you simply because you don't believe in it, so to come to that conclusion you'd have to rationalize away all your proofs against it then "have faith" to switch.

In case I didn't clarify the last question. Faith is chosen because your will is focusing on wanting something consciouly, dredging it from the endless possibilities of the subconscious into "reality". That is a choice.
I suppose a theist has past experience to relate back to events which reinforce gods existence. I believe the sun will cross the sky again tomorrow, you might believe that god will listen to, and answer, your next important prayer. One is physically concrete, the other is ambigously subjective.
Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true? Mudhammam 268 13087 February 3, 2017 at 6:44 pm
Last Post: WisdomOfTheTrees
  Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence RoadRunner79 184 17137 November 13, 2015 at 12:17 pm
Last Post: Gae Bolga
  'Prove claims' question. Edwardo Piet 38 11457 December 17, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)