FAITH (blind faith)

[Jenyar]

Faith means more than "belief in God", otherwise it would have been called "belief in God" and not faith. Faith in God can be perfectly rational, even while belief in God may seem irrational.

On the subject of sin... if I used a word from a foreign language and culture that meant "morally wrong, contrary to the principles and conditions of love, selfish", would you say that word doesn't apply to your culture? That you can't do *that* wrong, even though the shoe fits?

 

[thefountainhed]

TheFountainHead,
Why? Assuming theistic religions here – can anyone effectively demonstrate that a god exists? To date no one has succeeded and that means that only blind faith can sustain such beliefs.

What is this infatuation with the existence of god? Religious faith does not merely evolve around the existence of a god. Besides, you realize that if in their experience, they claim personal proof for this belief that is only realizable to those who have submitted to this God's goodwill and existence, then this faith is not blind. That they cannot 'prove' it to you is clearly not at issue. I have known religious people who claim to have experienced their god-- spiritual enlightenment. You even knew that not all religions required a belief in a God, and yet you wanted said statement to stand. You really want to talk of christianity and islam. You act as if the members of said religions cannot reason. Faith does not require that you not reason. YOu and I both know that even science requires faith.

 

[Cris]

Jenyar,

Faith means more than "belief in God", otherwise it would have been called "belief in God" and not faith.

The root of all theistic religions is faith that a god exists, all subsequent activities of said religion stems from that single proposition. Eliminate all the surrounding noise and you get “faith means belief in a god”.

Faith in God can be perfectly rational, even while belief in God may seem irrational.

Religious faith (blind faith) is belief without proof. “Faith in a god” and “belief in a god” are interchangeable statements and have identical meanings.

On the subject of sin... if I used a word from a foreign language and culture that meant "morally wrong, contrary to the principles and conditions of love, selfish", would you say that word doesn't apply to your culture? That you can't do *that* wrong, even though the shoe fits?

But here you introduce a definition of morality. But sin isn’t an issue of morality it is the disobedience of a command from an alleged god – you then assume that such commands define a morality. To an atheist they do not.

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhead,

What is this infatuation with the existence of god?

Umm, it is an atheist thing, ya know – absence of belief in gods an all that, it’s what atheists do.

Religious faith does not merely evolve around the existence of a god.

See my answer to Jenyar – yes it does – it is the root of theism.

Besides, you realize that if in their experience, they claim personal proof for this belief that is only realizable to those who have submitted to this God's goodwill and existence, then this faith is not blind.

Claims of proofs are not proofs. Knowledge isn’t based on mere claims – you need to do more than that. The inability to recognize that you can be fooled by your imagination is the mark of the fool.

That they cannot 'prove' it to you is clearly not at issue.

But that they cannot tell the difference between a self delusion and a real proof is an issue.

I have known religious people who claim to have experienced their god-- spiritual enlightenment.

So have I – their claims don’t indicate any truth though.

You even knew that not all religions required a belief in a God, and yet you wanted said statement to stand.

Not sure what you mean – I did qualify my quote by stating an assumption of theistic religions.

You really want to talk of christianity and islam.

Not really, why?

You act as if the members of said religions cannot reason.

If they use faith then that is evidence that they are not using reason.

Faith does not require that you not reason.

Yes it does. Faith and reason are mutually exclusive opposites.

YOu and I both know that even science requires faith.

I know no such thing. Nowhere in science is there a conviction of a truth without evidence.

 

[786]

Hey Cris, how's it going.

I guess this is going to the point if "God exists or not."

You don't believe in "supernatural" right? Since God is also a Supernatural being.

But you claimed that you cannot prove God. That is false and true at the same time. The thing is that you cannot make God appear. So that leaves out the part of actually "proving God". This I am refering to as seeing God. But you can prove God by intellect. Not everything can be reasoned, because some things are impossible to prove for example "miracles". Raising the dead and stuff like that. But there are many things that can be proven, which is revealed by God. Those things revealed are to guide the people, and to show the people that God does exist.

Peace be unto you

 

[Cris]

786,

You don't believe in "supernatural" right? Since God is also a Supernatural being.

That is the popular fantasy.

But you claimed that you cannot prove God.

I don’t remember ever making a statement like that.

That is false and true at the same time.

An appropriate impossibility for the religion forum.

The thing is that you cannot make God appear.

Just like all the other things that do not exist.

So that leaves out the part of actually "proving God".

Good luck.

This I am refering to as seeing God.

How can you see something that doesn’t exist?

But you can prove God by intellect.

No you can’t.

Not everything can be reasoned, because some things are impossible to prove for example "miracles".

Just like before, things that do not exist cannot be proven to exist.

Raising the dead and stuff like that.

Which has never been done.

But there are many things that can be proven, which is revealed by God.

No there aren’t. Or do you have a credible example?

Those things revealed are to guide the people, and to show the people that God does exist.

Things that exist only in the imagination and which offer no proof for gods.

 

[Cyperium]

Jenyar,

It is impossible for an atheist to commit a sin.

Sin is an imaginary concept created by theists to represent disobedience of the commands allegedly issued by their hypothetical gods. Sin only has meaning to theists.

Since atheists hold no such fantasies then the concept cannot be applied to them.

For example some children believe that Christmas gifts come from Santa Claus, while others believe otherwise. In this case SC is only relevant to those who believe. In the same way sin is only relevant to theists who believe in sin.

Whether or not the atheist calls it a sin is irrelevant, he still committed a sin by doing what represents a sin.

Sin is not just a imaginary concept, if so then everything else is too. Love then is also a imaginary concept. We know sin exists by the way it hurts others and by the sinful nature of the sin itself.

BTW, I don't agree with your comparence with Santa and sin. But Santa does have relevance even to those that doesn't believe in him - and maybe you want to know a secret, most children know that Santa is just their father in disguise, but accepts him as Santa because it's more fun (though they can be temporarily fascinated if someone else than your father is dressed up as Santa, cause then Santa comes in and WOAH, there is father ALSO!!!).

 

[Cris]

Cyperium,

Whether or not the atheist calls it a sin is irrelevant, he still committed a sin by doing what represents a sin.

No, you are confusing sins with morality, they are separate and different.

Sin is not just a imaginary concept, if so then everything else is too. Love then is also a imaginary concept.

Nonsense. A sin is the action of disobeying a command from a hypothetical god. Gods are imaginary concepts and hence anything that is directly related and derived from such concepts automatically becomes equally imaginary concepts, i.e. not real.

In contrast love is something that is real and not connected with imaginary beings.

We know sin exists by the way it hurts others and by the sinful nature of the sin itself.

Again you are confusing sins with morality.

BTW, I don't agree with your comparence with Santa and sin.

Somehow I’m not surprised.

But Santa does have relevance even to those that doesn't believe in him - and maybe you want to know a secret, most children know that Santa is just their father in disguise, but accepts him as Santa because it's more fun (though they can be temporarily fascinated if someone else than your father is dressed up as Santa, cause then Santa comes in and WOAH, there is father ALSO!!!).

You are missing the point. Playing a game and believing something is real are quite different paradigms. The analogy was between a mythical and magical imaginary character (that delivers gifts to children) and the concept of believing that it is possible to disobey another mythical and magical imaginary character (a god). Both concepts are fantasies.

 

[Cyperium]

Cyperium,

No, you are confusing sins with morality, they are separate and different.

First of all you mean immorality, but still I'm not confusing them, what's immoral is one thing and what is a sin is one thing. But mostly what is immoral is also a sin.

Nonsense. A sin is the action of disobeying a command from a hypothetical god. Gods are imaginary concepts and hence anything that is directly related and derived from such concepts automatically becomes equally imaginary concepts, i.e. not real.

In contrast love is something that is real and not connected with imaginary beings.

Even if you consider Him a imaginary being, love is much connected with Him.

Hate is real.
Selfishness is real.
Lying is real.
Greed is real.
Bitterness is real.
Fury and wrath are real.

That is the soil of sin.

It makes sin real.

Romans 7:13
Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

You are missing the point. Playing a game and believing something is real are quite different paradigms. The analogy was between a mythical and magical imaginary character (that delivers gifts to children) and the concept of believing that it is possible to disobey another mythical and magical imaginary character (a god). Both concepts are fantasies.

To you.

You seem to forget that you are talking to a person that believe that God isn't just a fantasy.

What do you think would happen to you if you believed in God? Do you think that the same has happened to us that believe?


I hardly ever use the word "magic". Cause it isn't that often it fits.

 

[Cris]

Cyperium,

First of all you mean immorality, but still I'm not confusing them, what's immoral is one thing and what is a sin is one thing. But mostly what is immoral is also a sin.

This depends on how you define morality. If it based on rules allegedly handed down by a hypothetical deity then that would be quite different to a code set based on human needs and logical reasoning.

Even if you consider Him a imaginary being, love is much connected with Him.

He is imaginary – that is fact, unless you can prove he exists. The connection is only of your own imagination. Love works perfectly well entirely independent of religious concepts.

Hate is real.
Selfishness is real.
Lying is real.
Greed is real.
Bitterness is real.
Fury and wrath are real.

That is the soil of sin.

No, just simply some personality characteristics displayed by many humans.

It makes sin real.

The only way sin could be real is if a god were to exist and stated that it didn’t want these things to occur. And you can’t show that any gods exist and hence can’t demonstrate that sins are real.

Romans 7:13
Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Only possibly relevant if the commanding god were to exist which you can’t prove.

You seem to forget that you are talking to a person that believe that God isn't just a fantasy.

That you might not consider it a fantasy doesn’t change the fact that the god concept is a fantasy. The only way you can show gods are not fantasies is to prove the existence of one of them. Until then your belief in a god is a fantasy.

What do you think would happen to you if you believed in God? Do you think that the same has happened to us that believe?

Sorry, I have no idea what you are asking here.

I hardly ever use the word "magic". Cause it isn't that often it fits.

Magic – things allegedly done by gods – miracles, creating universes from nothing, curing incurable diseases, causing plagues on command, etc, etc.

Webster: Magic - an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source.

It is an essential part of theistic religions.

 

[Cyperium]

Cyperium,

This depends on how you define morality. If it based on rules allegedly handed down by a hypothetical deity then that would be quite different to a code set based on human needs and logical reasoning.

Morality isn't of logical reasoning only. But of course it follows reason. It should do because it is understandable to us as humans, otherwise people would start to make their own rules. By reason in their understanding.

But morality is more than we understand of it. Hence the need for feelings that tell us what is right and what is wrong. It is only later that we can find the words to describe it through reason.

- but of course, I could be wrong. But that's allways a risk one has to take. Otherwise discussion would be pointless.

He is imaginary – that is fact, unless you can prove he exists. The connection is only of your own imagination. Love works perfectly well entirely independent of religious concepts.

God isn't imaginary to me. Cause I believe in Him. He is real to me. It doesn't matter if science hasn't proven Him to exist, I still consider Him real. Science is not in control at what I consider imaginary and what I consider real. No dictionary will be able to define my feelings.

No, just simply some personality characteristics displayed by many humans.

Yes, personality characteristics. How come some people just don't follow morality? What is wrong with morality for them?

Has the concept of morality changed for them?

Why do people continue to do things that are bad for them allthough they know it and fully understand it?

Why do people defend the same things, allthough they know they are wrong?

Because done is done. What I did I did, and I can never change it. If you then come to me and give me a moral lesson of something that has happened, then I become frustrated, because I know I can't change it, thus I don't need the lesson. Or the lesson has to be pointed at the future, not simply showing me what I did wrong, but instead build up a plan for the future.

So what am I babbling about?

Maybe what I'm babbling about is the same thing that is said in Romans. That the flesh and the spirit is in battle with eachother, that I do things that are wrong allthough I want to do things that are good.

And I constantly refuse to be taught good, because I knew that I wanted what was good. Thus is ashamed of my wrongful act, and cannot listen to the lesson. Afraid of giving up.

In order to see the sins we do, we must first recognize them as sin.

Otherwise we can't do anything about them. Maybe we can't either way. But at least we know what to pray for.

The only way sin could be real is if a god were to exist and stated that it didn’t want these things to occur. And you can’t show that any gods exist and hence can’t demonstrate that sins are real.

All we have are words. For words to be understandable they have to be experianced.

Sure you can look in a dictionary and read up on what certain concepts are.

But you can't fully understand it unless you have witnessed it yourself.

Magic – things allegedly done by gods – miracles, creating universes from nothing, curing incurable diseases, causing plagues on command, etc, etc.

Webster: Magic - an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source.

It is an essential part of theistic religions.

Well, the term "magic" isn't that commonly used in religious discussions since we understand that God isn't simply a "wizard", "magic" takes away too much. This isn't because of the word itself, but because movies and comics has spoiled it.

Maybe there is a fight over words. We are responsible for what the words reflect.

 

[water]

mis-t-highs,


Why did you post this topic? What are you hoping to achieve with it?

 

[mis-t-highs]

quite honestly Rosa, just exactly that, people debating and decussing it.
if you had'nt noticed it has led on to two new posts ( Faith is not blind by cyperium)
and (Faith Defined by Q) it is a very important subject.
incidentally, I whole heartedly believe, what was originally posted.

 

[the preacher]

and it's a bloody good thread, misty

 

[thefountainhed]

Thefountainhead,
Umm, it is an atheist thing, ya know – absence of belief in gods an all that, it’s what atheists do.

i do not exhibit such an infatuation nor do the other atheists I know.

See my answer to Jenyar – yes it does – it is the root of theism.

My point was that other religions exist which are not rooted in a belief in gods. Also, what do you consider Hinduism, Budhism, etc or even the so called "animamalistic" religions?

Claims of proofs are not proofs. Knowledge isn’t based on mere claims – you need to do more than that. The inability to recognize that you can be fooled by your imagination is the mark of the fool.

You miss the point: if said proof is only experienced through complete acceptance of the belief system--faith-- and others of like belief hold the same view--that personal experiences validate their claims-- it is at least worth the benefit of a doubt. In such a conext one cannot view things from simply a logical standpoint.

But that they cannot tell the difference between a self delusion and a real proof is an issue.

What is with your constant belittling of their beliefs? I do not believe what they do, and yet see no reason to call them delusional. You cannot disprove what it is that they believe, and therefore, you ought to be more careful in calling their claims delusional. What is a "real" proof?

So have I – their claims don’t indicate any truth though.

You cannot back up this claim.

Not sure what you mean – I did qualify my quote by stating an assumption of theistic religions.

The author in the initial did not, hence my suggestion.

Not really, why?

As evidenced from your other debates and even this, you constantly stem from a viewpoint where religion is simply a belief in a god and as an atheist you must therefore quell said beliefs. Your POV is extremely limited.

If they use faith then that is evidence that they are not using reason.

How so?

Yes it does. Faith and reason are mutually exclusive opposites.

No they are not.

I know no such thing. Nowhere in science is there a conviction of a truth without evidence.

Untrue. To accept that a set of characteristics are symptomatic of a disease, an element, etc without actual physical evidence of said thing requires a faith in the conclusions reached by your reasoning. Theoretical physics is an exercise in the faith of science and math. You may attempt to separate that from a religious person who claims that a God somehow cured their illness when medicine had no cure, or a man who claims his lottery win an act of God, etc etc but the fundamental basis of both claims rest on a faith in the conclusions of science and another on a faith in the conclusions of a religion. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. They are fundamentally the same principle but differ with the placement of value on one usage over the other. A man can reason that the scientifically unexplainable can be spiritually explained; if such a belief is validated by subjective experiences I cannot see how it can be blind. I may doubt their claims, but won't go as far as to say it is blind.

 

[Jenyar]

Can the premise that science is the only source of verifiable truth be verified scientifically?

Hmm?

 

[thefountainhed]

that's tautalogical. perhaps you ought to say: can the premise that science is the only source of verifable truth be verified? And the answer to that is no. The answer to your question however is yes, as truth within the context of science is scientific.

 

[Jenyar]

perhaps you ought to say: can the premise that science is the only source of verifable truth be verified? And the answer to that is no.

Then on what basis is it believed to be so? Not only that, but it has become the only measure of truth. People judge wisdom by it, and find wisdom wanting.

 

[water]

perhaps you ought to say: can the premise that science is the only source of verifable truth be verified? And the answer to that is no.

Then on what basis is it believed to be so? Not only that, but it has become the only measure of truth. People judge wisdom by it, and find wisdom wanting.

Won-dah-ful! How so absolutely brilliantly cellestially delightfully wonderful! I think we need ourselves an expert on Gödel's incompletenes theorems, or we're lost.

 

[Jenyar]

I think we need faith, or we're lost. Gödel will only help make practicing that faith a more "reasonable" activity, although still not quite justified.