Atheism Poll

[Baruch]

Fleecing flocks for felonious financing?

The only way to make a dishonest buck.  And since 1971, all bucks are dishonest ... just ask Nixon.

[Baruch]

This is a huge problem, Drew.  How you explain faith.  I like to think I have faith in nothing--nor believe in nothing.  Let me explain.  When that pilot lands that plane in fog or darkness, I don't need either faith or belief--I trust he will land the craft safely because of his training and experience.  His instruments have been tested many times, and functioned in the situation he was in many times and found adequate.  My trust comes from, not faith, but thinking he has done it before successfully and that he is going to do it again.  Actually evidence shows that he will do so successfully.

For you it seems faith and trust are the same thing.  This is what the bible says:  "Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  If I were to have any evidence of things not seen, I would then accept that evidence and act upon it accordingly.  But evidence means something substantial, not something hinted at or suggested. 

Do you see why we keep butting heads abut this?

Faith in English, comes from Fides in Latin, which means trust.  It is atheists who have corrupted the dictionary in this case.  I agree about the pilot ... there is evidence that he will be successful in less than optimum landing conditions.  Blind faith ... is a corruption of language.  The proper term would be blind idiocy ... and the use of "blind faith" is an ad hominem.

[Drew_2017]

This is a huge problem, Drew.  How you explain faith.  I like to think I have faith in nothing--nor believe in nothing.  Let me explain.  When that pilot lands that plane in fog or darkness, I don't need either faith or belief--I trust he will land the craft safely because of his training and experience.  His instruments have been tested many times, and functioned in the situation he was in many times and found adequate.  My trust comes from, not faith, but thinking he has done it before successfully and that he is going to do it again.  Actually evidence shows that he will do so successfully.

For you it seems faith and trust are the same thing.  This is what the bible says:  "Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  If I were to have any evidence of things not seen, I would then accept that evidence and act upon it accordingly.  But evidence means something substantial, not something hinted at or suggested. 

Do you see why we keep butting heads abut this?

Sure if you hold to faith as defined by this passage. However if you take the letter in context, it was an exhortation to keep the faith in Christian belief even in the light of persecution at the time. I was using the word as defined in English.

I can give you an examples where this is true. Being honest to others and yourself is often very difficult and not always rewarding on the spot. The belief is in the long run it will be and so its the best policy even though the situation at the time may not seem like it. The belief we should treat others as we want to be treated, do we do that because it magically means we'll always be treated as we want to be? No because we have 'faith' doing the right thing if nothing else is it's own reward and will eventually come back to us.

[davoarid]

As I get closer and closer to Christianity (from atheism), one thing that is helping is the realization that "faith" is like "love," in that they can be both expressions of feeling and expressions of will. I'll let CS Lewis explain the "love" part:

Do not waste time bothering whether you love your neighbor; act as if you did. As soon as we do this we find one of the great secrets: when you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him. If you injure someone you dislike, you will find yourself disliking him more. If you do him a good turn, you will find yourself disliking him less.

Whenever we do good to another self, just because it is another self, like us, made by God and desiring its own happiness as we desire ours, we shall have learned to love it a little more.

EG: I can love my wife the same way I love bacon: she makes me feel all special inside. But one day that feeling will likely fade...but after it does, I can still make the decision--the act of will--to continue loving her.

I think faith has the same duality of meaning. It can mean belief in things without evidence. Often this is based on a feeling (eg, I'm a Royals fan, so I believe they can still win the World Series, despite the overwhelming odds against it). But it can also be a decision (i.e., an act of will): I can choose to set my powers of rationality aside and instead replace it with a faith in God and Christ.

[Mike Cl]

Sure if you hold to faith as defined by this passage. However if you take the letter in context, it was an exhortation to keep the faith in Christian belief even in the light of persecution at the time. I was using the word as defined in English.

How is the word defined in English?

But the passage from Hebrews was written in English; and used in that format in a couple of churches I have attended in the past.  And I don't think the 'persecution' was nearly as bad as it's made out to be.  In any case, it is telling people to take something without evidence.  Of course christian leaders would say this--more money and power for them.

[Mike Cl]

I can give you an examples where this is true. Being honest to others and yourself is often very difficult and not always rewarding on the spot. The belief is in the long run it will be and so its the best policy even though the situation at the time may not seem like it. The belief we should treat others as we want to be treated, do we do that because it magically means we'll always be treated as we want to be? No because we have 'faith' doing the right thing if nothing else is it's own reward and will eventually come back to us.

I have learned from trial and error, that being honest is the best for you, especially in the long run.  I have also learned that being brutally honest is bad in both the short and long term.  I have basically modeled my life on the golden rule.  And, of course, there is nothing magic about it.  It has nothing to do with 'faith'.  I have learned from my past experiences and from watching those around me.  And yes, doing the 'right' thing is it's own reward, for it makes me feel good about myself and it usually works out best for me to act that way.  I really like the Wicca way of saying it--first, do no harm; combined with the golden rule it provides a great guideline to live by.  I've used this example before, but here it is again.  I don't have faith or a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow (ya, ya, I know it does not 'rise' but we are rotating); I think it will from past experience and the scientific reasoning of why that is.  Don't need faith nor belief.  If you say something is, then show me.  And I mean you, my neighbors, my teachers, my or any, god(s).  Show me.

[Mike Cl]

As I get closer and closer to Christianity (from atheism), one thing that is helping is the realization that "faith" is like "love," in that they can be both expressions of feeling and expressions of will. I'll let CS Lewis explain the "love" part:
EG: I can love my wife the same way I love bacon: she makes me feel all special inside. But one day that feeling will likely fade...but after it does, I can still make the decision--the act of will--to continue loving her.

I think faith has the same duality of meaning. It can mean belief in things without evidence. Often this is based on a feeling (eg, I'm a Royals fan, so I believe they can still win the World Series, despite the overwhelming odds against it). But it can also be a decision (i.e., an act of will): I can choose to set my powers of rationality aside and instead replace it with a faith in God and Christ.

My love of bacon has been with me all my life.  I'm sure it will remain to the end.  My love for my wife will remain as well.  Both of those things do not need faith.  I know from experience how both of those 'feelings' will fare.  I may stop loving my wife if the situation is such that she begins mistreating me; I don't need faith to tell me that or to help me get through rough patches.  I know from experience what life can bring and why.  I don't use faith or belief to help me make decisions.  I use facts and evidence.  Why would I want to set my rationality aside?  Then I am making decisions on whims and wishes.  Your god and christ are fictions.  They are not real.  You can sincerely believe and have the strongest faith that they are real.  Sincerity does not make anything real; does not make anything right. 

[Baruch]

How is the word defined in English?

But the passage from Hebrews was written in English; and used in that format in a couple of churches I have attended in the past.  And I don't think the 'persecution' was nearly as bad as it's made out to be.  In any case, it is telling people to take something without evidence.  Of course christian leaders would say this--more money and power for them.

The original was written in Judeo-Greek, by hellenized Jews, and early on.  Melkizedek had his own cult, and the Jesus followers are attaching themselves to it.  The persecution that the sermon (it isn't a letter and it isn't by Paul) speaks of, was circa135 CE or before maybe as far back as the 30s CE.  It would have been persecution by fellow Jews, not Greco-Romans most likely.  English won't cut it, taking it out of cultural and historical context won't cut it.  But in that case, it has little to say to us today, though it is crucial to early Johannine theology.

[Simon Moon]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

So, you are convinced based on bad, fallacious arguments. At least you have a lot of company with every other theist.
I read your entire Dropbox document with your 'evidence', and lets say, I am not impressed.

Unless of course, I was impressed with constant use of "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal incredulity". I mean, you did use them in every one of your arguments.

I could take time and break them down point by point, but I not motivated enough. At least not today.

Not to mention, that arguments are not evidence. How would you go about testing to see if if your conjectures in your Dopbox document are actually true?

Let me just say, that I am sure glad that there are 10's of thousands real scientists working on the problems you have trouble understanding, so we might get real answers instead of your, "well I can't figure out how; the universe came into existence, life came into existence, sentience came into existence, via natural explanations, so, therefore god".

.
Seriously people, please read the link. Tell me if I missed anything compelling.

[Drew_2017]

So, you are convinced based on bad, fallacious arguments. At least you have a lot of company with every other theist.
I read your entire Dropbox document with your 'evidence', and lets say, I am not impressed.

Unless of course, I was impressed with constant use of "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal incredulity". I mean, you did use them in every one of your arguments.

I could take time and break them down point by point, but I not motivated enough. At least not today.

Not to mention, that arguments are not evidence. How would you go about testing to see if if your conjectures in your Dopbox document are actually true?

Let me just say, that I am sure glad that there are 10's of thousands real scientists working on the problems you have trouble understanding, so we might get real answers instead of your, "well I can't figure out how; the universe came into existence, life came into existence, sentience came into existence, via natural explanations, so, therefore god".

.
Seriously people, please read the link. Tell me if I missed anything compelling.

The corollary is I detest the very notion of a Creator therefore natural causes. I have no working theory of how natural forces came into existence, or why they have the properties to cause stars, planets, solar systems to exist or planets that cause life or why the universe has laws of physics that allowed sentient life to exist. If scientists do drill down and find naturalistic explanations for the big ticket items then I'll believe what you currently accept on faith...

[Hydra009]

Atheism not tenable unless it's also paired with omniscience?

[Mike Cl]

The corollary is I detest the very notion of a Creator therefore natural causes.

I do not detest god(s), creator(s) (which suggests that I accept they exist, but I detest them)--I simply do not see 'any' evidence they exist in any form or nonform.  But 'natural causes' at least presents me with nature.  It is an undeniable piece of evidence--nature exists.  I do not know all the why's and where-for's, but it exists nonetheless.   You have presented no evidence of god(s) or creator.  Nobody has.  And until then..............................

[Baruch]

So, you are convinced based on bad, fallacious arguments. At least you have a lot of company with every other theist.
I read your entire Dropbox document with your 'evidence', and lets say, I am not impressed.

Unless of course, I was impressed with constant use of "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal incredulity". I mean, you did use them in every one of your arguments.

I could take time and break them down point by point, but I not motivated enough. At least not today.

Not to mention, that arguments are not evidence. How would you go about testing to see if if your conjectures in your Dopbox document are actually true?

Let me just say, that I am sure glad that there are 10's of thousands real scientists working on the problems you have trouble understanding, so we might get real answers instead of your, "well I can't figure out how; the universe came into existence, life came into existence, sentience came into existence, via natural explanations, so, therefore god".

.
Seriously people, please read the link. Tell me if I missed anything compelling.

#6 in Dropbox is clearly fantasy.  My main complaint against Drew.  "Programmers have created artificial universes" ... even more outrageous than AI claims.  Programmers cause different sets of 1s and 0s to form.  That isn't a universe for me.  I tried to engage him on "cellular automata" but ... nada.

[Baruch]

The corollary is I detest the very notion of a Creator therefore natural causes. I have no working theory of how natural forces came into existence, or why they have the properties to cause stars, planets, solar systems to exist or planets that cause life or why the universe has laws of physics that allowed sentient life to exist. If scientists do drill down and find naturalistic explanations for the big ticket items then I'll believe what you currently accept on faith...

Without prejudices, we have no thought to chew on.  Axioms aren't omniscience.  It is a prejudice that the straightest path between two points is a straight line.  That doesn't work on the Earth (a sphere for example).  But Euclid had to start somewhere, and held up non-Euclidean geometry for millennia (because of people uncritically accepting his authority).  Similarly with math models for physical systems.  A smart model maker knows this, and understands the limitations of modeling things.  You can't sail a ship-in-a-bottle.  Euclid only works in plane geometry, and in physics, as we now know with GR ... there are no perfect planes, just warps.

So no, it is rationalizations all the way down.  That is the nature of the beast.  But some rationalizations work better than others, just don't mistake them for a truth, or you will flunk non-Euclidean geometry.

[Baruch]

I do not detest god(s), creator(s) (which suggests that I accept they exist, but I detest them)--I simply do not see 'any' evidence they exist in any form or nonform.  But 'natural causes' at least presents me with nature.  It is an undeniable piece of evidence--nature exists.  I do not know all the why's and where-for's, but it exists nonetheless.   You have presented no evidence of god(s) or creator.  Nobody has.  And until then..............................

Samuel Johnson refuting Bishop Berkeley ... (kicks stone with foot) .. "I refute him thus".

Theists since Thomas Aquinas, have repeatedly misapplied Aristotle's 4 categories of "cause".  Not everything has an efficient or a final cause ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes