Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Demonslayer]

Faith is not about beliefs, but an attitude towards life.

In what way? Because the word faith has many degrees.

I have 'faith' that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I'm 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that my faith will be correct.

I have 'faith' my wife won't cheat on me...but I can't be quite as sure about that, even though I'm very confident that she won't. The world is full of divorced people who also had faith in their spouses after all.

Some people have 'faith' that a centuries dead Jewish carpenter man-god hybrid will one day come zooming back into the atmosphere on a flying horse with a sword sticking out of his mouth to send all the people who didn't worship him to a place of eternal torturous damnation. That kind of faith seems like absurdity to me.

So which of these versions of faith is "an attitude about life" and how so exactly?

 

[Agondonter]

In what way? Because the word faith has many degrees.

I have 'faith' that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I'm 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that my faith will be correct.

I have 'faith' my wife won't cheat on me...but I can't be quite as sure about that, even though I'm very confident that she won't. The world is full of divorced people who also had faith in their spouses after all.

Some people have 'faith' that a centuries dead Jewish carpenter man-god hybrid will one day come zooming back into the atmosphere on a flying horse with a sword sticking out of his mouth to send all the people who didn't worship him to a place of eternal torturous damnation. That kind of faith seems like absurdity to me.

So which of these versions of faith is "an attitude about life" and how so exactly?

Non sequitur. Each of your examples is about a belief.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Faith is not about beliefs, but an attitude towards life.

Okay. Welll. That would constitute yet another definition of "faith" that would only serve to confuse the discussion all the more. I have an idea where you are going and it seems well worth a discussion. It sounds like a positive and endearing take on th eword.

My responses are not directed to a generalized philosophy of "faith" or a discussion about the meaning of "faith"; but an objection to the acusation that i share the same kind of "faith" in "science" or "atheism" that the religiously-inclined has in religion, miracles, magic, deities, soul, spirit and hereafter.

 

[Demonslayer]

Each of your examples is about a belief.

So then better explain to me your assertion that faith is an attitude about life. It's a pretty vague statement, and the way I've used the word belief is the way most people use it.

Can you explain your statement, or are you better at vague once sentence quips?

 

[Willamena]

I am apalled that a concept as simple as the distinction between "strong confidence" based on evidence vs. "belief" based on ... well ... nothing except maybe belief itself ... is as different as night and day. I am out of words and examples to illustrate a very simple, obtuse distinction. I have no words; and for me, that is a rare occurance.

--- EDIT ---

Religious faith is held to be above and beyond evidence. One need not prove Jesus rose from the dead or enlightenment is achieved via rituals and changing thought patterns or dream catchers ward away evil spirits and nightmares or Zoroastar was born of a virgin. The "evidence" of such beliefs is in the belief itself. I, like most atheists, have no such faith. None. Zip, zilch, nadda.

Trust ... faith ... "strong confidence" ... is based on evidence. Sure, when I was a kid, when someone told me a car would start because you turn the ignition, I gave it no further thought. Then I grew up and learned to think critically. I have "faith" in the spinning of the globe and in the starting of my car based on evidence; and on some level of understanding on how things work. I have "faith" that my car will start based on the fact that I have no good reason to believe otherwise.

The car starts because my ignition closes the circuit, the battery supplies power to the starter which turns the stuff inside which starts the process of compression and ignition blah blah blah. On the rare occasioins that my car does NOT start, proper diagnosing can clearly identify the reason behind this and upon effective repairs, voila, the car will start. This strong confidence is based on fact and evidence.

Religious faith is different. Back when I was a believer, I prayed for things to happen. I convinced myself by sheer will that my prayers would be answered. I convinced myself that this was true by sheer willpower. Strangely, I was immune to evidence back then: when my prayers weren't answered, i decided the reason was because of lack of faith or some deity's decision to answer my prayer with a "no" and continued to believe. If my car doesn't start and I have yet to discern the cause of the malfunction, I don't "believe" it will start tomorrow (after all, it's probably just mad at me or God made it not start to protect me from a terrible car wreck today); I have good reason at this point to have strong confidence that it will not start (based on the evidence that it has failed to do so today) until the root cause of this malfunction is discerned and repaired.

The inability of you to see the vast difference between "faith" (i.e. wishfull thinking based on spiritual apprehension or beliief) vs. "faith (i.e. strong confdence based on evidence and knowledge) is due simply to the fact that you don't want to.

Belief is not based on nothing.
Edit: Or "belief itself," which would be a tautology.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Belief is not based on nothing.

I used to believe; now, I can capitulate to that statement to a degree. But you single out that one statement and seem to bypass the wide disparity between beliving in, say, God vs. the belief my car will start in the morning.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Let me reiterate the difference between "strong confidence based on evidence" vs. religious belief:

Religious faith is held to be above and beyond evidence. One need not prove Jesus rose from the dead or enlightenment is achieved via rituals and changing thought patterns or dream catchers ward away evil spirits and nightmares or Zoroastar was born of a virgin. The "evidence" of such beliefs is in the belief itself. I, like most atheists, have no such faith. None. Zip, zilch, nadda.

Trust ... faith ... "strong confidence" ... is based on evidence. Sure, when I was a kid, when someone told me a car would start because you turn the ignition, I gave it no further thought. Then I grew up and learned to think critically. I have "faith" in the spinning of the globe and in the starting of my car based on evidence; and on some level of understanding on how things work. I have "faith" that my car will start based on the fact that I have no good reason to believe otherwise.

The car starts because my ignition closes the circuit, the battery supplies power to the starter which turns the stuff inside which starts the process of compression and ignition blah blah blah. On the rare occasioins that my car does NOT start, proper diagnosing can clearly identify the reason behind this and upon effective repairs, voila, the car will start. This strong confidence is based on fact and evidence.

Religious faith is different. Back when I was a believer, I prayed for things to happen. I convinced myself by sheer will that my prayers would be answered. I convinced myself that this was true by sheer willpower. Strangely, I was immune to evidence back then: when my prayers weren't answered, i decided the reason was because of lack of faith or some deity's decision to answer my prayer with a "no" and continued to believe. If my car doesn't start and I have yet to discern the cause of the malfunction, I don't "believe" it will start tomorrow (after all, it's probably just mad at me or God made it not start to protect me from a terrible car wreck today); I have good reason at this point to have strong confidence that it will not start (based on the evidence that it has failed to do so today) until the root cause of this malfunction is discerned and repaired.

 

[Willamena]

I used to believe; now, I can capitulate to that statement to a degree. But you single out that one statement and seem to bypass the wide disparity between beliving in, say, God vs. the belief my car will start in the morning.

I see no difference in believing in God vs. the belief that your car will start.

Belief isn't lacking for evidence (else there would be nothing to believe), but in proof. The proof that your car will start lies in the future. The proof that there is a god lies, very often, in definition. Both (the future and definition) are, very often, out of reach.

Edit: If I may add, the "level of understanding" you refer to as "evidence" is arbitrary. That the light turns on by flicking a switch is a level of evidence; the difference between it and being able to describe the flow of electricity through circuits is analysis, not evidence.

 

[Demonslayer]

I see no difference in believing in God vs. the belief that your car will start.

LOL

 

[Agondonter]

Okay. Welll. That would constitute yet another definition of "faith" that would only serve to confuse the discussion all the more. I have an idea where you are going and it seems well worth a discussion. It sounds like a positive and endearing take on th eword.

My responses are not directed to a generalized philosophy of "faith" or a discussion about the meaning of "faith"; but an objection to the acusation that i share the same kind of "faith" in "science" or "atheism" that the religiously-inclined has in religion, miracles, magic, deities, soul, spirit and hereafter.

Understood. What I'm suggesting is, I think, more in tune with Paul's definition. (Don't get me wrong: I'm not a big fan of the Bible, but am not adverse to referring to it when I think it is appropriate.)

So then better explain to me your assertion that faith is an attitude about life. It's a pretty vague statement, and the way I've used the word belief is the way most people use it.

Can you explain your statement, or are you better at vague once sentence quips?

All your examples—“faith” the sun will come up, “faith” in your wife, and “faith” in Christ's return—have to do with beliefs. Beliefs/words/ideas may or may not reflect one's attitude toward life and vice versa.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I see no difference in believing in God vs. the belief that your car will start.

Belief isn't lacking for evidence (else there would be nothing to believe), but in proof. The proof that your car will start lies in the future. The proof that there is a god lies, very often, in definition. Both (the future and definition) are, very often, out of reach.

Edit: If I may add, the "level of understanding" you refer to as "evidence" is arbitrary. That the light turns on by flicking a switch is a level of evidence; the difference between it and being able to describe the flow of electricity through circuits is analysis, not evidence.

You can "pretend" all you want to that belief in God is "not lacking in evidence"; but it most certainly IS lacking in evidence.

The difference between my car and god is that my car has definable properties and god does not; as, by your own admission:

The proof that there is a god lies, very often, in definition.

Moreover, you insert "proof" in lieu of the word "evidence". "Evidence" and "proof" are two interrelated but different things. A body of "evidence" constitutes "proof". Part of the "evidence" that my car will start in the morning lies in the fact that it has started every morning for the past 8 years.

There is, for example, no objective evidence to state that "God answers prayer" (as clinical trials have all but debunked that); or that men can scry with the power of their mind (as the U.S. actually wasted time and money experimenting with "psychics"); yet in spite of the evidence against such notions, the "faithful" continue to believe.

These two disparaging philosophies, both crammed by our dictionaries under one common definition of "faith", are as different as night and day.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Understood. What I'm suggesting is, I think, more in tune with Paul's definition. (Don't get me wrong: I'm not a big fan of the Bible, but am not adverse to referring to it when I think it is appropriate.)

Thanks! I, too, refer to the Bible from time to time; but that's another story.

 

[Demonslayer]

All your examples—“faith” the sun will come up, “faith” in your wife, and “faith” in Christ's return—have to do with beliefs. Beliefs/words/ideas may or may not reflect one's attitude toward life and vice versa.

And yet this still doesn't explain your statement: "Faith is not about beliefs, but an attitude towards life."

What does that mean?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Belief is not based on nothing.

PS ... At the risk of splitting hairs .... Belief not based on evidence is as good as belief based on nothing; and belief based on bad evidence is a good as belief not based on evidence which is as good as belief based on nothing. So belief in God, psychic powers, "no plane at the Pentagon", shapeshifting extradimensional beings among us, Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Nirvana, Soul, Spirit, Magical spells, dreamcathers, mermaids, ancient aliens, etc. etc. etc. are based on nothing.

 

[Willamena]

You can "pretend" all you want to that belief in God is "not lacking in evidence"; but it most certainly IS lacking in evidence.

The difference between my car and god is that my car has definable properties and god does not; as, by your own admission:



Moreover, you insert "proof" in lieu of the word "evidence". "Evidence" and "proof" are two interrelated but different things. A body of "evidence" constitutes "proof". Part of the "evidence" that my car will start in the morning lies in the fact that it has started every morning for the past 8 years.

There is, for example, no objective evidence to state that "God answers prayer" (as clinical trials have all but debunked that); or that men can scry with the power of their mind (as the U.S. actually wasted time and money experimenting with "psychics"); yet in spite of the evidence against such notions, the "faithful" continue to believe.

These two disparaging philosophies, both crammed by our dictionaries under one common definition of "faith", are as different as night and day.

Belief in god is not lacking for evidence, regardless of any inability to define properties attributable to that god: many a theist has professed their reasons why they believe. What it is is lacking in proof. The past 8 years is evidence of your car starting. The proof lies in its actuality.

I insert "proof" in lieu of "evidence" for good reason. "Proof" is included in the concept of belief, "evidence" is not. It would be absurd to suggest that people can believe in something without evidence of it. Evidence is what gives them something to believe.

"Proof" isn't a body of evidence, but being convinced by evidence. The more the evidence, the greater is the likelihood of being convinced, but that is incidental to what proof is. The answering of prayers isn't a test for the existence of god, it's only a test of your own expectations (and poor hypothesis forming skills). People can believe, though, based on the evidence of their own expectations, fulfilled as such.

 

[Willamena]

Belief in god is not lacking for evidence, regardless of any inability to define properties attributable to that god: many a theist has professed their reasons why they believe. What it is is lacking in proof. The past 8 years is evidence of your car starting. The proof lies in its actuality.

I insert "proof" in lieu of "evidence" for good reason. "Proof" is included in the concept of belief, "evidence" is not. It would be absurd to suggest that people can believe in something without evidence of it. Evidence is what gives them something to believe.

"Proof" isn't a body of evidence, but being convinced by evidence. The more the evidence, the greater is the likelihood of being convinced, but that is incidental to what proof is. The answering of prayers isn't a test for the existence of god, it's only a test of your own expectations (and poor hypothesis forming skills). People can believe, though, based on the evidence of their own expectations, fulfilled as such.

Let's say you have the expectation that your car will fail to start on Thursdays. This is based on a wide body of evidence, because every Thursday, it seems, your car fails to start. One could fairly say that you believe that.

You might, though, have the understanding that this belief isn't an actuality--it's not really the case that Thursdays and your car starting have a relation, because that would be absurd. This understanding might even give you faith that today, finally, of all Thursdays, this will be the Thursday that your car starts.

So you sit down and turn the ignition, and it fails to start.

 

[Agondonter]

NewGuy: remember when you said, "If my responses tend to be on the strident side, I hope you can overlook that and mark it up to frustration rather than a statement on my character"? Well, here's the kind of thing that leads to my frustration:

And yet this still doesn't explain your statement: "Faith is not about beliefs, but an attitude towards life."

What does that mean?

This has the effect of a toddler asking "why?" to everything that is said. Maybe a dictionary is in order?

 

[Thief]

It has been near for two thousands years.

Ciao

- viole

yeah I KNOW!

what's up with that!?

 

[Thief]

Blowin' up the infidels.

yeah I KNOW!

what's up with that!?

 

[Thief]

NewGuy: remember when you said, "If my responses tend to be on the strident side, I hope you can overlook that and mark it up to frustration rather than a statement on my character"? Well, here's the kind of thing that leads to my frustration:



This has the effect of a toddler asking "why?" to everything that is said. Maybe a dictionary is in order?

I send people to Webster's .......been doing it for years

and still the discussion arises about....belief...

seems to be confused with 'faith' at every turn

I believe in God because of science