Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Acim]

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 occurrence.

Read a bit ahead of this post to see if what I would bring up was already stated. Not really so I will address it.

The evidence of which you speak is also held by faith. It's actually held up on the fundamental/blind faith, but once that is accepted as 'way things are' or 'reality' then like all things faith/trust oriented, the rest appears to fall into place. Until it doesn't.

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.

If you believe the physical world to be reality, or even existing, then I would say it is virtually identical in the type of faith. Me, I do believe it exists and understand it to be based on faith. There is no objective evidence that I've ever seen anyone present for its existence. I'm still going to maintain faith regardless of the lack of evidence. Though, I would stipulate that the strength of my confidence varies on this. Intellectually, I find it almost easy to dismiss as actually existing.

As a (gnostic) Christian, I don't care much for holding a belief in physical resurrection of Jesus. Enlightenment occurs via Reason and unblocking certain obstacles from awareness. While that my appear like rituals, by that sort of understanding, there is nothing that anyone does that couldn't appear like a ritual. All of science would be ritualistic by this type of understanding. Of course the method (or any methods) are clearly ritualistic, but I'm saying critical analysis, when observed from outside-in, if observed as repeatable pattern and then justified as necessary toward a process would clearly be ritualistic.

I see and understand humans as Gods. I have faith in this, and it is at times mere belief. I also will lay claim to it being knowledge as in, at certain times, I have zero doubt that this is 100% accurate. So, when someone comes along and suggest there is no evidence for spiritual beliefs, I consider them under informed, likely conveying old school, blind faith type information regarding existence of God. Not that human as Gods is new age, but well, ya know, not widely accepted understanding for past 2000 (or so) years.

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.

Which provides example of how faith and reason work together. Though surely you can conceive of reasons why it might not work, and thus could believe otherwise. Which in turn would lead to degree of doubt mixed with degree of faith. But faith, once accepted can be easily taken for granted, leading to basis of (continual) trust.

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.

A lot of faith statements conveyed here. Such as 'proper' diagnosing. And 'clearly identifying.' Along with 'effective repairs.' All of those instances of faith aren't necessarily based on evidence, nor is it appropriate to associate that with fact. That a car won't start or will start is a matter of faith. That it does start repeatedly, builds confidence in the next time you go to start it. But if going strictly with reason (and forgetting trust/confidence/faith), there is cause to believe it won't start. And cause to believe it might.

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.

IMO, the appearance of prayers not answered is based on lack of reason. I would contend the prayer was always answered, but the answer might not be what was expected/anticipated. You could play similar scenario (or game) with anyone you make requests of. Expect a certain outcome, be what you feel is clear with the request, and then when that doesn't occur, believe that the trust has been broken, that the other party let you down and that is the only proper way to understand the situation.

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.

Faith that it can be discerned, and faith that it can be (properly) 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.

Let me know when you want to look at all the glorious non-objective evidence for the existence of a physical universe and then we can talk about faith based on wishful thinking vs. faith based on Reason.

 

[Acim]

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.

This in response to 'faith is attitude towards life.'

Your attitude conveys you trust certain elements of the physical universe will always be as you expect them to be or that you have learned to accept as a given. Thus, you have no cause to worry about such matters.

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.

A better example of the attitude at work. You are expressively not sure that your wife will not engage in infidelity, and despite the (overwhelming) amount of divorced people (counter evidence), you choose to maintain a positive outlook on your current relationship with your wife.

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.

Me as well. But then again, monogamy strikes me as an absurdity given all the non-monogamous things people do and/or think about doing while putting monogamy on some sort of pedestal as the best way to live.

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

Faith deals with relationships between consciousness and things or people. In consideration of the reasonable aspects of the relationship, there are generally positive and negative outlooks. You've conveyed in this post both of those. 2 positive items, one you find negative (or absurd). All of that would be conveying of attitude. I have faith that the physical world exists. My attitude toward this belief tends to be intellectually negative. I do my darnedest from a spiritual framework to realize it is actually a neutral existence and that, in reality, I have given meaning to all things I believe exist in the physical. I work toward that attitude periodically or sometimes, even religiously.

 

[Willamena]

This in response to 'faith is attitude towards life.'

Your attitude conveys you trust certain elements of the physical universe will always be as you expect them to be or that you have learned to accept as a given. Thus, you have no cause to worry about such matters.



A better example of the attitude at work. You are expressively not sure that your wife will not engage in infidelity, and despite the (overwhelming) amount of divorced people (counter evidence), you choose to maintain a positive outlook on your current relationship with your wife.

I would dare say faith could be described as an attitude of hope.

 

[Acim]

I would dare say faith could be described as an attitude of hope.

True, I think this is often the case.

But given your words on evidence (which I agree with), one could have reason to think a certain outcome is likely, thus have faith in it, but hope it doesn't. Like I think based on the way Donald Trump is not acting presidential, and that past experience tells me MSM will have a field day with this until November 2016, that there's a good chance Hillary could win, weak as she is. I have faith she may win. I hope she does not. And my attitude is: I really really hope she doesn't.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It would seem to me that that's what you've done. But no worries.

Agreed. No worries.

That a car won't start or will start is a matter of faith.

No it is not a "matter of faith". It is a matter of physics and chemistry. No "faith" required. Properly working, the car will start.

Faith that it can be discerned, and faith that it can be (properly) repaired.

I never stated that there was a certainty that it could be properly diagnosed and effectively repaired. I stated that the car does not start and will not start until that happened. If it can not happen, then I guess you have something to haul to the junkyard. Again. Not faith. Physics and chemistry.

I would dare say faith could be described as an attitude of hope.

I have that kind of "faith".

 

[Agondonter]

I would dare say faith could be described as an attitude of hope.

I have that kind of "faith".

That's good, because our thoughts, wisdom, ethics, and ideals will never rise higher than our faith—our sublime hope.

 

[Willamena]

That's good, because our thoughts, wisdom, ethics, and ideals will never rise higher than our faith—our sublime hope.

I couldn"t agree less.

 

[Nefelie]

The only one in that post.

Oops... Sorry. Scratch that off the list. Was meant to be an interview of Amit Goswami, not the debate on it.

.

 

[Acim]

No it is not a "matter of faith". It is a matter of physics and chemistry. No "faith" required. Properly working, the car will start.

Your assertions express otherwise. 'Properly working' is a matter of faith. For chemistry and physics to come into play, faith must be properly working.

 

[Acim]

I would dare say faith could be described as an attitude of hope.

I would note that faith can also be described as an attitude of gratitude. Many anti-spiritual types think it is only making requests. When doubts are lessened in one's acceptance of spiritual reality, the gratitude factor is primary, rather than need for assistance. Hence joy is exponentially increasing.

 

[Agondonter]

Add "gratitude" to what I said above.

 

[Willamena]

I would note that faith can also be described as an attitude of gratitude. Many anti-spiritual types think it is only making requests. When doubts are lessened in one's acceptance of spiritual reality, the gratitude factor is primary, rather than need for assistance. Hence joy is exponentially increasing.

And, it rhymes!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

'Properly working' is a matter of faith.

That is a silly notion. Either it is working properly; or it is not. It will start, or it will not. No amount of faith, believe, devotion, desire, happiness, etc etc has anything to do with it.

For chemistry and physics to come into play, faith must be properly working.

This is even a sillier notion. If one jumps off a cliff, they are going to hit the ground. "Faith" does not change the outcome.

Many anti-spiritual types think it is only making requests.

That may be true; but no, that's not where I'm coming from.

Belief or faith, whether informed by empiricism or superstition, don't change their identity, though,

It is true that belief or faith, whether informed by empiricism or superstition, does not change the identity of the object in question; i.e. God vs. my car. However, belief or faith that is governed by the rules of empiricism is not on par with belief or faith that is governed by the rules of superstition. We're not playing by the same rules. It's like playing Cricket or playing Baseball; yes, there are certain commonalities, but outside of a few cosmetic similarities, they are entirely different.

Let me know when you want to look at all the glorious non-objective evidence for the existence of a physical universe and then we can talk about faith based on wishful thinking vs. faith based on Reason.

Why should we discuss the existence of a physical universe before we can talk about faith based on wishful thinking vs faith based on reason? Regardless of the truth of the makeup of our environment, which we call the "physical universe", this "physical universe" operates by certain rules; and these rules are, for as much as we can tell, unchanging. Based empirical inference and reason, I can deduce that I will hit the ground of I fall off a building; that my properly operating vehicle will start; that if I cause harm to my fellow man, I will suffer consequences. The "truth" of the physical universe, if it even exists at all, is totally beside the point as I made no claim such as "the physical universe exists". Yet those with faith based on wishful thinking or superstition will claim, "God, as I define him, exists"; or "We have soul and spirit"; or "The physical universe exists".

 

[Willamena]

It is true that belief or faith, whether informed by empiricism or superstition, does not change the identity of the object in question; i.e. God vs. my car. However, belief or faith that is governed by the rules of empiricism is not on par with belief or faith that is governed by the rules of superstition. We're not playing by the same rules. It's like playing Cricket or playing Baseball; yes, there are certain commonalities, but outside of a few cosmetic similarities, they are entirely different.

I was referring to the identity of faith and belief. That's what doesn't change.

That you have a "par" that places belief informed by science above belief informed by superstition suggests that you (as I mentioned earlier) are looking at a larger scope than simply "belief." Belief is belief--else, we could not define it. It is true that beliefs informed by science might carry more weight, or have more value, or be more useful, for instance, along with other things, but those things aren't part of the definition of belief.

I forget what we were arguing about.

 

[Ouroboros]

I forget what we were arguing about.

I think it was which Jim Carrey movie is best, and which one is worst. Personally, I like him better in more serious movies than comedies.

...

Wrong thread?

 

[Sapiens]

There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the schoolboy who said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
-- Mark Twain, Following the Equator, ch. 12, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar" (1897)

 

[Acim]

That is a silly notion. Either it is working properly; or it is not. It will start, or it will not. No amount of faith, believe, devotion, desire, happiness, etc etc has anything to do with it.

Actually, the idea it even exists rests on faith.

But why go with 'properly working' if your point is 'it will start, or it will not?'

This is even a sillier notion. If one jumps off a cliff, they are going to hit the ground. "Faith" does not change the outcome.

I see your claim of my point as a silly notion and raise you with observation of your ridiculous point. You have to resort to 'jumping off a cliff' to get your point to make some sense?? That faith in afterlife won't matter at that type of juncture? Just the notion that you feel confident this would result in something (negative) is show of faith.

That may be true; but no, that's not where I'm coming from.

Where you're coming from is suggesting that because predictable things occur, faith plays no role in this. Never mind the whole existence thing rests (solely) on faith, but the idea that prediction occurs is faith based. That doesn't rest entirely on faith, but at a fundamental level it does.

Why should we discuss the existence of a physical universe before we can talk about faith based on wishful thinking vs faith based on reason? Regardless of the truth of the makeup of our environment, which we call the "physical universe", this "physical universe" operates by certain rules; and these rules are, for as much as we can tell, unchanging.

Because what is upholding said existence is faith in it be a) reality and b) existing. I grant the 'existing' aspect is more debatable (or is for me), but is a point worthy of discussion where faith is being disputed as to the fundamental role of consciousness and environment.

Same type of thing, or I would for sure argue similar thing, occurs in night dreams. Convinced the mind is that if it jumps from a high place, falling will occur, and reason to be concerned enough that death would be imminent. Sure enough, many times when people take that leap in a dream, they end up falling. Cause, you know, those laws are so consistent and all. Perhaps once in a while the physics are overcome, but again I'm going with idea that very often in a very consistent way, in human night dreams there are unchanging rules at work. Treated as actual reality. Treated as actually existing independent of the dreamer's mind from the dreamer's perspective. Seemingly not having anything to do with faith / confidence of the dreamer's state of mind, until one awakens and is like, oh duh, I was in charge of (literally) all of that.

Based empirical inference and reason, I can deduce that I will hit the ground of I fall off a building; that my properly operating vehicle will start; that if I cause harm to my fellow man, I will suffer consequences.

Because of perception of gravity, you have faith that just like all the other times things have been attracted to the massive body that is earth, well lo and behold, it is bound to happen again. Yes, Reason, but stemming from a faith proposition.

Again, not sure why you are going with 'properly' operating vehicle to make your point. That strikes me as trying to fit into the point the notion that there is faith going in that it ought to start.

And causing harm clearly doesn't always result in consequences being suffered unless one subscribes to a karmic understanding that would be based on a supernatural type of process at work. Without that in the mix, quite plausible you could gravely harm someone, and no would may ever know and you live to be 110 in this life and by every account, pass away peacefully. The idea that the state may cause harm to you as a result, or deprive you of (anything, such as) freedom, wouldn't bode well for the state if reality is that causing harm always leads to suffering.

The "truth" of the physical universe, if it even exists at all, is totally beside the point as I made no claim such as "the physical universe exists". Yet those with faith based on wishful thinking or superstition will claim, "God, as I define him, exists"; or "We have soul and spirit"; or "The physical universe exists".

I am saying all humans observable, without exception, are Gods. Tell me how that is not evidenced. Because of the notion of 'God' even while I'm not making claim on what that is precisely. I could. You might disagree. That's fine. But it is really no different than physical universe exists, when exists isn't clearly understood, or is assumed understood, and/or assumed it exists independent of (all) consciousness, when that would be or has thus far been unsubstantiated.

It truly doesn't matter to my view of -everyone as God- that others understand that intellectually for it to be real/existing. It's potentially fun, interesting, intellectually enlightening to have a discussion on it, but my view doesn't change, even a little bit, from idea that it can be denied, or disagreed with. And I see it (plus understand it, plus experience it) as reasonable. My version of 'wishful thinking' is that I would always see others / all people in this way. Not that I see people in that way, that is not wishful. The amount of times I am consistent with that is questionable (from my view) and yet, even when I'm perhaps not thinking it, I can't say it isn't 100% not actually occurring, though that might be a little bit beyond understanding of those who are unfamiliar with seeing this way, at all.

 

[ArtieE]

Because of perception of gravity, you have faith that just like all the other times things have been attracted to the massive body that is earth, well lo and behold, it is bound to happen again. Yes, Reason, but stemming from a faith proposition.

Based on previous experience I believe gravity will be here tomorrow as it was yesterday. But if I believe that God will cancel gravity tomorrow because my cult leader says so that belief would be faith. If you can present some actual logical and rational reasons and evidence why you believe something it's not faith. If the reason you believe something is because your cult leader says so, your belief is called faith.

 

[Acim]

Based on previous experience I believe gravity will be here tomorrow as it was yesterday. But if I believe that God will cancel gravity tomorrow because my cult leader says so that belief would be faith. If you can present some actual logical and rational reasons and evidence why you believe something you believe something but it's not faith. If the reason you believe something is because your cult leader says so, your belief is called faith.

You're thinking I have a cult leader?

Not sure I understand what you mean by, "If you can present some actual logical and rational reasons and evidence why you believe something you believe something but it's not faith."

I understand the first part, but not the, 'why I believe something I believe something, but it's not faith.'

But I'll try to respond even though I'm not even sure what is being requested.

In this instance, the 'cult leader' would be gravity. The faith part would be that this entity (authority) actually exists. My perception tells me it does. I have faith that my perception is correct, and that gravity does still exist for me. Because of THAT, I am then able to apply reason to how it works. What happens as a result of the authority's dictates on my body (though not necessarily my being), is what keeps me in check. I could perhaps, arguably, pretend (outwardly) like I don't believe in it, don't see it as having authority over me. I am not willing or able to do this inwardly. At least I haven't yet. Even in most, if not all of my night dreams. I have that much faith in gravity.

I actually would argue that in my night dreams, it is the rationale aspect that I am tempting when I leap or consider leaping. I'm thinking, not this time or maybe not this time. But sure enough the experience always results in me falling. Such that, the next time, I would be going with faith that it would still be true. While based on reason alone, it is possible it might not occur that way again. I have faith that it will. High confidence. Trust in the cult leader known as Gravity (with a capital G).

Never mind that it rests entirely on my perception, I'll just bypass that because the power that fear plays into the proposition, should I tempt the perception, which I have more times than I care to count.

 

[ArtieE]

In this instance, the 'cult leader' would be gravity. The faith part would be that this entity (authority) actually exists. My perception tells me it does. I have faith that my perception is correct, and that gravity does still exist for me. Because of THAT, I am then able to apply reason to how it works. What happens as a result of the authority's dictates on my body (though not necessarily my being), is what keeps me in check. I could perhaps, arguably, pretend (outwardly) like I don't believe in it, don't see it as having authority over me. I am not willing or able to do this inwardly. At least I haven't yet. Even in most, if not all of my night dreams. I have that much faith in gravity.

There is no faith part in believing gravity will exist tomorrow. If for no good reason you believe gravity won't exist tomorrow then that belief is called faith because it goes against all previous experience and knowledge. I have skipped the rest of the post because I don't know what you're trying to convey.