Atheists have faith.

[Unveiled Artist]

I have faith in both. What I don't like to see is for those who adhere to science to insist the standards of science to prove God. It must all be proven in public view, perhaps with a peer paper.

Last/nother thought.

If a creator exist it can't be dependent on the people who believe it and it can't have different definitions. It has to be known by atheist and theist alike regardless if they choose to have faith In it or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

It won't wash at the pearlies mate because when the bouncer asks them "Are you Christians?" and they say "No", he'll tell them "Well you ain't coming in here then, oppit"

How do you know this?

 

[PureX]

If a creator exist it can't be dependent on the people who believe it and it can't have different definitions. It has to be known by atheist and theist alike regardless if they choose to have faith In it or not.

By what logical reasoning have you come to such a conclusion?

I agree that the existence of a creator does not depend on our believing or disbelieving that it exists. But if a "creator" is what s being proposed, then I don't see how you're getting multiple definitions. "Creator" would seem pretty strait forward, to me.

And how do you calculate that if such a creator exists, that we humans would have to know of it? How is what we know and don't know a requisite for something existing or not existing?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

By what logical reasoning have you come to such a conclusion?

I agree that the existence of a creator does not depend on our believing or disbelieving that it exists. But if a "creator" is what s being proposed, then I don't see how you're getting multiple definitions. "Creator" would seem pretty strait forward, to me.

And how do you calculate that if such a creator exists, that we humans would have to know of it? How is what we know and don't know a requisite for something existing or not existing?

In my other posts to truth told him I have no conception of what a creator is. It's like using a proper pronoun without a defined noun.

In order for me to talk about "it" in an unvague way I need some sort of idea what it is and how it exist in the world around us.

So far it's explained as experiences, mysticism, emotions, and spiritual awakening but not as an independent deity or being.

If the creator exists as a being (if that's how Truth sees it) what does that mean?

 

[wandering peacefully]

Well that is for you to decide. I have faith you can make a good decision.

The way it is worded now is better. The OP was to explore our actions and how much they are based in faith and not a certain knowledge of the outcome.

It was also to reconcile that if persons do work for the good of all humanity, then that in itself is the real purpose of Faith.

Regards Tony

Tony, I'm sorry. I have tried but have bean unable to understand your reply to my question. I will repost your original OP here which was the context in which I originally replied to your original OP.

So my question is, do you still stand by your original ideas in the below quoted text? If so, why? And if you no longer believe this quote which you originally posted in the OP, why do you no longer believe your original quotes?

TransmutingSoul said: ↑
"I see it is somewhat a coping mechanism, that those that choose this path will not be held accountable for their decisions, that they think they are free of the weight of this world, that they will live how they want to, die and that's it. It appears that It frees them from considering that there may be deeper moral or ethical responsibilities, when all we have to use as boundaries, are the materialistic trends."

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What is a creator/God?

I know what It does but what is it that creates?

The Attributes are the way we can define what God is for us.

Using the attributes, we create and build an advancing civilization, the lack of the attributes brings death and decay.

In the material world this is also reflected.

This is what the OP is about, how an athiest is also living life in faith, if they live the Attributes as the highest aim of religions, is for the followers to live by all the God given attributes. All we can know of God is attributes.

Thus giving ones life in attributes enables us to serve all humanity, it is a strong faith that in doing the right thing, we can help each other and build a better world.

Regards Tony

 

[PureX]

In my other posts to truth told him I have no conception if what a creator is. It's like using a proper pronoun without a defined noun.

Of course you do. You don't have to know what he means by a creator, necessarily, but you certainly know what the word means in and of itself, even if you don't know it beyond it being the creative source.

For example, we might come across an ancient sculpture in a jungle, and know nothing at all about it's origin. But we can still perceive that it was created by some mysterious force or forces external to itself. We wouldn't assume that it spontaneously popped into existence, accidentally.

In order for me to talk about "it" in an unvague way I need some sort of idea what it is and how it exist in the world around us.

I agree. And just to start off with, let's say it "exists in the world around us" AS the world around us. Or more precisely, as the creative force/forces that are manifesting as the world around us. Not just the 'source-code', but also the 'source-energy'. I realize that we can't know what that source is, exactly, but we can logically presume it to exist: in much the same way as we would logically presume a source of some kind for that ancient sculpture we found in the jungle (reasoning that it did not just spontaneously pop into existence, as is, by accident).

Positing a existential/universal "creator" of some kind is not illogical, nor completely incomprehensible.

So far it's explained as experiences, mysticism, emotions, and spiritual awakening but not as an independent deity or being.

I understand your frustration, but those things are what happens to people, sometimes, when they choose to confront the idea of this great, mysterious, existential 'creator-source'. It effects them in very interesting (and sometimes strange) and powerful ways. They can't tell you what this creator-source is, so they tell you about how the idea of it effects them. And I realize this doesn't translate well because you are not likely to be experiencing any similar effects.

If the creator exists as a being (if that's how Truth sees it) what does that mean?

To use the sculpture in the jungle analogy, when we discover it, and it appears to us to be cause/created by some forces other than natural circumstances, then we automatically assume that humans must have created it, even though we have no idea how or why. And truth be told, we really don't know this to be the case. The 'sculpture' may have been the result of some very rare and unusual natural circumstances. Or it may have been the result of some animal or insect activity. Or maybe space aliens for all we know. But if it appears to exhibit intent, even if we don't know what the intent, is, we will assume that some human-like intelligence created it.

And why not? WE are all we know of that expresses that kind and level of "intelligent" intent. So even though this anthropomorphic presumption is unfounded, it's at least somewhat understandable.

 

[ChristineM]

The Attributes are the way we can define what God is for us.

Using the attributes, we create and build an advancing civilization, the lack of the attributes brings death and decay.

In the material world this is also reflected.

This is what the OP is about, how an athiest is also living life in faith, if they live the Attributes as the highest aim of religions, is for the followers to live by all the God given attributes. All we can know of God is attributes.

Thus giving ones life in attributes enables us to serve all humanity, it is a strong faith that in doing the right thing, we can help each other and build a better world.

Regards Tony

What???

Why must atheists live to the highest aims of religion? Surely the aims of religion are pretty limited and i for one would not wish to lower myself to them, maybe better if the religious lived to the aims of atheismm

 

[wandering peacefully]

Don't forget

The various scandals and lawsuits bear out your claims.

The Catholic church is now declaring bankruptcy to protect its mammon and graven images from paying for the emotional damage to its victims of boy-raping priests. Ditto, the Boy Scouts of America are similarly trying to keep their assets rather than compensating their victims.

Obviously, theists believe that God will forgive every sin, so they sin and sin and sin. Greed, lust, and the other deadly sins guide their immoral behavior.

You don't see such behavior in atheists (at least, not very often).

I agree with your post completely.[/QU

Don't forget about the JW abuse cover ups. And all of the other sexual abuse, rapes, mental and physical abuses allowed and or covered up in these various cults who brainwash their members from birth so to not question Jehovah's Authority and his War or you will be sent to hell and you will be shunned by your family and your temple members. It is the child gorl who is at fault for being molested. And if she starts complaining to any one outside of the godhead men, out she goes into the streets. No family, no church, no Jehovah. End of discussion

But I don't want to discuss this here as it is not the proper thread. And I really don't want to talk about it anywhere else either. It's all available through research for people who wish to understand these cults and their "God Heads' who are always men who apply brainwashing techniques to children, men and women from birth which allows acceptance of the continued abuse. It is disgusting and tragic and absolutely criminal.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Tony, I'm sorry. I have tried but have bean unable to understand your reply to my question. I will repost your original OP here which was the context in which I originally replied to your original OP.

So my question is, do you still stand by your original ideas in the below quoted text? If so, why? And if you no longer believe this quote which you originally posted in the OP, why do you no longer believe your original quotes?

TransmutingSoul said: ↑
"I see it is somewhat a coping mechanism, that those that choose this path will not be held accountable for their decisions, that they think they are free of the weight of this world, that they will live how they want to, die and that's it. It appears that It frees them from considering that there may be deeper moral or ethical responsibilities, when all we have to use as boundaries, are the materialistic trends."

The reworded OP is closer to what was intended, but it was always going to be organic, as personally I have not explored this connection with those that do not beleive in God.

It is most likely not clear, as I myself have not cemented my own thoughts to any particular goal with this OP, it was an exploration of what is Faith.

It was of interest for me to explore how living a life in attributes and deeds, which is in my religion, shown to be a strong faith and that athiests who live in this manner would not call it Faith? (I also see that is the aim of all religions) Faith is shown in attribute based actions and deeds.

I looked at the reworded OP, and yes it is still not really that clear as the comment was in the negative aspect and not towards the positive, the comment itself did not reflect the attributes this OP was about.

My thoughts for this negative comment was if a person chose not to live the attributes.

As the OP is suggesting that living the attributes is a strong faith in God, what would be the factor that drives a person to see that attributes and deeds are not faith based?

We then get to the suggestion.....

"Could that be a coping mechanism, that those that choose this path will not be held accountable for their decisions, that they think they are free of the weight of this world, that they will live how they want to, die and that's it?

Is that any clearer?

In the end, the discussion is about the value of attributes and deeds in this life, to which for me is strong faith, as no one knows what our end will be.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What???

Why must atheists live to the highest aims of religion? Surely the aims of religion are pretty limited and i for one would not wish to lower myself to them, maybe better if the religious lived to the aims of atheismm

What do you see is the aim of a religion, I can offer some examples and you can choose to see if you lower yourself or raise yourself by the practice of the following attributes.

Equality of men and women, good or bad?

Elimination of Predudices, good or bad?

Elimination of war and its weapons, good or bad?

Fostering the unity of the Human race, good or bad?etc

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

Equality of men and women, good or bad?

That's not a religious attribute, for thousands of years religions have considered women second class, even today most of the major religions treat womem differently to men. No, I won't be lowering myself to that level

Elimination of Predudices, good or bad?

Most religious books teach prejudice against anyone not of their religion. Even you show prejudice against atheists. I have a vested interest in rejecting prejudice, again i won't be lowering myself to the standards accepted by following religious books

Elimination of war and its weapons, good or bad?

Do you want a list of most of the wars of religion throughout history (i say most because i don't think i have compiled all of them). I absolutely do not believe that an attribute of religion is to eliminate war.

Fostering the unity of the Human race, good or bad?

Fostering unity among those of a particular religion does not include the entire human race, even Christianity with almost 1/3 of the human race on its books cannot agree among the 40 or 50 thousand different sects of their belief.

Sorry Tony, what you put forward here s not attributes of religion but what you would like the attributes of religion to be.

Happy birthday.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's not a religious attribute, for thousands of years religions have considered women second class, even today most of the major religions treat womem differently to men. No, I won't be lowering myself to that level

It is an attribute for me and my faith.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Do you want a list of most of the wars of religion throughout history (i say most because i don't think i have compiled all of them). I absolutely do not believe that an attribute of religion is to eliminate war.

It is in my life and faith.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

It is an attribute for me and my faith.

Regards Tony

It is in my life and faith.

Regards Tony

Sure but not attributes of religion which was what we were discussing

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sorry Tony, what you put forward here s not attributes of religion but what you would like the attributes of religion to be.

Thank you for the happy birthday.

In my Faith they are attributes, I also see that was the aim of religions of the past, in a progressive manner, to be viewed in conjunction with the standards practiced in that age.

I agree that many foul and unjust men have clouded that intent.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sure but not attributes of religion

I see that they are attributes of religion, but as already noted, many power hungry, foul and unjust men have not made that clear.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

Thank you for the happy birthday.

In my Faith they are attributes, I also see that was the aim of religions of the past, in a progressive manner, to be viewed in conjunction with the standards practiced in that age.

I agree that many foul and unjust men have clouded that intent.

Regards Tony

Those men learned from religious books, were taught in religious mores by people of religion and acted in the name of religion

 

[ratiocinator]

In my Faith they are attributes, I also see that was the aim of religions of the past, in a progressive manner, to be viewed in conjunction with the standards practiced in that age.

I agree that many foul and unjust men have clouded that intent.

Whereas they may be attribute of your faith, I don't see how you can sustain them as attributes of religion in general without a glaring no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Whereas they may be attribute of your faith, I don't see how you can sustain them as attributes of religion in general without a glaring no true Scotsman fallacy.

It has been demonstrated how they were the aims of faiths past, but the capacity of men has veiled those intents.

That may be another topic to explore.

Regards Tony