Faith and belief are overrated

[Songbird]

If you manage to get through Laurie's 80 page thread with your (excuse the phrase) faith intact, you deserve a basket.

I think I'll try. It looks interesting.

 

[Songbird]

I wouldn't want you to delete your thread. The OP might not be all you wanted it to be, but you seem to be raising a couple intelligent questions.

Alrighty.

Good luck at the flea market.

 

[blackout]

Alrighty.

Good luck at the flea market.

Expect fleas in your basket.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Atheists believe there is no god, we trust our car brakes will work, yada, etc., etc.

I don't quite understand why when someone says "I don't believe in _____," the response is often, "But you DO have faith in other things."

Why is the issue of having faith and beliefs so important?

Because we all have faith in something even if it's in yourself. The agnostic and athiest's god is basically science/the human brain. As Thomas Paine wrote "my mind is my church." That's still faith it's just not in a supernatural being. Others trust spiritual beings. Faith a relevant question to ask as it guides everything we do.

 

[crocusj]

Because we all have faith in something even if it's in yourself. The agnostic and athiest's god is basically science/the human brain. As Thomas Paine wrote "my mind is my church." That's still faith it's just not in a supernatural being. Others trust spiritual beings. Faith a relevant question to ask as it guides everything we do.

I think we all have faith in ourselves to a degree but this is hardly comparable to faith in the supernatural, particularly since -I, at least - let myself down regularly and any "faith" I have is therefore down to learning and experience and not an assumption that I will always be right. As for my god being science/the human brain, well, what has science got to do with god? Should I trust it to explain the existence/non existence of a supernatural supreme being? How would it do that then? I would expect it to endeavour as best it can to explain the world I live in without too many leaps of faith for my human brain but that hardly makes a god. We don't all have faith in something at all and I certainly don't have faith in something undefinable, unseen and - frankly - unbelievable

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Can you walk off an imaginary bridge?

About as well as you can walk on one. Same result in the end, though.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I think we all have faith in ourselves to a degree but this is hardly comparable to faith in the supernatural, particularly since -I, at least - let myself down regularly and any "faith" I have is therefore down to learning and experience and not an assumption that I will always be right. As for my god being science/the human brain, well, what has science got to do with god? Should I trust it to explain the existence/non existence of a supernatural supreme being? How would it do that then? I would expect it to endeavour as best it can to explain the world I live in without too many leaps of faith for my human brain but that hardly makes a god. We don't all have faith in something at all and I certainly don't have faith in something undefinable, unseen and - frankly - unbelievable

When we say we don't need God we are trusting ourselves. When we demand proof we can see and touch that God loves them we trust our five senses. We put our faith in science when we demand a mathematical equation to explain the existence of God before we believe in him. When we demand proof of the existence of God that we can wrap our minds around completely like mathematical equations we're also trusting the human brain. It's the reason science has become a religion.

 

[Songbird]

Because we all have faith in something even if it's in yourself. The agnostic and athiest's god is basically science/the human brain. As Thomas Paine wrote "my mind is my church." That's still faith it's just not in a supernatural being. Others trust spiritual beings. Faith a relevant question to ask as it guides everything we do.

It seems like you think of faith as a currency or allotted thing that we all have and must place in some bank in the same way. As if an atheist removed his/her currency in a god and put it somewhere else, expecting a return from it. It's a different paradigm from mine.

I don't know many agnostics or atheists who say their god is science or the human brain. I suppose we'd have to get into definitions of a god, and then definitions of related concepts, like worship.

 

[Songbird]

It seems like you think of faith as a currency or allotted thing that we all have and must place in some bank in the same way. As if an atheist removed his/her currency in a god and put it somewhere else, expecting a return from it. It's a different paradigm from mine.

Although, from another thread, there is this:

Nothing like a lack of faith......nothing at all.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/113253-something-about-lying.html

 

[crocusj]

When we say we don't need God we are trusting ourselves.

No we are not. We are merely inhabiting a planet. Trust doesn't come into it. Neither does need for that matter, we may well need god but that does not mean he is there.

When we demand proof we can see and touch that God loves them we trust our five senses. We put our faith in science when we demand a mathematical equation to explain the existence of God before we believe in him

Have you? I do not demand proof (unless from a believer who says he can provide it) and science does not explain the existence or otherwise of any god, you can say it as often as you like but it is not so.

. When we demand proof of the existence of God that we can wrap our minds around completely like mathematical equations we're also trusting the human brain. It's the reason science has become a religion

A little bit of critical thinking or scepticism is all, I know very few people who demand a mathematical equation to prove the existence of even things they know to exist and I know even fewer who would understand one. The human brain is easily fooled but - personally - I see no evidence at all for the existence of any god, I see no need at all for the existence of any god, for the life of me I cannot see why we would be created by a god and I particularly see no need for faith in anything supernatural. You either got it or you ain't. Science is not a religion, it is a flawed, human, ongoing endeavour to explain the natural world

 

[-Peacemaker-]

It could be argued that all of creation testifies to the existence of a creator and that only people who've hardened their hearts refuse to see that. Often but not always it's due to people experiencing some horrible pain in their lives or witnessing horrible acts of evil even if they weren't the victim. The bottomline is that they have experiences that make them feel like abandoned by the creator. They then rely on their own judgements to "discern" that no God exists. People are trusting themselves when by their own powers of discernment they judge that God doesn't exist. You do not possess ironclad evidence that there is no God. Nevertheless, you trust your own ability make that judgement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It could be argued that all of creation testifies to the existence of a creator and that only people who've hardened their hearts refuse to see that.

Yes, it could be. Plenty of poor arguments could be made.

Often but not always it's due to people experiencing some horrible pain in their lives or witnessing horrible acts of evil even if they weren't the victim. The bottomline is that they have experiences that make them feel like abandoned by the creator.

Funny - I always thought that horrible acts would generally drive people to be more religious, not less. IMO, this is part of why as standard of living goes up, religiosity tends to go down. When things seem generally all right with the world, the idea that God is going to swoop down and make everything all right doesn't have much pull.

They then rely on their own judgements to "discern" that no God exists. People are trusting themselves when by their own powers of discernment they judge that God doesn't exist. You do not possess ironclad evidence that there is no God. Nevertheless, you trust your own ability make that judgement.

If you're saying that trusting one's own judgement is a form of faith, then it's a "faith" that is shared by theists and atheists alike. After all, isn't it your own judgement that led you to conclude that God exists?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Can you walk off an imaginary bridge?

Imaginarily, you can.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Atheists believe there is no god, we trust our car brakes will work, yada, etc., etc.

I don't quite understand why when someone says "I don't believe in _____," the response is often, "But you DO have faith in other things."

Why is the issue of having faith and beliefs so important?

Hi, Songbird. I've always felt that the faithful realize the insecurity of their position -- somewhere down deep -- and that the accusation of faithfulness toward nonbelievers is something like, "Yeah, I know I snore too loud, but so do you!"

I've seen it in the Creation debates. A Creationist will admit that his beliefs are based on faith but then accuse the evolutionists of the same thing. And it does feel to me like an accusation.

To be faithful essentially means to believe without proper support -- something like that -- and those who believe without support wish to point out that everyone does that.

I'm saying that the word 'faith' itself seems to be tainted, even in the minds of the faithful. They sometimes seem hangdogish about it.

Just my take on it.

 

[Otherright]

Atheists believe there is no god, we trust our car brakes will work, yada, etc., etc.

I don't quite understand why when someone says "I don't believe in _____," the response is often, "But you DO have faith in other things."

Why is the issue of having faith and beliefs so important?

Well, you have beliefs and you have faith. Regardless of what your stance is on whatever, there is something somewhere in your world view that will illicit a belief of some kind.

Even to believe a scientific inquiry requires that you use some measure of faith.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Yes, it could be. Plenty of poor arguments could be made.


Funny - I always thought that horrible acts would generally drive people to be more religious, not less. IMO, this is part of why as standard of living goes up, religiosity tends to go down. When things seem generally all right with the world, the idea that God is going to swoop down and make everything all right doesn't have much pull.


If you're saying that trusting one's own judgement is a form of faith, then it's a "faith" that is shared by theists and atheists alike. After all, isn't it your own judgement that led you to conclude that God exists?

You and I must have met very different people. I can't count all the people i've met that have looked at earthquakes and people suffering unjustly and conclude that God either doesn't exist or is just an observer of the world not one that gets involved in day to day life. As far as making judgements about who God is or isn't I'd argue that that for me coming to believe in Jesus as God was probably a far different process than how you came to believe in atheism. I grew up an agnostic, spent the vast majority of my life as an agnostic with peers that were primarily agnostics and atheists. I think I understand how someone comes to believe in just doctrines pretty well. Typically, the agnostic/atheist relies on his five senses as well as a naturalistic worldview to arrive at his beliefs. He's constantly asking himself if his beliefs are rational or "make sense" in the context of his naturalistic worldview. I didn't come to believe in Jesus because I looked at the Christian doctrine and liked the way it sounded or thought it made sense in the way that a mathematical equation makes sense. My experience with Jesus was more like the apostle Paul's than anything else. Paul was a Jewish zealot who had a "power encounter" with God on the road he was traveling on. I felt like something similar happened to me, that God came in power and revealed himself to me. Like Paul I downright hated Christianity before this experience. I sought to lead others away from it as much as I could. The judgement I made is more like when someone hears their wife's voice or the father's voice and they discern by the sound of it that it is indeed their wife or their father as opposed to some imposter. As far as believing in things that line up with my worldview, as a Christian I find myself everyday having to strive to forsake my naturalistic worldview which says that God, if he exists at all, is at most a spectator of the world. The days I suffer are spent fighting the desire to rely on my five senses to discern the right path to take but I do it because I felt the touch of God and it's enough for me to take the blind leap of faith that he'll catch me.

 

[Songbird]

Well, you have beliefs and you have faith. Regardless of what your stance is on whatever, there is something somewhere in your world view that will illicit a belief of some kind.

Even to believe a scientific inquiry requires that you use some measure of faith.

My point is who cares what elicits faith from me? No one but the religious is begging me to have faith. And maybe as UV said, politicians.

 

[Songbird]

Hi, Songbird. I've always felt that the faithful realize the insecurity of their position -- somewhere down deep -- and that the accusation of faithfulness toward nonbelievers is something like, "Yeah, I know I snore too loud, but so do you!"

I've seen it in the Creation debates. A Creationist will admit that his beliefs are based on faith but then accuse the evolutionists of the same thing. And it does feel to me like an accusation.

To be faithful essentially means to believe without proper support -- something like that -- and those who believe without support wish to point out that everyone does that.

I'm saying that the word 'faith' itself seems to be tainted, even in the minds of the faithful. They sometimes seem hangdogish about it.

Just my take on it.

There truly is a disagreement on the definition of the word. Perhaps that's why the word's tainted. I'm taken with Lunamoth's definition.

 

[Songbird]

They then rely on their own judgements to "discern" that no God exists. People are trusting themselves when by their own powers of discernment they judge that God doesn't exist. You do not possess ironclad evidence that there is no God. Nevertheless, you trust your own ability make that judgement.

Whose ability are we supposed to trust?

 

[Sunstone]

Whose ability are we supposed to trust?

James Dobson and Pat Robertson, obviously.