Is Faith Valuable?

[nonbeliever_92]

I don't see why you think these are hollow statements. You asked for an example of how faith in God can be of practical value, and you were given one. What's "hollow" about it? I thought it was a good example in that it correlates the idea of faith with an actual natural mechanism of faith. I think too many theists let themselves be distracted by magical thinking and the idea of a "supernatural" God and so don't get that if faith in God is a real asset, then it will have a natural component to how it works.

It was hollow because faith in a diety is not required to save someone from danger. A singular example of faith being effective in a situation in which any non-faith system would not would suffice my question.

When you asked your question you were already trying to separate faith from all those other "real" mechanisms in life by claiming that faith as a reliance upon the magical, or supernatural.

Where did I say that the "supernatural" is required for faith?

But just because we may not be able to understand the mechanism by which a "miracle" happens, doesn't mean that it didn't happen by natural means.

Oh really? I didn't know that That's my whole point, if you don't understand how something occurred, don't prescribe it an answer because it makes you feel good. If you don't understand how something occurred, don't give it a supernatural reason. Say you don't know.

It seems to me, that the only way an atheist can maintain his argument against the existence of God is to keep defining "God" as supernatural, and then using all of nature as evidence against such a God's existence. But as soon as we allow that "God" is being expressed THROUGH natural means, that whole argument falls apart.

No, the argument usually still stands because the claimer is still saying that they know something without due justification.

 

[PureX]

No, the argument usually still stands because the claimer is still saying that they know something without due justification.

What they can know doesn't require your justification. They interacted with "God" as they understand God, and God worked for them. This they know.

You don't know it because you are not able to interact with "God", because you have already dismissed this as a reasonable idea and course of action. They "know" what you can't know, because you have already decided against it.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

What they can know doesn't require your justification. They interacted with "God" as they understand God, and God worked for them. This they know.

You don't know it because you are not able to interact with "God", because you have already dismissed this as a reasonable idea and course of action. They "know" what you can't know, because you have already decided against it.

It's not about my justification, it's about theirs. They're pretending to know becuase it makes them feel better.

 

[mixond]

History shows, Faith moves mountains!

 

[PureX]

It's not about my justification, it's about theirs. They're pretending to know becuase it makes them feel better.

No, they aren't pretending. That's my point. YOU claim they're pretending because YOU can't experience what they have. But they HAVE experienced it, and thus they can "know" it. (To "know" something being to have direct experience of it.)

 

[dogsgod]

No, they aren't pretending. That's my point. YOU claim they're pretending because YOU can't experience what they have. But they HAVE experienced it, and thus they can "know" it. (To "know" something being to have direct experience of it.)

The experiences are real, but connecting these experiences with a god is delusional.

 

[Storm]

The experiences are real, but connecting these experiences with a god is delusional.

"Delusional" is a strong word. Can you justify it?

 

[dogsgod]

"Delusional" is a strong word. Can you justify it?

It's not a strong word, it's merely an observation of the obvious. A study of psychology 101 will go a long way to explain perception, religious influence among other contributing factors that effect perception, and how people describe their experiences.

 

[Storm]

It's not a strong word, it's merely an observation of the obvious. A study of psychology 101 will go a long way to explain perception, religious influence among other contributing factors that effect perception, and how people describe their experiences.

Delusions can be shown to be false. Can you show God to be?

That's before you even get into the implication of mental instability.

Pretending your opinion is fact does not impress me.

 

[dogsgod]

Delusions can be shown to be false. Can you show God to be?

That's before you even get into the implication of mental instability.

Pretending your opinion is fact does not impress me.

Human experiences can be explained in natural terms, there is no need to invoke gods or the supernatural into these explanations.

 

[Storm]

Human experiences can be explained in natural terms, there is no need to invoke gods or the supernatural into these explanations.

Maybe, maybe not. That's not evidence against God, though; it's a philosophical position. IOW, mere opinion, far from sufficient justification for calling believers delusional.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Delusions can be shown to be false. Can you show God to be?

That's before you even get into the implication of mental instability.

Pretending your opinion is fact does not impress me.

It's not an implication of mental instability, some of the most deluded people in the world are usually the most rational and well-minded, or at least there's a perception of them being so.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

No, they aren't pretending. That's my point. YOU claim they're pretending because YOU can't experience what they have. But they HAVE experienced it, and thus they can "know" it. (To "know" something being to have direct experience of it.)

It's pretending when they say that they've had an experience that they cannot explain and so they call it god. They're pretending to have the answer, but they don't, they just don't know, they're ignorant just like the rest of us.

 

[dogsgod]

Maybe, maybe not. That's not evidence against God, though; it's a philosophical position. IOW, mere opinion, far from sufficient justification for calling believers delusional.

It's not merely my opinion that human experiences can be explained in natural terms, it's a simple, observable fact. People provide natural explanations for experiences on a regular basis.

 

[dogsgod]

Evidence against God is another topic, philosophical in nature, and unrelated to the fact that human experiences can be explained in natural terms.

 

[Storm]

It's not merely my opinion that human experiences can be explained in natural terms, it's a simple, observable fact. People provide natural explanations for experiences on a regular basis.

I was responding to "there is no need to invoke gods or the supernatural into these explanations," not contesting natural explanation.

And evidence against God may be another topic, but it's necessary for belief to qualify as delusion.

My point is, mere differences of opinion are not delusional. I could just as easily - and WRONGLY - call you delusional for denying God. Neither claim holds water.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I was responding to "there is no need to invoke gods or the supernatural into these explanations," not contesting natural explanation.

And evidence against God may be another topic, but it's necessary for belief to qualify as delusion.

My point is, mere differences of opinion are not delusional. I could just as easily - and WRONGLY - call you delusional for denying God. Neither claim holds water.

It's delusional because it resists evidence contrary to the god claim, not becuase it's simply a belief

Look:

If a man claims to have purple pet dragon that breaths pink and gold bubbles and lives in his attic and his friend investigates the claim as to which the man says that the dragon was unobservable, it would not be unresonable for the friend to call the man delusional.

 

[dogsgod]

It's delusional because it resists evidence contrary to the god claim, not becuase it's simply a belief

Look:

If a man claims to have purple pet dragon that breaths pink and gold bubbles and lives in his attic and his friend investigates the claim as to which the man says that the dragon was unobservable, it would not be unresonable for the friend to call the man delusional.

It's not unreasonable to call believers in an invisible god delusional as well, for the same reason.

 

[Storm]

Wow, invisible dragons. How compelling. :sleep:

 

[dogsgod]

Wow, invisible dragons. How compelling. :sleep:

Yes, unlike invisible gods.