Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?

[LuisDantas]

Can science provide atheists with faith where traditional religious teachings fail to inspire..

Religion is fine for atheists as well.

It is over-reliance on theism that ill serves religion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Religion is fine for atheists as well.

It is over-reliance on theism that ill serves religion.

Yes Luis..'caveat emptor' is well advised for all searchers of truth...

 

[gnostic]

That's fine gnostic...but if one has found truth, they do not rely on faith, they live according to it...

Except that FAITH is about "trust".

You are "trusting" that what you read from whatever scripture you follow or what you learn from religion to be true, without verifying that it is true.

Faith is not about seeking the truth, because you have already concluded that what you follow or believe is true, regardless if you are wrong about what might you believe in.

But how do you or anyone have the truth, when you don't know if god really exist or not?

It is faith in your belief, that matter to you, not facts or evidences.

How do you know that whatever were written in scriptures are not merely superstitions or fantasy?

That belief (in a deity, in the written or spoken words, in prophets or sages) is not the truth, it is just faith.

To me, the creation in Genesis, and God's reply in JOB, amounts to nothing more than superstition and unscientific description of the way world is.

If I give you an example about what is or isn't faith, like saying that I believed that the Sun rise from the east, and set in the west. You could take it on faith that this will happened every day of your life.

But it is no longer faith, if you actually see the sun rise from one horizon and set in the other horizon, if you watch enough sunrise and sunse, each day. This direct observation of the sun's motion at each horizon each day, make it not faith.

But this is a reality for only those of us who live anywhere on the earth surface. If we view the sun and earth from space, the real reality is that there is no sunrise and sunset. All we will see is that the sun seemed stationary from our vantage point in space, but it is the Earth moving - rotating on its axis.

But the same can't be said about this god or that god. You can't see or hear him, so it is based on faith. You can pray to a deity, but he really doesn't answer back. It is taken on faith that he or she exist.

You may live by scripture, but they were wriiten by people, whether they be prophets, clerics, sages, scribes, etc, but I no longer trust what write to be the truth.

 

[Shad]

Any belief a person holds...is not a belief. That is question begging at its finest.

Read it again. You claim children hold beliefs which they do not comprehend at all. To not be able to understand one's own belief renders it not a belief. For example I believe in X yet I have no idea what X is, what it does, how it works, etc. All I know is X which is just a label, nothing more. It is like saying "I believe in label!" It is a belief in nothing since the believer can not even define what it is they believe in. A belief must be defined enough since all beliefs are statements and claims about reality believed to be true.

A belief in immortality requires a concept of mortality hence the concept of death. However if a child has no concept of mortality you can not claim they hold a concept of immortality. One flows into the other by negation and extrapolation. All we can really say with any reliability is that the child has a concept of self, law of identity and the concept of agency. These naturally flow into each other from self. A child can recognize it's own mind and learns to recognize its own body. From this point it can differentiate between its own mind/body and that of a different person, law of identity. It recognizes that it's mother is not part of self thus is an external agent, concept of agency. None of which suggests immortality or a god form of agency placed on the parents.

 

[leibowde84]

That's fine gnostic...but if one has found truth, they do not rely on faith, they live according to it...

It's still a belief until it is objectively quantified and verified. One merely BELIEVES that they have found truth and choose to live according to what they BELIEVE to be truth.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's still a belief until it is objectively quantified and verified. One merely BELIEVES that they have found truth and choose to live according to what they BELIEVE to be truth.

It is indeed correct that belief plays a part initially and that faith in the sense of trust is involved....but when that faith is rewarded with real evidence...then one's life henceforth can become one of faith in the sense of allegiance to the cause....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Except that FAITH is about "trust".

You are "trusting" that what you read from whatever scripture you follow or what you learn from religion to be true, without verifying that it is true.

Faith is not about seeking the truth, because you have already concluded that what you follow or believe is true, regardless if you are wrong about what might you believe in.

But how do you or anyone have the truth, when you don't know if god really exist or not?

It is faith in your belief, that matter to you, not facts or evidences.

How do you know that whatever were written in scriptures are not merely superstitions or fantasy?

That belief (in a deity, in the written or spoken words, in prophets or sages) is not the truth, it is just faith.

To me, the creation in Genesis, and God's reply in JOB, amounts to nothing more than superstition and unscientific description of the way world is.

If I give you an example about what is or isn't faith, like saying that I believed that the Sun rise from the east, and set in the west. You could take it on faith that this will happened every day of your life.

But it is no longer faith, if you actually see the sun rise from one horizon and set in the other horizon, if you watch enough sunrise and sunse, each day. This direct observation of the sun's motion at each horizon each day, make it not faith.

But this is a reality for only those of us who live anywhere on the earth surface. If we view the sun and earth from space, the real reality is that there is no sunrise and sunset. All we will see is that the sun seemed stationary from our vantage point in space, but it is the Earth moving - rotating on its axis.

But the same can't be said about this god or that god. You can't see or hear him, so it is based on faith. You can pray to a deity, but he really doesn't answer back. It is taken on faith that he or she exist.

You may live by scripture, but they were wriiten by people, whether they be prophets, clerics, sages, scribes, etc, but I no longer trust what write to be the truth.

You are making far too many assumptions about absolute truth in general, and my situation in particular, and are relying on a narrow meaning of the concept of faith... Faith is not purely about trusting in some belief...though it does play a part in the early phases of developing a philosophy of life.. Later however if that faith has been rewarded with absolute proof...faith in the sense of allegiance becomes the very basis of one's life..

 

[gnostic]

You are making far too many assumptions about absolute truth in general,

Actually, I haven't made any assumption on ABSOLUTE TRUTH one way or another, especially with regards to religion, faith or science. You are the one who brought up ABSOLUTE TRUTH, not me.

If you want me to talk about ABSOLUTE TRUTH, then this is what I think of it:

A) I don't believe that this ABSOLUTE TRUTH exist in either science or religion.

B) The only people who talk of ABSOLUTE TRUTH or make claims of ABSOLUTE TRUTH are some theist (more often by creationists) and some philosophers. And they both use circular reasoning or rant some other outlandish spins that they have ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

C) How can any theist claim that he or she have ABSOLUTE TRUTH, when there is no such as "absolute" about belief or faith? Faith and belief are nothing more than personal opinion, therefore they are relative and very subjective.

Personally I think anyone who bringing up ABSOLUTE TRUTH are just talking bull craps.

So please, leave out ABSOLUTE TRUTH for another thread, because I am truly not interested in the subject.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, I haven't made any assumption on ABSOLUTE TRUTH one way or another, especially with regards to religion, faith or science. You are the one who brought up ABSOLUTE TRUTH, not me.

If you want me to talk about ABSOLUTE TRUTH, then this is what I think of it:

A) I don't believe that this ABSOLUTE TRUTH exist in either science or religion.

B) The only people who talk of ABSOLUTE TRUTH or make claims of ABSOLUTE TRUTH are some theist (more often by creationists) and some philosophers. And they both use circular reasoning or rant some other outlandish spins that they have ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

C) How can any theist claim that he or she have ABSOLUTE TRUTH, when there is no such as "absolute" about belief or faith? Faith and belief are nothing more than personal opinion, therefore they are relative and very subjective.

Personally I think anyone who bringing up ABSOLUTE TRUTH are just talking bull craps.

So please, leave out ABSOLUTE TRUTH for another thread, because I am truly not interested in the subject.

Haha...you say you haven't made any assumption about absolute truth and then say you don't believe in absolute truth...see what you've done..

So the video I posted which prompted the beginning of our exchange outlines the unified field theory of cosmic consciousness....now the concept of cosmic consciousness is not different from absolute being...absolute truth.... To say there is no absolute truth is the context of the understanding I've outlined is to deny that all that exists does exist...and that would be silly...

 

[Bunyip]

Haha...you say you haven't made any assumption about absolute truth and then say you don't believe in absolute truth...see what you've done..

So the video I posted which prompted the beginning of our exchange outlines the unified field theory of cosmic consciousness....now the concept of cosmic consciousness is not different from absolute being...absolute truth.... To say there is no absolute truth is the context of the understanding I've outlined is to deny that all that exists does exist...and that would be silly...

So doubting the existence of absolute truth is to deny the existence of the universe huh? How did you figure that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So doubting the existence of absolute truth is to deny the existence of the universe huh? How did you figure that?

No...claiming to not make assumptions about absolute truth and then assuming there is no absolute truth is self contradictory...

The point you try and make is contrived and does not follow from what I said.. I used a context that gnostic has yet to see wrt absolute truth being the same as universal existence so you are being your same old trouble maker self we've come to expect... If you want to comment on posts not addressed to you....be constructive and not be deceptive and wicked...

 

[Bunyip]

No...claiming to not make assumptions about absolute truth and then assuming there is no absolute truth is self contradictory...

When did he assume that there was no absolute truth? I think you misread. He said no such thing.

The point you try and make is contrived and does not follow from what I said.. I used a context that gnostic has yet to see wrt absolute truth being the same as universal existence so you are being your same old trouble maker we've come to expect... If you want to comment on posts not addressed to you....be constructive and not be deceptive and wicked...

What wicked deception mate? What are you referring to?

 

[Willamena]

When did he assume that there was no absolute truth? I think you misread. He said no such thing.

While to him it wasn't any assumption, but an assertion, to ben d it obviously was.

It's all rocket science, really.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When did he assume that there was no absolute truth? I think you misread. He said no such thing.

His post #488...

If you want me to talk about ABSOLUTE TRUTH, then this is what I think of it:

A) I don't believe that this ABSOLUTE TRUTH exist in either science or religion.

 

[gnostic]

Haha...you say you haven't made any assumption about absolute truth and then say you don't believe in absolute truth...see what you've done..

I didn't say anything about absolute truth, until post 488. I had made no comment or assumption about absolute truth AFTER you brought it up, Ben.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I didn't say anything about absolute truth, until post 488. I had made no comment or assumption about absolute truth AFTER you brought it up, Ben.

You responded to my point on truth in your post #483, the truth represented by the concept of cosmic consciousness of the unified field of the video.. When your response was mostly about the bible, religion, and deity belief and faith....I mentioned in my post #487 that your assumptions on what absolute truth represented was off the mark...

In my post #489, I responded to what I saw as contradictory statements in your post #488..

 

[gnostic]

Again, I didn't bring up absolute truth, until 488, Ben.

I skirted absolute truth, whenever I can especially regarding to religious faith, because it is absurd to talk of it (AT) in relation to faith of any kind...but of course the real absurdity when it involved with religious faith.

If you think faith and absolute truth are the same thing, that's really your problem. I don't give a crap that you mixed the two up.

So let get this straight, Ben. I was only talking of faith in my replies before post 488, not absolute truth. So quit putting words in my proverbial mouth!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You responded to my point on truth in your post #483, the truth represented by the concept of cosmic consciousness of the unified field of the video.. When your response was mostly about the bible, religion, and deity belief and faith....I mentioned in my post #487 that your assumptions on what absolute truth represented was off the mark...

But he didn't say anything about absolute truth until after you said that.

In my post #489, I responded to what I saw as contradictory statements in your post #488..

Except they weren't. They clearly said that they HADN'T made any assumptions about absolute truth - i.e: they hadn't actually ADDRESSED the issue of absolute truth prior to your accusation that they had, and so they could hardly be accused of making assumptions about it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again, I didn't bring up absolute truth, until 488, Ben.

I skirted absolute truth, whenever I can especially regarding to religious faith, because it is absurd to talk of it (AT) in relation to faith of any kind...but of course the real absurdity when it involved with religious faith.

If you think faith and absolute truth are the same thing, that's really your problem. I don't give a crap that you mixed the two up.

So let get this straight, Ben. I was only talking of faith in my replies before post 488, not absolute truth. So quit putting words in my proverbial mouth!

Ok...let's start over gnostic...I repeat what I had previously posted (#480)......"but if one has found absolute truth, they do not rely on faith, they live according to it..." And remember this exchange refers back to the video....did you even watch the video re the unified field of cosmic consciousness?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But he didn't say anything about absolute truth until after you said that.

Except they weren't. They clearly said that they HADN'T made any assumptions about absolute truth - i.e: they hadn't actually ADDRESSED the issue of absolute truth prior to your accusation that they had, and so they could hardly be accused of making assumptions about it.

I raised the issue about about truth in my post #480....that's where it started...he made assumptions about what I meant in that post when he responded to it in his post #483 in which he assumed the truth I was talking about was to do biblical teachings.....go read it...