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

[gnostic]

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?

Well, I had stated that faith IS NOT about seeking "truth", in post 483.

Not once, did I ever indicated that any truth to be "absolute".

And I was replying to your post in 480, which never made that you were talking of "absolute truth":

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

Just because think or believe that his faith have led him to the truth, doesn't make that truth "absolute". I think you are playing and loose with word game.

Nor did my post (483) mention anything about "cosmic consciousness", which is another make-believe (wishful thinking) clap-trap or spins.

I don't give a flying trap about ABSOLUTE TRUTH, because it is irrelevant. And it is irrelevant because such a truth don't exist, beyond theists' and philosophers' wild imaginations or illogical circular reasoning.

My reply is only my view that faith is a person trust in what he or she believe in, without considerations of evidences, facts and reality. And this faith have more to do with personal opinions than seeking truth.

As to "cosmic consciousness": what make it anymore real than just your personal opinion/belief?

You can't any way support that actually exist other than you using some assumptions from your imagination or more likely to be just superstition. That cosmic consciousness is not even your every day's variety of truth, let alone "absolute truth".

The whole Cosmic Consciousness is a sham.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, I had stated that faith IS NOT about seeking "truth", in post 483.

Not once, did I ever indicated that any truth to be "absolute".

Nor did my post (483) mention anything about "cosmic consciousness", which is another make-believe (wishful thinking) clap-trap or spins.

I don't give a flying trap about ABSOLUTE TRUTH, because it is irrelevant. And it is irrelevant because such a truth don't exist, beyond theists' and philosophers' wild imaginations or illogical circular reasoning.

My reply is only my view that faith is a person trust in what he or she believe in, without considerations of evidences, facts and reality. And this faith have more to do with personal opinions than seeking truth.

As to "cosmic consciousness": what make it anymore real than just your personal opinion/belief?

You can't any way support that actually exist other than you using some assumptions from your imagination or more likely to be just superstition. That cosmic consciousness is not even your every day's variety of truth, let alone "absolute truth".

The whole Cosmic Consciousness is a sham.

I never said faith was all about seeking truth either, though without some degree of faith in a teaching, scientific or religious..... a seeker would never realize the goal...I explained that once truth has been realized, one lives a life in faith to that truth...faith in this instance meaning allegiance to..

If you have not realized cosmic consciousness...then you are speaking out of ignorance...and that is fine by me...far be it for me to want to cast pearls.....carry on....

 

[gnostic]

I never said faith was all about seeking truth either, though without some degree of faith in a teaching, scientific or religious a seeker would never realize the goal...I explained that once truth has been realized, one lives a life in faith to that truth...faith in this instance meaning allegiance to..

That doesn't make it "absolute truth", regardless how ones may live their life.

If you have not realized cosmic consciousness...then you are speaking out of ignorance...and that is fine by me...far be it for me to want to cast pearls.....carry on....

How am I being ignorant, if something like cosmic consciousness can't be proven to be real?

Like I said, this cosmic consciousness have more to do with superstition. Can you prove it is not superstition?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That doesn't make it "absolute truth", regardless how ones may live their life.

How am I being ignorant, if something like cosmic consciousness can't be proven to be real?

Like I said, this cosmic consciousness have more to do with superstition. Can you prove it is not superstition?

But of course it can be proven to be real...many have realized it....but it can;t be proven conceptually because concepts are just mental constructs that represent the real...like symbols and numbers..hence serve only as a means of communicating ideas...the real is always on the other side.. If you want to proof, you must apprehend it directly, it can't be apprehended in a dualistic approach...such as a an observer and observed...subject and object...the real is non-dual..unified... You must become one with it...hence the idea of yoga and religion which both imply the goal of unification..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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...

I've read the post, and in post 483 he makes absolutely no references to "absolute truth". He wrote exclusively about FAITH and never once addressed ABSOLUTE TRUTH which is what you ACCUSED him of addressing in post 487, despite him NEVER MAKING ANY MENTION OF IT.

Please try to read more carefully in future.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I've read the post, and in post 483 he makes absolutely no references to "absolute truth". He wrote exclusively about FAITH and never once addressed ABSOLUTE TRUTH which is what you ACCUSED him of addressing in post 487, despite him NEVER MAKING ANY MENTION OF IT.

Please try to read more carefully in future.

Precisely...which is why I say his assumptions of the truth I spoke about in my post #483 missed the mark...he assumed I was referring to the traditional orthodox religious god of the bible...even though the video did not go anywhere near this area... Did you watch the video...was there any mention of the biblical God?

 

[gnostic]

Precisely...which is why I say his assumptions of the truth I spoke about in my post #483 missed the mark...he assumed I was referring to the traditional orthodox religious god of the bible...even though the video did not go anywhere near this area...

It is true.

A) I did think of Abrahamic religions, when I talk of faith, an most often of Christianity, because it is a religion I am more familiar with; B) because until now I didn't know what your religion.

But my replies on faith can be applied to any religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc), and that TRUST in belief that I would consider that defy reality (hence supernatural, miracles), regardless of facts or evidences.

People who believe the story of Kali or Vishnu fighting demons, or them possessing 4 to 8 arms, believe because of faith, not because of "truth". I would not take these narratives or descriptions to be literal, but if it was symbolic stories, then I do find it to be interesting. In any case, no one can prove any of the Hindu stories happened the way they do.

Any dharma religion (including Buddhism) that accept reincarnation, do so out of faith, just like Christians and Muslims believe in resurrection out of faith.

Neither Abrahamic religions, nor dharma religions have "absolute truth", other than you believe that you do.

I get the feeling that you think "faith" and "truth" to be synonymous in your earlier posts, so I attempted to address both words, without using "absolute truth" (post 483). You were the one who brought up "absolute truth", and I only address then and there, that I wasn't talking of absolute truth, and I still don't think it exist. If I made any assertion to absolute truth was only from post 488.

No where did I address absolute truth before post 488, so I don't take too kindly that you say I made any assumption in 483 when I didn't.

It is quite apparent, you don't accept what I say, and I can accept that, but what I don't accept is that you keep putting words or assumptions in replies that I didn't make.

ps

I didn't watch your YouTube video that you put in your earlier post (477). I hate watching YouTube videos because I don't have good wifi, and often won't watch them. I rather address any issue or claim made by members, if I agree or disagree with the points being made, and leave videos to others.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is true.

A) I did think of Abrahamic religions, when I talk of faith, an most often of Christianity, because it is a religion I am more familiar with; B) because until now I didn't know what your religion.

But my replies on faith can be applied to any religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc), and that TRUST in belief that I would consider that defy reality (hence supernatural, miracles), regardless of facts or evidences.

People who believe the story of Kali or Vishnu fighting demons, or them possessing 4 to 8 arms, believe because of faith, not because of "truth". I would not take these narratives or descriptions to be literal, but if it was symbolic stories, then I do find it to be interesting. In any case, no one can prove any of the Hindu stories happened the way they do.

Any dharma religion (including Buddhism) that accept reincarnation, do so out of faith, just like Christians and Muslims believe in resurrection out of faith.

Neither Abrahamic religions, nor dharma religions have "absolute truth", other than you believe that you do.

I get the feeling that you think "faith" and "truth" to be synonymous in your earlier posts, so I attempted to address both words, without using "absolute truth" (post 483). You were the one who brought up "absolute truth", and I only address then and there, that I wasn't talking of absolute truth, and I still don't think it exist. If I made any assertion to absolute truth was only from post 488.

No where did I address absolute truth before post 488, so I don't take too kindly that you say I made any assumption in 483 when I didn't.

It is quite apparent, you don't accept what I say, and I can accept that, but what I don't accept is that you keep putting words or assumptions in replies that I didn't make.

ps

I didn't watch your YouTube video that you put in your earlier post (477). I hate watching YouTube videos because I don't have good wifi, and often won't watch them. I rather address any issue or claim made by members, if I agree or disagree with the points being made, and leave videos to others.

In my post # 477, I asked, referring to the embedded video..."Can science provide atheists with faith where traditional religious teachings fail to inspire" In the video..it is explained that enlightenment is realized with union with the universal underlying unified field (string theory)...

You replied in your post # 478, going on about faith and religion...

I replied in my post #480 that if one has already realized truth (meaning enlightenment as per video), they no longer rely on a trusting faith but they live according to it (as in allegiance to truth).

You replied in your post # 483 going on about faith in the context of biblical religion..

I replied in my post # 487 that you were making assumptions about absolute truth and are using a narrow meaning of the concept of faith..

You replied in your post #488 that you have not made any assumptions about absolute truth....

But from my pov....you have not understood that the truth is realized with enlightenment...you assumed that the truth I was referring was somehow not yet realized, not absolute...thereby needing trusting faith that it actually exists...so you kept going on about faith in the trusting sense..

Lastly....you said in post # 488...."I don't believe that this ABSOLUTE TRUTH exist in either science or religion"... Do you not see that this is an assumption....the assumption that there is no absolute truth?

 

[gnostic]

How many times must I say this to you?

I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" UNTIL POST 488!

Everything (my posts) before post 488 relate nothing to absolute truth, assumption or otherwise.

Why must you insist that I was referring to absolute truth when I was never talking about it til post 488?

Bloody hell, man.

The only thing I spoke of, is that truth and faith are unrelated to one another in post 483, without adding this stupid, meaningless "absolute" in my reply.

Take my word for it. I was never referring to "ABSOLUTE" truth. I don't bloody care about this "absolute" crap. But I certainly do give a bloody damn that you making assumption that I didn't make.

You have been twisting my words around, so you are ticking me off.

 

[gnostic]

Enlightenment have several definitions to this term, depending on if one is using "enlightenment" with religious (or spiritual) context or not (the "not" being intellectual enlightenment).

In a spiritual or religious context, this so-called "realised" truth or knowledge, is still pretty much dependent on or taken on as "faith".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I've often thought about this question, but I have yet to see it on this forum. The question at hand is whether theists should blame themselves for the lack of belief of atheists due to their failure to provide valid, reasoned, and supported arguments for their belief.

Isn't withholding adherence to a belief system until sufficient evidence/reasoning has been provided merely displaying the prudence of atheism? Do you think the flawed reasoning (cosmological argument, "something from nothing", arguments from ignorance, etc.) of the theist is to blame for atheists' refusing to "buy into" deities of any kind.

Hey big fella! The most compelling evidence we can have for anything is first hand, anything else is taking someone's word for it.

That's what makes faith so strong, the personal evidence received outweighs any 3rd party opinion, it comes as close to proof as anything can. Yet belief, faith should still always be acknowledged.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Hey big fella! The most compelling evidence we can have for anything is first hand, anything else is taking someone's word for it.

That's what makes faith so strong, the personal evidence received outweighs any 3rd party opinion, it comes as close to proof as anything can. Yet belief, faith should still always be acknowledged.

This is an important point here. Subjective experience, no matter the level of validity, feels strongly compelling. It provides an inherent personal bias that many people are unable to overcome. This is why objective evidence is so important and why faith is so dangerous in clouding the judgement and ability to see the truth.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is an important point here. Subjective experience, no matter the level of validity, feels strongly compelling. It provides an inherent personal bias that many people are unable to overcome. This is why objective evidence is so important and why faith is so dangerous in clouding the judgement and ability to see the truth.

all evidence for something is subjective, but it's either witnessed first hand or taken on trust.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

all evidence for something is subjective, but it's either witnessed first hand or taken on trust.

Its not considered subjective. We cannot "objectively" see anything by definition. But we have what is called "objective" evidence. Objective evidence is evidence that can be explained and presented without the need for personal experience or personally validated rather than externally validated.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How many times must I say this to you?

I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" UNTIL POST 488!

Everything (my posts) before post 488 relate nothing to absolute truth, assumption or otherwise.

Why must you insist that I was referring to absolute truth when I was never talking about it til post 488?

Bloody hell, man.

The only thing I spoke of, is that truth and faith are unrelated to one another in post 483, without adding this stupid, meaningless "absolute" in my reply.

Take my word for it. I was never referring to "ABSOLUTE" truth. I don't bloody care about this "absolute" crap. But I certainly do give a bloody damn that you making assumption that I didn't make.

You have been twisting my words around, so you are ticking me off.

Well I say you made an assumption about the truth I referred to in #480.....and you can't deny that you do make an assumption about absolute truth in your past #488 when you stated it does not exist....that is an assumption....unless of course you can prove your statement true..

 

[leibowde84]

Hey big fella! The most compelling evidence we can have for anything is first hand, anything else is taking someone's word for it.

That's what makes faith so strong, the personal evidence received outweighs any 3rd party opinion, it comes as close to proof as anything can. Yet belief, faith should still always be acknowledged.

I'll take the "big fella" as a compliment, but I have a simple question. Why do you put so much reliance on subjective experience, when it has been shown time and time again to be severely flawed? And, when subjective experience can be outdone by empirical study using the scientific method. I'm not saying that there aren't other sources for information, but surely you must understand the superiority of the scientific method for verification and predictions. Along with the honor of science for allowing the evidence to guide it rather than mostly unsubstantiated claims like scripture.

 

[Kirran]

Remember that our perception of science, and all our experience, is only ever through the multi-layered lenses of our senses, preconceptions and subjectivity.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'll take the "big fella" as a compliment, but I have a simple question. Why do you put so much reliance on subjective experience, when it has been shown time and time again to be severely flawed? And, when subjective experience can be outdone by empirical study using the scientific method. I'm not saying that there aren't other sources for information, but surely you must understand the superiority of the scientific method for verification and predictions. Along with the honor of science for allowing the evidence to guide it rather than mostly unsubstantiated claims like scripture.

It is meant with all due respect!

The scientific method is about NOT taking anybody's word for it, would you agree? Evidence can be a very subjective thing, so relying on other's evidence has been shown time and again to be unreliable also.

I take your point on verification, but personal experience can be very much objective, opposing the collective subjective opinion of a large group of 'experts'.

Let's say - what Galileo himself saw through his telescope, versus the wide consensus of the most educated authoritative scientific institutions of the day?

We both agree on our respect for the scientific method as ideally defined. But in reality, those attempting the method are human beings. The method is pure, the practitioners are not. Conclusions can guide evidence as often as the other way around.

 

[Shad]

Let's say - what Galileo himself saw through his telescope, versus the wide consensus of the most educated authoritative scientific institutions of the day?

Most of his points were about flaws of the geocentric model not for the heliocentric model. His ideas were rejected due to this. He only showed that Earth could orbit the Sun but did not provide evidence it did. Newtonian physics provided the evidence Galileo did not. So even his personal experiences and ideas were rejected due to lack of evidence even if he was right in the end.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Most of his points were about flaws of the geocentric model not for the heliocentric model. His ideas were rejected due to this. He only showed that Earth could orbit the Sun but did not provide evidence it did. Newtonian physics provided the evidence Galileo did not. So even his personal experiences and ideas were rejected due to lack of evidence even if he was right in the end.

He agreed with Copernicus/ heliocentricism though did he not? But true, you can be right without enough evidence to prove anything

And that is part of the point, we like to see the catholic church as impeding science at the time, but we can't blame anybody for not instantly throwing out centuries of received conventional wisdom, based on the anecdotal testimony of a couple of misfits. It was a pretty wild theory at the time.

But he was right, and for the right reasons, i.e. personal experience trumped what was considered 'verified' by a large consensus.