People don't seem to understand faith

[1137]

Well said, nash8 (though I'm sure a wasted effort).

 

[Bunyip]

So only Christian Scripture counts as "religious context"? You referred numerous times to Judeo-Christian concepts, but there is faith outside of that religion that is not based belief in deity, and would fall under the definition of faith that does not involve the type of "religious faith" that you speak of.

Sure, and that kind of faith is not something atheists find problematic.
It is specifically 'faith' as the bible defines it that atheists find troublesome.

One good example would be in Buddhism. There is a faith that if you adhere to certain guidelines you will have be "happy". And as far as scientific definition of being "happy" - production of neurochemicals and stimulation in certain area's of the brain, it seems as though Buddhist monk's "faith" is justified.

Understanding LOVE
Read the section on brain scans of Buddhist monks.

Buddism is not a faith based philosophy my friend.

 

[psychoslice]

There is nothing to understand about faith, faith is just hope, its hoping what you believe is true, its like wishful thinking. With faith you cannot debate or argue, for its only your personal belief, nothing more than that.

 

[nash8]

Compared to the thousands of slavering televangelists telling us we are going to burn in hell and so on, he still seems pretty grandfatherly to me. More importantly, people pay togo and listen to him talk, as opposed to standing on a street corner screaming abkut damnation.

There was no comparison originally made. You made the comparison yourself. The statement was that Dawkins has a tendency to be rude. You might think that his rudeness is not on par with Hellfire evangelists (which I would agree with you for the most part), but evangelists being "more" rude than Dawkins, does not disregard that Dawkins can be rude just the same.

No atheists are not at all scared of the word faith, in the form they have everyday - like trust/belief etc.

Do you speak for all atheists?

It is the form of faith as defined by scripture that we tend to object to. We do realise that we have trust and be.ieve things every day and have no porblem with that - what we tend to reject is believing in things without evidence.

Again what scripture are you talking about? There are many other religions that define faith in a way other than in the Christian sense. Secondly, the whole point I was trying to make was that many atheists I have personally talked with about "faith" immediately reject whatever I was saying just because I used the word faith, even when I was not talking about faith without evidence, or necessarily about faith in God or religion.

Think of it this way: Imagine a friend of yours has curly hair and got mad at you - that does not link curly hair to aggression any more than whatever some other person has said links to atheism.

I agree, but his aggression, in this case, was based solely on his atheism, at least from all outward indications. He literally started yelling because I was talking about my conception of God. My belief in God, and consequently his lack of belief in God, was the reason why he started yelling. Of course there could have been some other deeply rooted subconscious reason for it, his conscious reason for getting upset was because I was talking about God.

 

[Bunyip]

*Now*faith*is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV). Hebrews

There was no comparison originally made. You made the comparison yourself. The statement was that Dawkins has a tendency to be rude. You might think that his rudeness is not on par with Hellfire evangelists (which I would agree with you for the most part), but evangelists being "more" rude than Dawkins, does not disregard that Dawkins can be rude just the same.



Do you speak for all atheists?



Again what scripture are you talking about? There are many other religions that define faith in a way other than in the Christian sense. Secondly, the whole point I was trying to make was that many atheists I have personally talked with about "faith" immediately reject whatever I was saying just because I used the word faith, even when I was not talking about faith without evidence, or necessarily about faith in God or religion.

When you start talking about your Christianity with an atheist and refer to faith, you should expect that the definition of faith in Christian scripture would be relevant.

Sure, it is only the notion of belief without evidence that atheists tend to reject - do you understand?

I agree, but his aggression, in this case, was based solely on his atheism, at least from all outward indications. He literally started yelling because I was talking about my conception of God. My belief in God, and consequently his lack of belief in God, was the reason why he started yelling. Of course there was some other deeply rooted subconscious reason for it, his conscious reason for getting upset was because I was talking about God.

 

[nash8]

Sure, and that kind of faith is not something atheists find problematic.
It is specifically 'faith' as the bible defines it that atheists find troublesome.

Ahhh, if by "faith" as the Bible defines it, you mean blind faith, than I would agree with you that type of faith is not necessarily a good thing, and I could understand why atheists do not agree with it.

Buddism is not a faith based philosophy my friend.

Ahh, you say that, but think about it. Do Buddhists not have faith that the teachings of the Buddha will lead them to enlightenment, or at least down a path that would lead them to happiness, or a positive state of mind? Is this not faith in the teachings and/or doctrines of a religion and/or religious teacher?

Of course you could argue that Buddhism is not a true "religion", but it definitely qualifies for definition 2 or 3 in my book.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=religion+definition

And however you want to qualify it. Following the teachings of someone who died over 2000 years ago, in the hopes that you will lead a happy life sounds like religious faith to me.

 

[nash8]

[*Now*faith*is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV). Hebrews

Sure, it is only the notion of belief without evidence that atheists tend to reject - do you understand?

Of course I understand. You are saying that atheists only reject belief without evidence, correct?

I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make. Please explain to me the point I'm trying to make if you understand what I am saying.

 

[outhouse]

So we have 10 definition's of faith

More then that.

So when AN atheist, not all atheists, becomes disgruntled when you suggest that he/she has "faith",

Who is disgruntled?

is it not his/her own narrow sense of the definition of the word faith that is limiting his/her ability to see clearly what all the word faith entails, and to realize that he/she does indeed have faith in some aspects of life?

Your overthinking it.


I don't see any atheist being narrow minded about the word or use of the word "faith"

And would you not also agree that it would be more likely that an atheist would be more likely to get upset when told he/she has "faith" rather than a religious person?

Depending on context.

I will say that before coming to this cite, my general interactions with "strong" atheists

Was Zero.

I didn't even know I was an atheist until this place helped educate me.



Lets get you into context here. What OP is doing is taking up a narrow philosophical approach to the word, by stating atheist do not like a narrow definition.

And "faith" is a term that for the most part does deal with religion for the most part.


Case in point, when is the last time you used it out of religious context??????????????????????????????????????


No one goes to college and studies biology and states, man I sure have faith in science

 

[outhouse]

Why use faith when hope, trust, or belief works in context much better for non religious applications????

 

[Bunyip]

Ahhh, if by "faith" as the Bible defines it, you mean blind faith, than I would agree with you that type of faith is not necessarily a good thing, and I could understand why atheists do not agree with it.



Ahh, you say that, but think about it. Do Buddhists not have faith that the teachings of the Buddha will lead them to enlightenment, or at least down a path that would lead them to happiness, or a positive state of mind? Is this not faith in the teachings and/or doctrines of a religion and/or religious teacher?

No, it is not faith in the Christian sense, Buddism is not faith base.

Of course you could argue that Buddhism is not a true "religion", but it definitely qualifies for definition 2 or 3 in my book.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=religion+definition

And however you want to qualify it. Following the teachings of someone who died over 2000 years ago, in the hopes that you will lead a happy life sounds like religious faith to me.

 

[Bunyip]

Of course I understand. You are saying that atheists only reject belief without evidence, correct?

I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make. Please explain to me the point I'm trying to make if you understand what I am saying.

Yes. You are saying that when you refer to faith you do not necessarily mean belief without evidence. In which case the most simple solution is to use the words 'trust' and 'belief' in future and save any confusion when talking to atheists..

In a conversation you (a Christain) has with an atheist about the Christian god, the term faith is most likely to be taken to mean what it means in the context of Christianity. If you wish to use its meaning from a different context, just make that clear.

 

[420blazeit]

Don't tell the militant atheists that! They'll flip out ;-)

Why would they?

 

[TheGunShoj]

Wow. Just wow. I never said to ignore the other definition, I defined faith as the first definition within the context of this thread and you took 10+ pages to wrap your head around it.

Yeah, it's sad.

The definition you are using is useless. If it's synonymous with belief and trust, why not just use one of those words rather than all the baggage that "faith" carries?

What's sad is that you are an atheist and you don't understand that the definition of faith that 99% of atheists take issue with is not the one you are trying to discuss.

Most pointless thread ever.

 

[outhouse]

The definition you are using is useless. If it's synonymous with belief and trust, why not just use one of those words rather than all the baggage that "faith" carries?

What's sad is that you are an atheist and you don't understand that the definition of faith that 99% of atheists take issue with is not the one you are trying to discuss.

Most pointless thread ever.

How dare you take "faith" out of context !!!!! everyone has to follow my narrow definition, and if they dont like it! its because they are militant I tell you!!!!

:biglaugh:

 

[1137]

The definition you are using is useless. If it's synonymous with belief and trust, why not just use one of those words rather than all the baggage that "faith" carries?

What's sad is that you are an atheist and you don't understand that the definition of faith that 99% of atheists take issue with is not the one you are trying to discuss.

Most pointless thread ever.

Ah, so you want me to hold to a christian based definition and are using the fact that I don't think the same was as 99& of atheists as a negative. Seriously, you're sure your not religious? I can't tell the difference.

 

[1137]

How dare you take "faith" out of context !!!!! everyone has to follow my narrow definition, and if they dont like it! its because they are militant I tell you!!!!

:biglaugh:

Hahaha :biglaugh:

It's so horrendously sad that you're still incapable of comprehending the unbelievably simple fact that in the context of this thread, faith = trust. My god, just the fact that you and these other members are atheists makes me think atheism might be wrong.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Ah, so you want me to hold to a christian based definition and are using the fact that I don't think the same was as 99& of atheists as a negative. Seriously, you're sure your not religious? I can't tell the difference.

No....that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you should understand that there are multiple definitions of words for use in different contexts.

Several people have explained to you that they don't take issue with the definition of faith you are using. Do you understand that? So this thread is pointless, because we all seem to be in agreement and your OP is irrelevant if that is the case. There is no debate do be had.

The faith you are describing is not what is typically being discussed in the religious arena. Faith to me, is a word that has been adopted by religion. When do you ever hear someone say it outside of religion or religious discussions. People use the words hope, belief and trust all the time in everyday life. Faith? no. So it seems logical that when the word faith is used, it is referring to the definition with religious connotations.

Also, I'm not sure why you think the definition I supplied was biblical or refers only to scripture. It doesn't. Anyone exercising belief without evidence is exercising faith, regardless of what we are talking about.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Hahaha :biglaugh:

It's so horrendously sad that you're still incapable of comprehending the unbelievably simple fact that in the context of this thread, faith = trust. My god, just the fact that you and these other members are atheists makes me think atheism might be wrong.

If you want to use that very specific definition of faith in your thread and exclude all others, that's fine and I think everyone understands that at this point. What you don't understand is that it makes your OP pointless. I'm pretty sure that every atheist in this thread has agreed to your narrow definition and then tried to explain to you that there is more to it than that.

If everyone in your target demographic agrees unanimously on the subject matter, what's the point of debating it?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Most recently with some "new atheists" I realized that they deteriorate to the level of beasts when you tell them that everyone has faith and belief. People seem to think that faith and blind acceptance / belief are one in the same, yet faith is simply about deep trust. Evidence is not a factor in the definition. You tell some people they have faith in science and they will freak out.

My question is why this happens. What's so wrong about faith? My theory is these individuals cannot evolve past the original rebellion and just associate faith with religious beliefs, beliefs that must be rejected for them to develop a new sense of Self. They ironically become the same thing that they hate, in this and other ways.

Yay, another thread that boils down to nothing more than semantics and ignoring the realities of linguistic use and context.

What a treat.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Yay, another thread that boils down to nothing more than semantics and ignoring the realities of linguistic use and context.

What a treat.

Yuuuuup. :banghead3