Should Believers Avoid and Fear Athiest?

[Reverend Rick]

So would most atheists.

That's why I say most Atheists are truly Agnostic.

If you have faith in something, it should we unwavering. Atheism is a religion based on faith.

 

[Magic Man]

That's why I say most Atheists are truly Agnostic.

If you have faith in something, it should we unwavering. Atheism is a religion based on faith.

So, what's the point?

Do you admit that most Christians are also agnostic? And that's the difference between atheism and Christianity, our faith doesn't have to be unwavering. We feel it's better to hold faith only as long as it is supported by evidence. Once the evidence somes along to prove the faith wrong, then there's no reason to hold the faith anymore, except to be completely stubborn.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'll defer to Storm on this one. In my opinion, atheists would be more willing to accept Christianity if the proper evidence presented itself than Christians would be to accept atheism if the proper evidence presented itself.

So your saying that a Christian's faith is stronger than an Atheist's faith?

 

[Magic Man]

So your saying that a Christian's faith is stronger than an Atheist's faith?

Nope, I'm saying the believe more blindly than atheists, disregarding evidence that opposes their beliefs.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Nope, I'm saying the believe more blindly than atheists, disregarding evidence that opposes their beliefs.

Thats why they call it blind faith.

 

[Magic Man]

Thats why they call it blind faith.

Yup. Are you advocating blind faith?

 

[Escéptico]

People have had mystical experiences "with God". That is evidence to the contrary of the position of atheism, yet you still think that atheism is correct. By your own definition, that means that you have faith.

Hmm. I see you've decided to redefine 'evidence' in the same impractical way that you've redefined 'faith.'

Someone's personal experience only qualifies as evidence if it can be verified in some objective way. Are you saying the mere fact that someone claims to have had a mystical experience with God qualifies as evidence?

 

[Magic Man]

Hmm. I see you've decided to redefine 'evidence' in the same impractical way that you've redefined 'faith.'

Someone's personal experience only qualifies as evidence if it can be verified in some objective way. Are you saying the mere fact that someone claims to have had a mystical experience with God qualifies as evidence?

It does for them.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Yup. Are you advocating blind faith?

Not any more than you, my friend. If I told you that I had mystical experiences while in church, would you come to church?

 

[Storm]

Hmm. I see you've decided to redefine 'evidence' in the same impractical way that you've redefined 'faith.'

faith

/feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. —Idiom9.in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
You're the one trying to restrict the word to the definition you find most convenient, Esceptico. Matt's just using it in a broader sense, not redefining it at all.

Someone's personal experience only qualifies as evidence if it can be verified in some objective way. Are you saying the mere fact that someone claims to have had a mystical experience with God qualifies as evidence?

It's anecdotal evidence. Hardly compelling, and certainly not proof, but evidence nonetheless.

 

[Magic Man]

That's why I say most Atheists are truly Agnostic.

If you have faith in something, it should we unwavering. Atheism is a religion based on faith.

If you're Chritian and don't advocate blind faith, why would you then make this comment?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I believe all faith is blind, including yours.

 

[Magic Man]

I believe all faith is blind, including yours.

Ah, so you're an Escepticoian. Blind faith leads some Christians to allow their babies to die from perfectly treatable diseases because they believe without rationale that God will cure their babies if He sees fit. Normal faith allowed my parents to get me medical attention when something was wrong with me. Still don't see a difference?

 

[Escéptico]

Ah, so you're an Escepticoian.

Nice one.

Blind faith leads some Christians to allow their babies to die from perfectly treatable diseases because they believe without rationale that God will cure their babies if He sees fit. Normal faith allowed my parents to get me medical attention when something was wrong with me. Still don't see a difference?

No, your parents didn't have faith in 'spiritual healing' at all. They believed, with good reason, that medical attention would benefit a sick child.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Ah, so you're an Escepticoian. Blind faith leads some Christians to allow their babies to die from perfectly treatable diseases because they believe without rationale that God will cure their babies if He sees fit. Normal faith allowed my parents to get me medical attention when something was wrong with me. Still don't see a difference?

Do I come off as unreasonable to you? Of course I see an extreme example of blind faith.

Let's say you found Jesus remains. If the proof was positive, I would have to acknowledge that.

Now, if a Christians told you that you would experience a presence of God in their church. Would you check it out or blindly ignore the claim?

 

[Magic Man]

Do I come off as unreasonable to you? Of course I see an extreme example of blind faith.

Let's say you found Jesus remains. If the proof was positive, I would have to acknowledge that.

Now, if a Christians told you that you would experience a presence of God in their church. Would you check it out or blindly ignore the claim?

I went to church for 18 years, and went to Catholic school for 8 of them. I'd say I've given it a shot. I can say confidently that I won't see God in church. There is the possibility that I would, but I see no reason to continue going on the off chance that something will happen to me that didn't happen for the first 18 years I went.

So, why did you say that all faith is blind, then, if you see the difference between blind faith and regular faith that accounts for another possibility?

 

[Magic Man]

Nice one.

Thanks.

No, your parents didn't have faith in 'spiritual healing' at all. They believed, with good reason, that medical attention would benefit a sick child.

So, wouldn't you then say that they didn't believe blindly, but they believed with an ability to still use reason and logic?

 

[Escéptico]

So, wouldn't you then say that they didn't believe blindly, but they believed with an ability to still use reason and logic?

The way you've explained it to me, amigo, they didn't believe God would heal their child without medical care. They believed it was good to take a sick child to a doctor.

It sounds to me that they did not have 'faith' in spritual healing.

 

[Magic Man]

The way you've explained it to me, amigo, they didn't believe God would heal their child without medical care. They believed it was good to take a sick child to a doctor.

It sounds to me that they did not have 'faith' in spritual healing.

But, they had faith in God, right? All Christians have faith in God, right? Isn't that a prerequisite? It's pointless to make the distinction between believing in spiritual healing and not believing. I assure you that they believe that spiritual healing has happened in some cases. They don't deny it's possibility, but they don't believe in it to the exclusion of doing something about it themselves. If you believe in the Christian God, you generally believe in some kind of spiritual healing, then it just depends on what degree you take that faith to.

 

[Escéptico]

You're the one trying to restrict the word to the definition you find most convenient, Esceptico. Matt's just using it in a broader sense, not redefining it at all.

This is from the dictionary entry you cited:

1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Matt is applying the first definition to his 'faith' in his wife or our 'faith' in science, but ignoring the second definition, which more accurately describes 'faith' in God or spiritual healing.

I'm saying that these two definitions don't describe the same phenomenon. 'Faith' in the sense of 'confidence' is not the same as 'faith' in the sense of 'wishful thinking'.