Should Believers Avoid and Fear Athiest?

[Magic Man]

This is from the dictionary entry you cited:

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'.

I'm ignoring the second definition for two reasons.

1) Everything aside from each of our individual existences, we have to take as a belief. You can't absolutely prove anything except for that. So, any claim we make other than "I think therefore I am" is by default a belief with no real proof, making it a faith-based claim.

2) Aside from that, people have "evidence" to believe in God. It just differs from the evidence which would convince you.

Faith is the same, no matter in which situation it applies. There are different levels of faith, but it's still faith. Faith is believing in something, which is why belief is many times used as a synonym for faith. I have the same faith that my wife won't cheat on me as I do that there is no God. Both of those are faith-based claims based on evidence. I'm choosing to ignore the definition which says that faith believes in something with no evidence because everyone always believes what they believe based on some kind of evidence, so the definition is ridiculous.

 

[Escéptico]

any claim we make other than "I think therefore I am" is by default a belief with no real proof, making it a faith-based claim.

Come on, Matt. Our degree of certainty regarding the validity of any claim is based on a lot of factors: the amount of evidence supporting it, the nature of the evidence, the amount of different lines of inquiry that the evidence represents, and so on. I never talk about anything being 'proven,' because it's an assumption of inductive reasoning that additional information could change our conclusion.

But you're making it sound like anything that's not 100% absolutely deductively proven is taken completely on faith. I'd say you've got a false dilemma there. It's not faith if there's a large quantity of reliable, objective information in a claim's favor.

"Humans and chimps share a common ancestor" is not a faith-based claim.

I'm choosing to ignore the definition which says that faith believes in something with no evidence because everyone always believes what they believe based on some kind of evidence, so the definition is ridiculous.

And this is only because you've also chosen to equivocate on the definition of 'evidence.' Once again, there's no reason to accept your redefinition except that you happen to favor it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm ignoring the second definition for two reasons.

1) Everything aside from each of our individual existences, we have to take as a belief. You can't absolutely prove anything except for that. So, any claim we make other than "I think therefore I am" is by default a belief with no real proof, making it a faith-based claim.

2) Aside from that, people have "evidence" to believe in God. It just differs from the evidence which would convince you.

Faith is the same, no matter in which situation it applies. There are different levels of faith, but it's still faith. Faith is believing in something, which is why belief is many times used as a synonym for faith. I have the same faith that my wife won't cheat on me as I do that there is no God. Both of those are faith-based claims based on evidence. I'm choosing to ignore the definition which says that faith believes in something with no evidence because everyone always believes what they believe based on some kind of evidence, so the definition is ridiculous.

So tell us what evidence is there to support your wife "not" cheating on you?

This is belief or faith based on "no" evidence.

Faith or belief...whatever you like to call it...Atheist "believe" there is no information or testable data available to prove or even disprove the existence of a god.

There are theist on this forum who truly believe in the existence of their gods (outside of judeo christian). Do chistians aknowleddge the existence of those gods? Some of the christians/muslims/jews that I have spoken to say that no other gods exist except for the one true god. Neither side have proof. Are we to believe that many gods exist or only the one from the judeo christian camp?

 

[Magic Man]

Come on, Matt. Our degree of certainty regarding the validity of any claim is based on a lot of factors: the amount of evidence supporting it, the nature of the evidence, the amount of different lines of inquiry that the evidence represents, and so on. I never talk about anything being 'proven,' because it's an assumption of inductive reasoning that additional information could change our conclusion.

But you're making it sound like anything that's not 100% absolutely deductively proven is taken completely on faith. I'd say you've got a false dilemma there. It's not faith if there's a large quantity of reliable, objective information in a claim's favor.

"Humans and chimps share a common ancestor" is not a faith-based claim.

And this is only because you've also chosen to equivocate on the definition of 'evidence.' Once again, there's no reason to accept your redefinition except that you happen to favor it.

Again, this goes back to the degrees of faith. I don't need as much faith to believe that I am at work right now as I do to believe that you are a man, or that God exists or whatever else. That doesn't mean it's not a matter of faith, though.

Actually, that is a very faith-based claim. It's not even completely proven in science yet.

Then, there's no reason to accpet your definition of anything, just because you favor it.

Also, I ignored the one particular definition you pointed out because, like Storm said, I was using a broader definition. My definition included that particular one, but since that constradicted with other veriations on the definition, I decided to use the one that applied to more than just that one limited view.

I'm not changing the definition of evidence. Maybe I'm using it in a broader sense too, but that's what we should do when discussing things like this.

Evidence is anything that can be used to help prove a theory. Some people believe that someone else's testimoony is enough evidence to believe something. Others need different evidence, but both are using evidence, in the end.

Let me ask you this: What is the difference between a belief and a fact?

 

[Magic Man]

So tell us what evidence is there to support your wife "not" cheating on you?

This is belief or faith based on "no" evidence.

Faith or belief...whatever you like to call it...Atheist "believe" there is no information or testable data available to prove or even disprove the existence of a god.

There are theist on this forum who truly believe in the existence of their gods (outside of judeo christian). Do chistians aknowleddge the existence of those gods? Some of the christians/muslims/jews that I have spoken to say that no other gods exist except for the one true god. Neither side have proof. Are we to believe that many gods exist or only the one from the judeo christian camp?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but the evidence I have that my wife won't cheat on me is that she never has, and she has told me she won't, and she has always kept her promises since I've known her. There are many other things, like things about her general personality that go into this too, but those are the most important things.

What else are you trying to say here?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but the evidence I have that my wife won't cheat on me is that she never has, and she has told me she won't, and she has always kept her promises since I've known her. There are many other things, like things about her general personality that go into this too, but those are the most important things.

What else are you trying to say here?

I see what you're getting at. But what you have is still a belief not evidence.

How do you know your wife has not cheated on you? (She told you she hasn't)...This is hardly a convincing proof.

You say that she has kept her promise. How do you know? (She told you she has)...Again, this is hardly evidence.

You observe her behavior around you as one who has not nor is cheating. Again, this is hardly a proof of commitment. This is based on feeling (belief, faith)...not fact.

There are countless stories of infadelity where the spouse doesn't have a clue that his or her partner is or has cheated. We also read of men and women living double lives with a second family etc. Surly the innocent party involved believed the other was being faithful.

 

[Magic Man]

I see what you're getting at. But what you have is still a belief not evidence.

How do you know your wife has not cheated on you? (She told you she hasn't)...This is hardly a convincing proof.

You say that she has kept her promise. How do you know? (She told you she has)...Again, this is hardly evidence.

You observe her behavior around you as one who has not nor is cheating. Again, this is hardly a proof of commitment. This is based on feeling (belief, faith)...not fact.

There are countless stories of infadelity where the spouse doesn't have a clue that his or her partner is or has cheated. We also read of men and women living double lives with a second family etc. Surly the innocent party involved believed the other was being faithful.

I know. Have you ever seen Jupiter for yourself? Have you ever seen many other things science tells us exist? In essence, you take many things in science on faith because someone else tells you. You trust that whoever has seen those things, or whatever took those pictures that you have seen, or done certain research has given us good information. Just because it makes sense in the context of what we've already taken as belief doesn't mean it's absolute evidence.

Science comes up with theories based on the repetition of certain exact circumstances. Nothing in science is definite, it's just not been proven wrong yet. Every time you let go of a ball, it drops to the earth, supporting gravity, but, if one day, it doesn't drop, you'll question gravity. All of my evidence so far points me to the conclusion that my wife won't cheat on me, but that could change one day. I just have faith that it won't.

 

[Escéptico]

(I said " 'Humans and chimps share a common ancestor' is not a faith-based claim.")

Actually, that is a very faith-based claim. It's not even completely proven in science yet.

Matt, I’m sorry. I had no idea how deep and dark your rabbithole of numbnuttery was when I initially engaged you. But I give up. It’s impossible to find common ground with someone who fires off one bizarre non sequitur after the other, and redefines words however he sees fit.

 

[Magic Man]

Matt, I’m sorry. I had no idea how deep and dark your rabbithole of numbnuttery was when I initially engaged you. But I give up. It’s impossible to find common ground with someone who fires off one bizarre non sequitur after the other, and redefines words however he sees fit.

Did they find the "missing link" since yesterday? I hadn't heard! That's great news! I don't understand how you can believe that evolution is a proven law in science. There's a reason it's called the "Theory of Evolution". I'm not saying it's wrong, but you can't use it as a fact.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I know. Have you ever seen Jupiter for yourself? Have you ever seen many other things science tells us exist? In essence, you take many things in science on faith because someone else tells you. You trust that whoever has seen those things, or whatever took those pictures that you have seen, or done certain research has given us good information. Just because it makes sense in the context of what we've already taken as belief doesn't mean it's absolute evidence.

Again, this is an assumption that one believes everything one hears or sees. I have not seen Jupiter (personally) but we have centuries of data that said it existed. We now have the technology to confirm that it is where it is said to be. NASA is not the only organization with sattelites taking pictures of it and collecting data. Should we assume, by your reasoning, that there is a worldwide conspiracy that has gone on for hundreds of years to deceive us about Jupiter? It isn't faith that we know Jupiter is there. There is testable data available.

Science comes up with theories based on the repetition of certain exact circumstances. Nothing in science is definite, it's just not been proven wrong yet.

The problem here is we fully admit this. Again, the data is available to be scrutanized and re-analyzed. I'm a Network Engineer and there are times when I'm stumped on a networking problem. I work my theory and if it doesn't work I re-approach it from a different angle using the data that I have collected on my previous attemp(s). If all else fails I consult another engineer giving him my data. He may approcah a different way in order for us to solve the problem. I theorized that what I had found would work. I didn't simply believe (faith) I could get it working by clicking all willy nilly. That would be illogical. You can't do this with gods, spirits etc. because there is no data to test.

Every time you let go of a ball, it drops to the earth, supporting gravity, but, if one day, it doesn't drop, you'll question gravity.

What if? But that's not how we think. Current data says that's not how gravity works. If, for sake of argument, it did then we'd have to figure out what changed it. We're already 10 steps ahead because we know how gravity works. We have data to compare.

You have a feeling that there must be something bigger or beyond you that is all powerful and keeping everything "in order"... If this is how you see it then fine. We don't believe that, so we investigate, collect data and make it all available to be scrutanized and re-worked.

All of my evidence so far points me to the conclusion that my wife won't cheat on me, but that could change one day. I just have faith that it won't.

Yes.....That's almost what I said. You keep saying you have evidence but this is not the case. You have a feeling she isn't or has not. There is a chance that when you two are (not together) she either is or has. Your limited observation of her has led you to believe she hasn't or isn't cheating but you don't know for sure. Belief and evidence are totally different and a lot of times they are incompatible.

 

[Magic Man]

Again, this is an assumption that one believes everything one hears or sees. I have not seen Jupiter (personally) but we have centuries of data that said it existed. We now have the technology to confirm that it is where it is said to be. NASA is not the only organization with sattelites taking pictures of it and collecting data. Should we assume, by your reasoning, that there is a worldwide conspiracy that has gone on for hundreds of years to deceive us about Jupiter? It isn't faith that we know Jupiter is there. There is testable data available.




The problem here is we fully admit this. Again, the data is available to be scrutanized and re-analyzed. I'm a Network Engineer and there are times when I'm stumped on a networking problem. I work my theory and if it doesn't work I re-approach it from a different angle using the data that I have collected on my previous attemp(s). If all else fails I consult another engineer giving him my data. He may approcah a different way in order for us to solve the problem. I theorized that what I had found would work. I didn't simply believe (faith) I could get it working by clicking all willy nilly. That would be illogical. You can't do this with gods, spirits etc. because there is no data to test.



What if? But that's not how we think. Current data says that's not how gravity works. If, for sake of argument, it did then we'd have to figure out what changed it. We're already 10 steps ahead because we know how gravity works. We have data to compare.

You have a feeling that there must be something bigger or beyond you that is all powerful and keeping everything "in order"... If this is how you see it then fine. We don't believe that, so we investigate, collect data and make it all available to be scrutanized and re-worked.



Yes.....That's almost what I said. You keep saying you have evidence but this is not the case. You have a feeling she isn't or has not. There is a chance that when you two are (not together) she either is or has. Your limited observation of her has led you to believe she hasn't or isn't cheating but you don't know for sure. Belief and evidence are totally different and a lot of times they are incompatible.

OK, let's take a step back. All I'm saying is that any evidence beyond the fact that you yourself think is suspect. It might only slightly be suspect, but you can't absolutely prove it.

How is the example of Jupiter different from the example of my wife? At least I've seen with my own eyes that my wife is not cheating on me sometimes. I've never seen Jupiter with my own eyes. I don't expect you to believe that there's some conspiracy concerning Jupiter. I fully expect you to keep thinking of it as you always have. The point is that when you break it down, you might ascribe more value to the evidence that Jupiter exists than the evidence that my wife isn't going to cheat on me, but there is the same basic kind of evidence for both.

And remember I'm an atheist. I believe just as much as you do in science and hard facts. I just realize that, in the end, I can' t fully and completely prove those facts to anyone. I can prove them enough to go on with my life assuming they are true, but not so that there is 0% chance of them being wrong.

You keep using other observers as evidence. That's my point. You can't fully trust even your senses, much less anyone else's. Yes, you can check your data against another scientist's, but why is his any more reliable? Maybe he used the same faulty methods you did, or missed the same thing, or something different. Maybe both of your methods were perfect, and you didn't collect quite enough data.

Again, all I'm saying is that, honestly, you can't say that there is no chance of scientific fact being wrong. It might be .000000001% of a chance, but it's there. In that case, do you know, or do you think, that it's a fact? I don't advocate throwing out science, and going through life assuming nothing, but when you get technical about it, everything is belief.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

OK, let's take a step back. All I'm saying is that any evidence beyond the fact that you yourself think is suspect. It might only slightly be suspect, but you can't absolutely prove it.

I would tend to agree with you here. I personally, don't believe everything I hear or see.

How is the example of Jupiter different from the example of my wife? At least I've seen with my own eyes that my wife is not cheating on me sometimes.

I understand what you're saying. My view is NASA is not the only people who have sent probes into space collecting images, full motion video and data on Jupiter. This data is out there for all to re-analyze if they disagree with the results. There is is no conclusive data to support your belief that your wife has no or is not cheating. Unless you have he lojacked and a camera crew videotaping her every move....then what you have is belief that she isn't. I'm simply saying that faith is not evidence.

I would agree that we all have strong beliefs in something. I believe that every morning when I turn the key to my car it will start. I believe and am faithful it will get me all the way to work. But this belief or faith in this car's ability is not a proof that it will do what I believe it will do.

And remember I'm an atheist.

:clap........

I believe just as much as you do in science and hard facts. I just realize that, in the end, I can' t fully and completely prove those facts to anyone. I can prove them enough to go on with my life assuming they are true, but not so that there is 0% chance of them being wrong.

I fully agree.

You keep using other observers as evidence. That's my point. You can't fully trust even your senses, much less anyone else's.

But these are the same senses that you've employed and making the statement you have "evidence" of something you can't quite be clear on. I fully admit that what I think I know today may not be the same when or if tomorrow comes. I have every confidence, belief and faith that your wife has not cheated or is cheating but I have no evidence to support this belief.

Yes, you can check your data against another scientist's, but why is his any more reliable? Maybe he used the same faulty methods you did, or missed the same thing, or something different. Maybe both of your methods were perfect, and you didn't collect quite enough data.

I have no reason to doubt the existence of jupiter given the array of images, video from multiple sources collected over the years. I will fully admit that the data as to its makeup, storms etc. are always changing. We theorized planets with rings and confirmed this with advancement in technology. It's not the be all to end all because I admit there's tons we don't know about.

Again, all I'm saying is that, honestly, you can't say that there is no chance of scientific fact being wrong. It might be .000000001% of a chance, but it's there. In that case, do you know, or do you think, that it's a fact?

As you can see from above and possibly a few earlier post that I admit that atheist can be wrong. We have been plenty of times. I personally admit, as being an atheist, that the data is tentative and never absolute. It would be illogical to believe that scientific research and discovery is absolute. My question to theist was can they admit they can be wrong? Some can but most won't.

I don't advocate throwing out science, and going through life assuming nothing, but when you get technical about it, everything is belief.

I agree but I also think that it can prove to be foolish to believe before we have the facts. I also believe that If we have what we believe are the facts they need to be scrutinized. Any and all data collected should be allowed to be re-analyzed and re-analyzed. I simply don't think this is a possibility with faith based religious claims.

 

[Magic Man]

I would tend to agree with you here. I personally, don't believe everything I hear or see.



I understand what you're saying. My view is NASA is not the only people who have sent probes into space collecting images, full motion video and data on Jupiter. This data is out there for all to re-analyze if they disagree with the results. There is is no conclusive data to support your belief that your wife has no or is not cheating. Unless you have he lojacked and a camera crew videotaping her every move....then what you have is belief that she isn't. I'm simply saying that faith is not evidence. (1)

I would agree that we all have strong beliefs in something. I believe that every morning when I turn the key to my car it will start. I believe and am faithful it will get me all the way to work. But this belief or faith in this car's ability is not a proof that it will do what I believe it will do.




:clap........





I fully agree.



But these are the same senses that you've employed and making the statement you have "evidence" of something you can't quite be clear on. I fully admit that what I think I know today may not be the same when or if tomorrow comes. I have every confidence, belief and faith that your wife has not cheated or is cheating but I have no evidence to support this belief.



I have no reason to doubt the existence of jupiter given the array of images, video from multiple sources collected over the years. I will fully admit that the data as to its makeup, storms etc. are always changing. We theorized planets with rings and confirmed this with advancement in technology. It's not the be all to end all because I admit there's tons we don't know about.



As you can see from above and possibly a few earlier post that I admit that atheist can be wrong. We have been plenty of times. I personally admit, as being an atheist, that the data is tentative and never absolute. It would be illogical to believe that scientific research and discovery is absolute. My question to theist was can they admit they can be wrong? Some can but most won't.




I agree but I also think that it can prove to be foolish to believe before we have the facts. I also believe that If we have what we believe are the facts they need to be scrutinized. Any and all data collected should be allowed to be re-analyzed and re-analyzed. I simply don't think this is a possibility with faith based religious claims.

OK, we seem to be in agreement here. (1) I'm not saying by any means that faith is evidence. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. (2) I have used this exact example before. It illustrates it perfectly. This is all I'm saying. Sometimes, there are things that seem like absolute facts, but when you really think about it, you have to put faith in even them to live a normal life. You could constantly wonder whether or not your car is going to start, and let it infringe on your everyday life, but there's no reason to. Instead it's helpful to have faith that it will start every day. This becomes especially evident when it doesn't start one day, and we realize that we took it for granted.

And your last two sentences are completely right. There is still a big difference bewteen scientific faith-based claims and religious ones. That's why I accept the scientific ones and not the religious ones, myself.

 

[texan1]

Why would a believer fear an atheist? I think an atheist would have more reasons to fear the believers. Thank goodness our country was founded on the idea that church and state should be separate. If laws were made based on the Christian Bible, our society might resemble the Taliban. Have you read the Old Testament? There's a lot of scary stuff in there. Have you read Leviticus? And the laws that we criticize the Extremist Muslims for (stoning women to death in public for adultry or for being raped; not allowing women to speak in church, punishing men for the length of their beard, etc.) are all outlined in our bible as well (Deuteronomy 22 for example). Thank goodness most believers in this country ignore most of God's word in the Bible and just choose to believe in the good/easy stuff .

 

[Dirty Penguin]

OK, we seem to be in agreement here. (1) I'm not saying by any means that faith is evidence. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. (2) I have used this exact example before. It illustrates it perfectly. This is all I'm saying. Sometimes, there are things that seem like absolute facts, but when you really think about it, you have to put faith in even them to live a normal life. You could constantly wonder whether or not your car is going to start, and let it infringe on your everyday life, but there's no reason to. Instead it's helpful to have faith that it will start every day. This becomes especially evident when it doesn't start one day, and we realize that we took it for granted.

Yeah...I would agree with you here..... You might have just been misunderstood earlier......

We atheist are nothing to fear. We bring a different level of objectivity to the table.

And your last two sentences are completely right. There is still a big difference bewteen scientific faith-based claims and religious ones. That's why I accept the scientific ones and not the religious ones, myself.

True.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Why would a believer fear an atheist? I think an atheist would have more reasons to fear the believers. Thank goodness our country was founded on the idea that church and state should be separate. If laws were made based on the Christian Bible, our society might resemble the Taliban. Have you read the Old Testament? There's a lot of scary stuff in there. Have you read Leviticus? And the laws that we criticize the Extremist Muslims for (stoning women to death in public for adultry or for being raped; not allowing women to speak in church, punishing men for the length of their beard, etc.) are all outlined in our bible as well (Deuteronomy 22 for example). Thank goodness most believers in this country ignore most of God's word in the Bible and just choose to believe in the good/easy stuff .

Welcome to the forum...

Yea....I agree....We, as atheist, would never want any theist to get rid of or suspend their beliefs, their customs etc. ...we just don't want it applied to us.

 

[gnostic]

The Agnostic would change their belief if the evidence presented it's self.

If there is definitive proof or evidence of God's existence, then I would certainly believe in God.

But whether I worship him or not is totally different matter.

You may ask why?

Well the why if what the bible say is true about god, then I am more than likely will not worship because I see the god to be unjust in many key issues found in the bible.

Look at in this way. You believe in God and what it say in the bible. If that is so, then you would also believe in the existence of the Devil aka Satan aka Lucifer, etc. And though you believe in the Devil's existence, at the same time, you don't worship him because he is bad, evil, or whatever you want to call it.

Well, I making the same judgment based on what I read about God. I can choose to worship or not (that if he exist), based on if God is good or evil. God has both good and bad qualities, and to me their is a lot of negative around him, more so than the positive.

Proof of his existence would ONLY be the 1st step. He got to prove that he is worthy of worship, and so far I don't think he is.

 

[GadFly]

GadFly

Whatever the hypothesis.....we need to know any and all data involved so that it can be scrutanized, tested, confirmed or debunked.....What we know continues to change because we continue to learn more. This is part of the "scientific method" some one referred you to.

You summize a god as a creator. This understanding is taught. This way of thinking is learned and is indoctrinated into a person. Some will tell you the gods did it and some will tell you a god did it. None of these ways of thinking have an iota of proof of what they purport. Every aspect of a god is from the minds of men and can not be tested, proven or disproven.

You prove the scientific method is not logic. It is,however logical. It does depend on logic for its creative power. If the scientific method abused logic the way you do, man would never be able to cross the street let alone go to the moon.

Do you not accept the existence of the scientific method as a proof of God? Apparently you do not but you are willing to use it to test everything else. Use it to test your own thinking. Why do you not regard logic in the same light? You deny God placed knowledge in the minds in the form of the scientific method and logic, yet fail to point out where these self evident truths come from. Next you'll claim these do not exist.

Learn to speak the English language better and you will be able to figure out better what you believe. Understanding the language is vital to reasoning. Mball is so frustrated and confused with logic that he has given up the process altogether. See, fly bites are infective.

 

[uss_bigd]

You prove the scientific method is not logic. It is,however logical. It does depend on logic for its creative power. If the scientific method abused logic the way you do, man would never be able to cross the street let alone go to the moon.

Do you not accept the existence of the scientific method as a proof of God? Apparently you do not but you are willing to use it to test everything else. Use it to test your own thinking. Why do you not regard logic in the same light? You deny God placed knowledge in the minds in the form of the scientific method and logic, yet fail to point out where these self evident truths come from. Next you'll claim these do not exist.

Learn to speak the English language better and you will be able to figure out better what you believe. Understanding the language is vital to reasoning. Mball is so frustrated and confused with logic that he has given up the process altogether. See, fly bites are infective.

i wish i can say as well as you said it here. gee

 

[Michel07]

The tools you seem to favor are logical fallacies like straw men, ad hominems, red herrings, etc.

The tool you seem to favor is the delusion of your own intellect. There is no logical basis for atheism. I consider myself in better intellectual company with the likes of Copernicus, Einstein, Gregor Mengel , Isaac Newton etc. who all believed in God. But at the end of the day knowing of God is not for the proud. So what's your intellectual claim to fame?