Where Do You Put Your Faith?

[Kfox]

If there is no way to detect God, one cannot claim to have faith. That's not Biblical faith. See definition.

If you could detect God, that would not be an example of something "unseen". Faith by definition is unseen.

 

[PureX]

Blind faith simply means there is no empirical evidence to support it. This happens all the time.

"Empirical evidence" isn't the definer or decider of all intellectual value. It isn't even a prime consideration for most people. I doubt, even, that it's your own.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Empirical evidence" isn't the definer or decider of all intellectual value.

What is intellectual value? Is it what intellectuals value? Is it what's valuable to academia? If what you mean is knowledge, empiricism is the only path to correct ideas about the world - ideas that can be used successfully to effect desired outcomes and avoid undesirable ones more often than deciding (guessing) without those ideas.

I didn't realize your name was Atheists.

Can I assume by that that you have no meaningful response to what you read, but felt like you wanted to post something a little snarky anyway? I understand that you don't like the kinds of things I write to you, but that's a choice you make. There is no legitimate reason to have an emotional response to being disagreed with. Here's an example of how to do that:

.Faith is the assured expectation [Greek *hupostasis (support, substance, steadinessv; (a) confidence, assurance, (b) a giving substance (or reality) to, or a guaranteeing, (c) substance, reality)] of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities [Greek *elegchos (a proof, test; a proof, that by which a thing is proved or tested; evidence)] that are not seen.

Faith is insufficiently justified belief. It's that simple. The above tries to glorify it as if it were a virtue rather than the mere willingness to believe without justification. It is not the assurance of something hoped for. That's what a promise or guarantee are. And in the case of many religious assurances, they're all unfalsifiable claims and promises that can't be verified and needn't be kept. It's the unjustified belief in that promise that is called faith. And the last phrase - "the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." - is a self-contradiction. To be evident is to be evident to the senses. To be undetectable is to be untestable.

What these religions do is make these claims and praise believing them without cause while calling other opinions foolishness - "the wisdom of the world" and warning you to not get too comfortable there or too familiar with their ways of knowing and believing.

One can't read this, and come away with that faith being blind.

Sure one can. "That are not seen" means that the non-seer is blind compared to one who can see. If you're driving blindfolded and make a turn absent any evidence, you're driving blind. If you take the blindfold off, suddenly one goes from blindly driving by faith to evidence-based decision making.

Cannot be detected on any level, sounds like the same thing as blindly believing.

Agreed. You've just described insufficiently justified belief (faith). And gods, and the supernatural. They all are believable only with faith, because the evidence to justify that belief doesn't exist.

 

[Little Dragon]

Blind faith simply means there is no empirical evidence to support it. This happens all the time.

Blind faith is effectively, wishing.

 

[Little Dragon]

It isn't even a prime consideration for most people. I doubt, even, that it's your own.

When crossing a busy a street, I look to sensory data my eyes and ears are sending me.
When I look at scientific theories, I examine the supporting data.
When I determine if a client is guilty or not, I look at the evidence files and listen to what they say.

In each case, I go by the best available information, information that is reliable, testable and objectively aquired.

If you do not. How are you still alive?

 

[PureX]

When crossing a busy a street, I look to sensory data my eyes and ears are sending me.
When I look at scientific theories, I examine the supporting data.
When I determine if a client is guilty or not, I look at the evidence files and listen to what they say.

In each case, I go by the best available information, information that is reliable, testable and objectively aquired.

If you do not. How are you still alive?

Living involves far more that just playing the odds according to whatever probabilities your senses and intellect can establish. Most people understand this. It's why we humans engage in art, and philosophy, and religion, and games.

 

[nPeace]

Love is attachment, an emotional response, of hormonal origin.

Can you prove that?

Love has no measurable physical parameters. Other than indirect inference as electrochemical signals in the brain. I do not understand your point.

That's my point.

Little Dragon said:
Maybe not, but if they cannot demonstrate why they put trust and hope in something that cannot be detected or observed on any level.

All those things I mentioned can be detected at some level.

Possibly, I am agnostic. I challenge everyone to examine their beliefs, critically and with as little emotive bias as possible, as objectively as possible.

Then, you must set that standard for yourself.
Would you agree though that we don't often see our own bias, because of being biased?
How would you know that you aren't examining other's beliefs with emotional bias, while turning a blind eye to your beliefs?

Here is how I see it.

Substance of things hoped for:
What is hoped for has nothing to do with reality; hoped for is pretty much wishful thinking.

You really do see it that way?
A hope is not a wish. Christians have a sure hope, because the promises they look forward to, are reliable.
They are not hoping the promises do come true, or making a wish for them. That is not faith.

You don't understand, do you.
What is hoped for, is what they are looking forward to.
Like the child looking forward to the Nintendo Switch, his dad promised to give him.
The child isn't sitting down wishing for it, or praying that his dad wasn't lying. The child is looking forward to the reality of the promise. That is a hope.

[Hope] can mean trust, reliance; desire accompanied with expectation of what is desired or belief that it is attainable; one on whom hopes are centered; a source of hopeful expectation, or promise; something that is hoped for, or an object of hope. The Hebrew root verb qa·wahʹ, from which come terms rendered “hope,” basically means “wait for” with eager expectation. (Ge 49:18) In the Christian Greek Scriptures, the sense of the Greek term el·pisʹ (hope) is “expectation of good.”

Hope is an optimistic state of mind that is based on an expectation of positive outcomes with respect to events and circumstances in one's life or the world at large. As a verb, its definitions include: "expect with confidence" and "to cherish a desire with anticipation."

You seem to be limiting words to a negative application.
I hope that's not due to strong emotional bias, @Little Dragon referred to.

Evidence of things unseen:
Unseen means blind. This part means whatever evidence you have is completely blind

IOW faith is wishful thinking based on blind evidence.

Unseen means blind? Where did you read that? Webster's; Collins...? Please reference the dictionary you are quoting.

Unseen, simply means, not seen; not visible.
Would you say whatever evidence there is for Gravity, Dark Matter, and other unseen forces, is completely blind.

What is gravity?

Reference article: Facts about the fundamental force of gravity.

www.livescience.com

What Is a Gravitational Wave? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids

How do gravitational waves give us a new way to learn about the universe?

spaceplace.nasa.gov

Gravity is a force that cannot be seen directly. It has no physical substance for visible light to reflect on. Gravity affects both mass and light, but the changes are too subtle for human eyes to detect. Scientists have not observed the particles or waves that are supposed to carry gravity. Gravity can only be seen indirectly by its effects on large-scale objects like planets, stars and galaxies.

Invisible dark matter makes up most of the universe – but we can only detect it from its gravitational effects.

Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.

So, if dark matter is effectively "invisible," how can scientists map it? And how do we even know dark matter exists? Put simply, to detect dark matter, astronomers look at its indirect effects on gravity and how it impacts other objects with mass and light.

Would you say the scientists have "blind evidence". ?Never heard such an expression in my life. Is there even such a thing, as "blind evidence". Or, are you making these up, as you go?

If you could detect God, that would not be an example of something "unseen". Faith by definition is unseen.

So Gravity and Dark Matter are not unseen?
Can you name one scientist that agrees with your statement?

Gravitational waves are the invisible ripples in spacetime caused by supermassive interstellar activity. Join astrophysicists Ira Thorpe and Judy Racusin on an exploration of how NASA studies these unseen bends in time and space.
You can’t see a gravitational wave, and the ones that reach us aren’t strong enough for us to feel or experience on our own. But we are at the very beginning of learning what they can teach us about our origins and the universe around us.

Why do astronomers believe in dark matter?
Dark matter, by its very nature, is unseen. We cannot observe it with telescopes, and nor have particle physicists had any luck detecting it via experiments.

Unseen influence
Remarkably, our inability to see or detect dark matter provides clues as to how it behaves.


You are basically saying that these guys have faith.
I think you need to give serious thought to what you are saying, retract everything you have said, and start over. Then after thinking things through, type.

 

[Little Dragon]

Can you prove that?

Probably.

 

[Little Dragon]

All those things I mentioned can be detected at some level.

Can it be measured and quantified?

 

[nPeace]

Can I assume by that that you have no meaningful response to what you read, but felt like you wanted to post something a little snarky anyway? I understand that you don't like the kinds of things I write to you, but that's a choice you make. There is no legitimate reason to have an emotional response to being disagreed with. Here's an example of how to do that:

Don't mind me. Regardless of what I say, you will say what you want, which usually is inaccurate, but "perfectly accurate, and the epitome of truth"... to you.
So, I tend to just let you do the talking. You seem to like listening to yourself.
I don't know if you pat yourself on the back on every word.

Faith is insufficiently justified belief. It's that simple. The above tries to glorify it as if it were a virtue rather than the mere willingness to believe without justification. It is not the assurance of something hoped for. That's what a promise or guarantee are. And in the case of many religious assurances, they're all unfalsifiable claims and promises that can't be verified and needn't be kept. It's the unjustified belief in that promise that is called faith. And the last phrase - "the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." - is a self-contradiction. To be evident is to be evident to the senses. To be undetectable is to be untestable.

What these religions do is make these claims and praise believing them without cause while calling other opinions foolishness - "the wisdom of the world" and warning you to not get too comfortable there or too familiar with their ways of knowing and believing.

Sure one can. "That are not seen" means that the non-seer is blind compared to one who can see. If you're driving blindfolded and make a turn absent any evidence, you're driving blind. If you take the blindfold off, suddenly one goes from blindly driving by faith to evidence-based decision making.

Agreed. You've just described insufficiently justified belief (faith). And gods, and the supernatural. They all are believable only with faith, because the evidence to justify that belief doesn't exist.

Yeah. I have "no meaningful response".

 

[nPeace]

Probably.

Well, what are you waiting for... 2030? Prove it then.

Can it be measured and quantified?

Can love be measured? You tell me. Can scientists measure and quantify love?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you will say what you want which usually is inaccurate, but "perfectly accurate, and the epitome of truth"... to you.

If you disagree, try rebuttal. Simply declaring my words inaccurate is pointless absent any supporting evidence.

So, I tend to just let you do the talking. You seem to like listening to yourself. I don't know if you pat yourself on the back on every word.

That's all you can really do if you don't choose to engage in dialectic, or the trading of meaningful and responsive replies. You and I never have a conversation except like this one, where you make a comment, I rebut it, and you drop the ball with some snark and deflection.

I understand that my posting makes you feel uncomfortable - that you dislike it and resent whatever motivates it. Sorry about that, but you and I come from different worlds and traditions with different agendas, methods, and values, and we have different dispositions and emotional makeups. You get offended, and I don't. You resent arguments like mine and see them as mean-spirited and malicious, as attacks against your god and what you consider sacred.

That's how the faithful have been trained to understand atheists by their priests and pastors. We're immoral, rebellious, undisciplined, and hedonistic. Your Bible says so in several places, and you believe what it says.

But that's all you. That's not what's going on in my head at all. My words are carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered, but I understand that they can never be that for you.

Once again, sorry, but I can't change any of that. I can only decide how I will interact with it. As I said, my agenda, which is to engage in dialectic and resolve differences of opinion is not yours, and my values, disposition, and methods are not yours. I don't intend to accommodate your feelings on the matter, which would require censoring myself in areas that I believe need expressing, so I'll be me and you can be you, and we'll each manage our own emotions. You can deal with your resentment as you like. Passive-aggressive snark like your last two sentences seems to suit you.

Yeah. I have "no meaningful response".

Just look at your words here. This entire response from you is meaningless. It's all hand-waving, snark, passive-aggression, and deflection. It does nothing to further progress in discussion, but I expect nothing else.

 

[Little Dragon]

Can love be measured? You tell me. Can scientists measure and quantify love?

Why do you keep going on about an abstract human construct? Love is not a physical reality. It is an emotion, a product of hormones. That is the only quantification it can have. Scientists measure and quantify what is real, not what is abstract.

 

[nPeace]

If you disagree, try rebuttal. Simply declaring my words inaccurate is pointless absent any supporting evidence.

A rebuttal is even more pointless, so I prefer to tell you as it is. Just as you do.
Since when do your words ever have supporting evidence? Never have I seen any.
It's usually you telling others, and just hearing yourself. Ask @dybmh.
If you aren't aware of this, that's evidence. It hard listening to another, when all one is hearing is their thoughts.

That's all you can really do if you don't choose to engage in dialectic, or the trading of meaningful and responsive replies. You and I never have a conversation except like this one, where you make a comment, I rebut it, and you drop the ball with some snark and deflection.

Lol. Yeah. You rebut everything, because everything It Aint Necessarily So says is the epitome of truth.
That's why I let you speak. I listen. Lol

I understand that my posting makes you feel uncomfortable - that you dislike it and resent whatever motivates it. Sorry about that, but you and I come from different worlds and traditions with different agendas, methods, and values, and we have different dispositions and emotional makeups. You get offended, and I don't. You resent arguments like mine and see them as mean-spirited and malicious, as attacks against your god and what you consider sacred.

See what I mean.
What a perfect example.
Let me read it back to you, so you can get a rush.
I understand that my posting makes you feel uncomfortable - that you dislike it and resent whatever motivates it.
You get offended, and I don't. You resent arguments like mine and see them as mean-spirited and malicious, as attacks against your god and what you consider sacred.

That's how the faithful have been trained to understand atheists by their priests and pastors. We're immoral, rebellious, undisciplined, and hedonistic. Your Bible says so in several places, and you believe what it says.

But that's all you. That's not what's going on in my head at all. My words are carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered, but I understand that they can never be that for you.

Let's hear some more truth.
But that's all you. That's not what's going on in my head at all. My words are carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered, but I understand that they can never be that for you.

Once again, sorry, but I can't change any of that. I can only decide how I will interact with it. As I said, my agenda, which is to engage in dialectic and resolve differences of opinion is not yours, and my values, disposition, and methods are not yours. I don't intend to accommodate your feelings on the matter, which would require censoring myself in areas that I believe need expressing, so I'll be me and you can be you, and we'll each manage our own emotions. You can deal with your resentment as you like. Passive-aggressive snark like your last two sentences seems to suit you.

Just look at your words here. This entire response from you is meaningless. It's all hand-waving, snark, passive-aggression, and deflection. It does nothing to further progress in discussion, but I expect nothing else.

Yes. My response is meaningless to you. What else would it be.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A rebuttal is even more pointless

Not if you were correct. Not if you could make a sound argument.

See what I mean.
What a perfect example.
Let me read it back to you, so you can get a rush.

It's all about you, isn't it?

See how easy that was? And pointless.

 

[nPeace]

Why do you keep going on about an abstract human construct? Love is not a physical reality. It is an emotion, a product of hormones. That is the only quantification it can have. Scientists measure and quantify what is real, not what is abstract.

Now I'm confused.
I thought we were discussing things that can be detected.
Why did you not say you only wanted to focus on what is physical?
I could have let you know that what is real, is not only physical, and just because science cannot investigate it, does not mean it isn't real.

So, can you verify what exactly we were taking about, or what exactly you are saying.
I'll like to remind you though, you haven't provided the proof that "Love is attachment, an emotional response, of hormonal origin."
I already know you can't, so it's all good.

 

[nPeace]

Not if you were correct. Not if you could make a sound argument.

...but I am never correct. You are. You mean you don't even notice it.

It's all about you, isn't it?

See how easy that was? And pointless.

That's nothing new, You don't even realize how often you have been doing that.

 

[dybmh]

It's usually you telling others, and just hearing yourself. Ask @dybmh.

The best analogy I can think of for the experience is: A self-reinforcing echo-chamber that is between a keyboard and a chair.

 

[Little Dragon]

I'll like to remind you though, you haven't provided the proof that "Love is attachment, an emotional response, of hormonal origin."
I already know you can't, so it's all good.

I don't care enough to argue over the abstract human concept of love, a product of evolution, like every other human emotion. Fear hate love etc..all naturalistic in origin. Nothing magical or spiritual about them. Nothing to discuss.

 

[Little Dragon]

Why did you not say you only wanted to focus on what is physical?
I could have let you know that what is real, is not only physical, and just because science cannot investigate it, does not mean it isn't real.

Then you would be quite wrong to tell me that, so don't. If it is not physical, in that it has no measurable parameters. Like length or mass or temperature. Then it by definition, does not exist. It has no measurable qualities. It is for all intents and purposes, outside the boundaries of verifiable observation, it is objectively, not real. Like Santa Claus or any other deity.