Faith or Proof?

WASannannienann
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Faith or Proof?

To theists...

Do you believe your beliefs require complete faith or do you believe your beliefs are supported by scientific proof? If so what scientific proof do you have?


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I think that at the very

I think that at the very least you must rule out all possible alternatives to what you believe. I believe my beliefs are acually supported, and not simply blind faith. I'll post my 'proof' at a later date (as I would like to take the time writting it). I am curious first of all, do you believe Jesus was a real person?


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I have faith in a lot of

I have faith in a lot of things that don't even have to do with my theism.

I have faith that my car, which has been on it's last leg for quite a while, will continue to start every day so that I can get to work.

I have faith that that light will stay yellow just long enough for me to get through it.

I have faith that I have just enough gas to make it to work.

And that's just concerning automobiles.

But when it comes to my religious beliefs, no, I don't have proof, and I don't believe that anyone who claims to have proof actually does. But I don't see what's wrong with just having faith. Sometimes it's the only thing that gets you through the day. 


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: I

LosingStreak06 wrote:

I have faith in a lot of things that don't even have to do with my theism.

I have faith that my car, which has been on it's last leg for quite a while, will continue to start every day so that I can get to work.

I have faith that that light will stay yellow just long enough for me to get through it.

I have faith that I have just enough gas to make it to work.

And that's just concerning automobiles.

But when it comes to my religious beliefs, no, I don't have proof, and I don't believe that anyone who claims to have proof actually does. But I don't see what's wrong with just having faith. Sometimes it's the only thing that gets you through the day.

 

This is called a fallacy of equiovcation. You have a reasonable expectation that those things happen. You do not have religious faith for thos to happen.  A more indepth look at this is here.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
annannienann wrote: To

annannienann wrote:

To theists...

Do you believe your beliefs require complete faith or do you believe your beliefs are supported by scientific proof? If so what scientific proof do you have?

 

You mean beliefs like did Jesus walk on water? Or just simpy the god exists?

 

I suppose Jesus could have walked on water, but I wasn't there to see it and I don't trust what is told to me by the Church.

 

As to "god exists", while ultimately there is a leap of faith for me, there is nothing in science that prevents the existence of an entity that is so far beyond humans that it is for all intents and purposes god. For clarity, I do not hold to the classical definitions of god.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
zntneo

zntneo wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:

I have faith in a lot of things that don't even have to do with my theism.

I have faith that my car, which has been on it's last leg for quite a while, will continue to start every day so that I can get to work.

I have faith that that light will stay yellow just long enough for me to get through it.

I have faith that I have just enough gas to make it to work.

And that's just concerning automobiles.

But when it comes to my religious beliefs, no, I don't have proof, and I don't believe that anyone who claims to have proof actually does. But I don't see what's wrong with just having faith. Sometimes it's the only thing that gets you through the day.

 

This is called a fallacy of equiovcation. You have a reasonable expectation that those things happen. You do not have religious faith for thos to happen. A more indepth look at this is here.

I most certainly do not have a reasonable expectation that those things will happen. I would even go as far to say that my God is more dependable than my car. You don't know my car. It's about as reliable as Dick Cheney's heart. I've even set up a betting pool on which goes first.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
annannienann wrote: To

annannienann wrote:

To theists...

Do you believe your beliefs require complete faith or do you believe your beliefs are supported by scientific proof? If so what scientific proof do you have?

Neither, really. As a matter of principle I allow that anything I know can be wrong. This is self-protection from being fooled, even by myself.

I have no problem with some degree of faith. I think, to some degree it's unavoidable. But this is not the issue as far as I see it. Believers want to say faith is itself a good thing. I say that it is a bad thing, even though unavoidable to some extent.

I think the error that The Faithful make is thinking that just because a thing is unavoidable it must therefore be a good thing. I use a rat turd analogy to dispel this idea. It is unavoidable that some rat turds will get into canned food. According to the logic of the faithful, the implication is that we should then try to stuff as many rat turds in canned food as we can.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
annannienann wrote: To

annannienann wrote:

To theists...

Do you believe your beliefs require complete faith or do you believe your beliefs are supported by scientific proof? If so what scientific proof do you have?

I think my beliefs about God are based completely on faith. A lot of posts from theists here have been trying to avoid the one plain and simple truth:

 Science/Logic/Mathematics/etc. = rational

Faith = irrational

 

Personally, I just don't see the two being able to mix and/or support the other. I'm finding more and more that trying to use science/logic/etc. to provide evidence for faith is a fruitless endeavor.  One may attempt to use science/logic/etc. to sway a rational mind to an irrational faith through some method of appeal, but that's a far cry from providing sound evidence.

I think the sooner theists realize that when the R.R.S. says that "faith in God is irrational" they are right.

Although, along with this realization must come a reconciliation inside a theists mind that what the R.R.S. asserts is not a negative comment toward theists. It is merely (in my opinion) a reminder of where belief in God rests on the rational/irrational spectrum: on the irrational end of the spectrum. 

I think the problem of mixing science and faith arises when a believer tries to engage a non-believer using science, logic, or mathematics to try and make a case for their God. Like I said earlier, this may be an attempt to make some kind of intellectual appeal, but properly, science/logic/mathematics cannot be used as evidence to support an irrational precept, faith.  

 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote: annannienann

jread wrote:
annannienann wrote:

To theists...

Do you believe your beliefs require complete faith or do you believe your beliefs are supported by scientific proof? If so what scientific proof do you have?

I think my beliefs about God are based completely on faith. A lot of posts from theists here have been trying to avoid the one plain and simple truth:

Science/Logic/Mathematics/etc. = rational

Faith = irrational

That is the most refreshing thing I'ver heard a theist say in a LONG time.  So many try and try to argue that faith is rational instead of just being honest with themselves.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: That is the

Vorax wrote:

That is the most refreshing thing I'ver heard a theist say in a LONG time.

 

No, you're refreshing!  Wink 

 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote:

jread wrote:

I think my beliefs about God are based completely on faith. A lot of posts from theists here have been trying to avoid the one plain and simple truth:

Science/Logic/Mathematics/etc. = rational

Faith = irrational

Mathematics = rational?? Two imaginary numbers multiplied by each other equal a real number. .999999999999999999 = 1. At some point you can even divide by zero.

Also if you rely simple on Faith, how do you exclude all other religions? 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: jread

simple theist wrote:
jread wrote:

Also if you rely simple on Faith, how do you exclude all other religions?

Because he has faith that his religion is the right one. Duh. 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:
simple theist wrote:
jread wrote:

Also if you rely simple on Faith, how do you exclude all other religions?

Because he has faith that his religion is the right one. Duh.

So without proof or any evidence he arbitarly decided his religion was true?


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:
simple theist wrote:

Also if you rely simple on Faith, how do you exclude all other religions?

Because he has faith that his religion is the right one. Duh.

So without proof or any evidence he arbitarly decided his religion was true?

Well, I shouldn't speak for him, but sure.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
I agree with what Jread

I agree with what Jread said. Faith is irrational. Kierkegaard wrote about that in Either/Or.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: I agree

Christos wrote:
I agree with what Jread said. Faith is irrational. Kierkegaard wrote about that in Either/Or.

From a bible perspective, faith is never defined as without proof. 


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:

Mathematics = rational?? Two imaginary numbers multiplied by each other equal a real number. .999999999999999999 = 1. At some point you can even divide by zero.

Mathematics is the epitome of rationality. For example, the truths of geometry would be true even if there never physically existed a circle or square. Mathematics is purely abstract and therefore understood solely through our human reason. Or otherwise known as, rational. Mathematical truths are demonstrable for example, while faith's truths cannot be demonstrated like a proof in mathematics.   

 

Quote:
 

Also if you rely simple on Faith, how do you exclude all other religions? 

 

How else would I exclude beliefs in other religions if not through faith? I can't claim that my religion is true 100%. I can't ever know till I'm dead, whether it will Jesus waiting for me or Allah, etc. What I do know, is that what I believe, is right for me and I have faith in it's message, stories, and prophets. Additionally, I believe that Jesus is the son of God and is alive, but I must take these personal truths as being based on faith. 

 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:

 

From a bible perspective, faith is never defined as without proof.

 

It takes faith in the bible to have a biblical perspective. Therefore, your biblical proof is based on the bible which a person must accept as truth by faith.  

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote:

jread wrote:
simple theist wrote:

 

From a bible perspective, faith is never defined as without proof.

 

It takes faith in the bible to have a biblical perspective. Therefore, your biblical proof is based on the bible which a person must accept as truth by faith.

So your saying it takes faith to believe in the Bible. So how are you to convince a Jew that the New Testament is True? How about a Muslim?


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote: simple theist

jread wrote:
simple theist wrote:

Mathematics = rational?? Two imaginary numbers multiplied by each other equal a real number. .999999999999999999 = 1. At some point you can even divide by zero.

Mathematics is the epitome of rationality. For example, the truths of geometry would be true even if there never physically existed a circle or square. Mathematics is purely abstract and therefore understood solely through our human reason. Or otherwise known as, rational. Mathematical truths are demonstrable for example, while faith's truths cannot be demonstrated like a proof in mathematics.

 

Except for when 1=3. And yes it is entirely possible to mathematically make 1 = 3. (I would post how but I've forgotten and no longer have those notes)

Quote:
 

Quote:

Also if you rely simple on Faith, how do you exclude all other religions?

 How else would I exclude beliefs in other religions if not through faith? I can't claim that my religion is true 100%. I can't ever know till I'm dead, whether it will Jesus waiting for me or Allah, etc. What I do know, is that what I believe, is right for me and I have faith in it's message, stories, and prophets. Additionally, I believe that Jesus is the son of God and is alive, but I must take these personal truths as being based on faith.

 

So what if your wrong and it is Allah? If all you got going for you is Faith that the Bible is true and not the Koran.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:

simple theist wrote:
So your saying it takes faith to believe in the Bible. So how are you to convince a Jew that the New Testament is True? How about a Muslim?

Personally, I would recommend to them that they should:

1. Read it. (On their own mind you. If they have questions, then tell them what the background is.)

2. Pray about it.

3. Talk about it. (Let them ask questions and try to answer them as best you can.)

 

To believe that the Bible is the word is necessary for a believer, but I don't think that the belief in the bible is somehow beyond the reach of faith and present in the realm of certainty.

How do you feel about the bible? What is your perspective on your belief in it?

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:

 Except for when 1=3. And yes it is entirely possible to mathematically make 1 = 3. (I would post how but I've forgotten and no longer have those notes)

Well, I would find that proof interesting. But, it wouldn't deem mathematics irrational. For example, maybe it involves the use of 'irrational numbers' or imaginary numbers such as i. Again I'm no mathematician, but showing paradoxes within mathematics does not make it irrational. 

Just curious have you heard of the liars paradox? Or Zeno's paradox? They are great examples of logical paradoxes.

Just because they exist, doesn't mean that logic and/or mathematics is irrational.  

Quote:

 So what if your wrong and it is Allah? If all you got going for you is Faith that the Bible is true and not the Koran.

 Well, I think that all believers only have faith for their religions truth and never posses undoubted proof. Whether it's muslims, buddhists, christians, all we all have is faith in our religions figures, prophets, God(s), stories, teachings. We must all believe in the sacred records of our religion. 

You seem to be surprised by my answers that faith is what I rely on. What is it that you rely on that makes you so sure of your religion's truth above all others?  

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote:

jread wrote:

simple theist wrote:
So your saying it takes faith to believe in the Bible. So how are you to convince a Jew that the New Testament is True? How about a Muslim?

Personally, I would recommend to them that they should:

1. Read it. (On their own mind you. If they have questions, then tell them what the background is.)

2. Pray about it.

3. Talk about it. (Let them ask questions and try to answer them as best you can.)

 

To believe that the Bible is the word is necessary for a believer, but I don't think that the belief in the bible is somehow beyond the reach of faith and present in the realm of certainty.

How do you feel about the bible? What is your perspective on your belief in it?

I would have to say that it is possible to prove the bible. Not 100%, but you don't need to because the other religous texts don't come close. I do concede that this depends on establishing Jesus as who he says he was. My belief is that the bible is 100% true. If Jesus helps you understand the Bible is 100% true, then you still have some proof. (even if you can't convince the rest of us that Jesus was really behind it -I would actually claim your claim was possible)

I'm really not surprised by your statement. (I think most Christians would agree with you). If the bible says to spread the Gospel, then I don't see how that woudl be possible without having some proof that my book is better then his book.

Oh as for the Math thing. To make 1 = 3, you divide by zero. The actual thing uses only letters however, so you don't know that your dividing by zero. And I've been told by Math proffesors that you can divide by zero once you get to a certain level of class. 


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I

simple theist wrote:
I would have to say that it is possible to prove the bible. Not 100%, but you don't need to because the other religious texts don't come close.

You can't say that you've proven something 90%. It's gotta hold together the whole enchilada. I agree that I suppose it could be possible, but right now, we need faith to believe in it's complete truthfulness.

Oh and I'm just curious, and without being rude, what other religious texts have read? I have read a decent amount of Buddhist sutras myself...but that's about it. No Quran...Because of this, I really can't say how they measure up to the Bible...

Quote:

I do concede that this depends on establishing Jesus as who he says he was.

That's based on faith.

Quote:
My belief is that the bible is 100% true.

Let me finish that whole sentence for you, "My belief is that the bible is 100% true rests on faith"

Quote:
If Jesus helps you understand the Bible is 100% true, then you still have some proof. (even if you can't convince the rest of us that Jesus was really behind it -I would actually claim your claim was possible)

Granted, we have some "proof" as believers, but that proof is provided through faith. Therefore, it's not much a proof, because proofs tend to be universal. This faith-based proof that we have come to personally, is limited to ourselves and those of similar beliefs. That's the way I see it anyway...

 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I'm

simple theist wrote:

I'm really not surprised by your statement. (I think most Christians would agree with you). If the bible says to spread the Gospel, then I don't see how that woudl be possible without having some proof that my book is better then his book.

Well I think you would agree that spreading the gospel of Jesus is hard. Hell, the old christian church went to war over "spreading" it (Crusades). I think the reason why people are so polarized to other religions than their own is because all religions are based on faith. No one religion has the end all be all TRUTH of the matter without question. It's part of the difficulty of a religion surviving, getting people to have faith in its message.  

 

Quote:

Oh as for the Math thing. To make 1 = 3, you divide by zero. The actual thing uses only letters however, so you don't know that your dividing by zero. And I've been told by Math proffesors that you can divide by zero once you get to a certain level of class.

 

Interesting again, but it still doesn't challenge math's rationality. I say, we leave it aside from our discussions for now since we're both feeling in the dark on this issue.  

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I haven't read any other

I haven't read any other religous texts. My belief in Christianity soley rests on the fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I think simply reading any religious book would not tell you if it is true or not. Investigating that book is what really matters.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I

simple theist wrote:

I haven't read any other religous texts. My belief in Christianity soley rests on the fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I think simply reading any religious book would not tell you if it is true or not. Investigating that book is what really matters.

Well good luck to you simple, I think we both know a little bit more about each others beliefs. We both just have a little different perspectives, which is 100% fine.

[Note: I'm gonna be goin to bed, so if you reply I won't be on again till the morning.] 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I think the crusades may

I think the crusades may have been more political (or Greed) then spreading Christianity. Also if we are to believe the Old Testement, then the Jewish religion has been around for a very long time. (not sure how that compares to other religions that believe in a deity).


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I

simple theist wrote:

I haven't read any other religous texts.

That literally made me spit out my drink. It was almost cartoon-esque.  Beautiful.


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: My

simple theist wrote:

My belief in Christianity soley rests on the fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

i'm very curious as to your proof of the resurrection. do you have anything other than hearsay accounts? because if not, then i believe that there is considerable room for reasonable doubt, and therefore your belief must be based on faith. 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


PillarMyArse
PillarMyArse's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2007-03-13
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:   I

simple theist wrote:
 

I haven't read any other religous texts. My belief in Christianity soley rests on the fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I think simply reading any religious book would not tell you if it is true or not. Investigating that book is what really matters.

 

 

*** Exasperation ***

*** Count to 10 ***

*** Deep Breath ***

*** Smile ***

If there really was real proof, which *everybody* would accept, then we would have all heard about it by now.   Unless :

Bible = absolute gospel truth at all times.

Therefore jesus was ressurected. 

Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.

Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best


WASannannienann
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Hi everyone. I have been

Hi everyone. I have been away for a few days so didn't really get to take part in my own question.  I have been in the Isle of Man enjoying the TT (Google it and if you love motorbikes book you tickets from next year). Well the last day of it after my AS exams finished.

I asked this question because i just wanted to see if any theist would accept that faith is the final step to believing. And to all that agreed I have great respect for you because I don't care what you believe also long as long as you honest and kind to yourself, everyone and else.

Cheers. Pete 


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Much obliged to give you the

Much obliged to give you the answer you desired Pete.


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Jread, you are one of the

Jread, you are one of the most rational Theists I've read, I've watched with admiration as your point of view has changed due to valid argument.  You've left your ego out of the argument, which is commendable.

Yet I still see that you have that theist tag on there and I see you admit that faith in god is irrational, and as far as i can gather, you still consider yourself a theist.

I only wonder what criteria it is you have on what irrational beliefs are defensible in keeping?  Is it simply in the fact that there has been, and cannot be, a comprehensive debunking of god that leaves you in that position?

As I'm sure you're aware, lacking a belief in whatever conclusion doesn't equal a positive claim in another conclusion or against the original conclusion.  Also, I'm sure you can see the value in not believing all the potential things one can believe.  So basically, I was just wondering what points are you still considering?

 

 


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:
simple theist wrote:
jread wrote:

Also if you rely simple on Faith, how do you exclude all other religions?

Because he has faith that his religion is the right one. Duh.

So without proof or any evidence he arbitarly decided his religion was true?

Yes, exactly as all theists do - none have proof, so all are arbitrary.

It's not a statistical coincedence that had you been born in a Hindu family, that you would Hindu...or Muslim, or Wiccan, or whatever.... There is no evidence, none, zero...lets recap that...absolutely not a single iota of evidence - therefore all choices of religion are arbitrary because we have no more proof that jesus rose from the dead, then Vastu is invisible and sitting in your house right now.

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:

simple theist wrote:

I haven't read any other religous texts. My belief in Christianity soley rests on the fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have proof of this? There are about a billion christians that would love to hear it, the've been trying to prove it for almost 2,000 years and have come up with nothing at all that can be regarded as "proof".

Please share! There is fame and fortune in your future -- I'm serious; cash rewards are out there for the "fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Wyzaard
Posts: 58
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote: Oh and I'm

jread wrote:
Oh and I'm just curious, and without being rude, what other religious texts have read? I have read a decent amount of Buddhist sutras myself...but that's about it. No Quran...Because of this, I really can't say how they measure up to the Bible...

 Indeed... because whose to say what the 'yardstick' would be for such a task?  Why would one set of criteria be 'better' than another when it comes to comparing the validity of metaphyscial-based claims?

Quote:
Granted, we have some "proof" as believers, but that proof is provided through faith. Therefore, it's not much a proof, because proofs tend to be universal. This faith-based proof that we have come to personally, is limited to ourselves and those of similar beliefs.

I'm not exactly sure how proof may be 'provided' by faith... do you mean assurance instead?  The belief that you possessing the belief is proof enough of proof?   What justifies faith as being a self-validator? 

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: simple theist

Vorax wrote:
simple theist wrote:

I haven't read any other religous texts. My belief in Christianity soley rests on the fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have proof of this? There are about a billion christians that would love to hear it, the've been trying to prove it for almost 2,000 years and have come up with nothing at all that can be regarded as "proof".

Please share! There is fame and fortune in your future -- I'm serious; cash rewards are out there for the "fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

 Is there any proof good enough? I suspect that if a man showed up at the ocean, walked on water and raised the dead, if he said he was Jesus thare are those who would still deny it. 


WASannannienann
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Wavefreak you haven't

Wavefreak you haven't actually made a point or brought anything to the argument. You have offered an unfounded opinion in which you stereotype non-believers.

To make your point valid you need to perform and document a man showing up at the ocean, walking on water, raising from the dead and says he was Jesus. By “document” I don't mean the Bible, I mean a peer reviewed scientific paper.

And you do that then save me some pew on Sunday. 


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
phooney wrote: Jread, you

phooney wrote:

Jread, you are one of the most rational Theists I've read, I've watched with admiration as your point of view has changed due to valid argument. You've left your ego out of the argument, which is commendable.

Yet I still see that you have that theist tag on there and I see you admit that faith in god is irrational, and as far as i can gather, you still consider yourself a theist.

I only wonder what criteria it is you have on what irrational beliefs are defensible in keeping? Is it simply in the fact that there has been, and cannot be, a comprehensive debunking of god that leaves you in that position?

As I'm sure you're aware, lacking a belief in whatever conclusion doesn't equal a positive claim in another conclusion or against the original conclusion. Also, I'm sure you can see the value in not believing all the potential things one can believe. So basically, I was just wondering what points are you still considering?

 

 

In my mind, when I agree that faith is irrational I don't see it as a negative definition of faith. In my opinion, there is no other definition for faith besides it being an irrational basis for a belief. 

It's a transcendent belief which escapes the rational view of the world. By admitting and accepting this, I don't feel at a loss in my day-to-day life. A lot of other aspects of my life encompass and revolve around rationality. I love learning, studying, and acting in a rational mindset. Although, I must acknowledge that my faith is an irrational principle which I cannot empirically verify the thing which I have faith in.

I appreciate your kind words phooney. I hope this can provide a glimpse into my own personal views concerning my personal reconciliation of my faith and how it fits with my rational mind. If you have any further questions, I will do my best to answer them. 

[Note: I'm gonna be at work till late tonight. Won't be replying till tommorow most likely.] 

 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
annannienann

annannienann wrote:

Wavefreak you haven't actually made a point or brought anything to the argument. You have offered an unfounded opinion in which you stereotype non-believers.

To make your point valid you need to perform and document a man showing up at the ocean, walking on water, raising from the dead and says he was Jesus. By “document” I don't mean the Bible, I mean a peer reviewed scientific paper.

And you do that then save me some pew on Sunday.

 

First of all, you saw a stereotype that wasn't there. I qualified it saying that *some* would not believe no matter what the evidence. 

Let me simplify it. What would be sufficient proof? Even peer reviewed papers are subject to significant debate, especially when interpreting such things as archeological evidence. 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Vorax

wavefreak wrote:
Vorax wrote:
simple theist wrote:

I haven't read any other religous texts. My belief in Christianity soley rests on the fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have proof of this? There are about a billion christians that would love to hear it, the've been trying to prove it for almost 2,000 years and have come up with nothing at all that can be regarded as "proof".

Please share! There is fame and fortune in your future -- I'm serious; cash rewards are out there for the "fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

Is there any proof good enough? I suspect that if a man showed up at the ocean, walked on water and raised the dead, if he said he was Jesus thare are those who would still deny it.

THere is the little problem that Christianity tells how Jesus will return, so unless he does those things first, he will be regarded as the false messiah. Christianity doesn't allow the claim for anyone to claim to be Jesus. Everyone will know its Jesus when he returns. 


WASannannienann
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: What

wavefreak wrote:

What would be sufficient proof?

A demonstration of a man walking on water and an explaination of how he did it via braking the laws of physics that made sense. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
annannienann

annannienann wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

What would be sufficient proof?

A demonstration of a man walking on water and an explaination of how he did it via braking the laws of physics that made sense.

 

Knowing how is necessary for proof? Phenomena are often demonstrated before the how is known.  


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
Vorax wrote:
simple theist wrote:

I haven't read any other religous texts. My belief in Christianity soley rests on the fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have proof of this? There are about a billion christians that would love to hear it, the've been trying to prove it for almost 2,000 years and have come up with nothing at all that can be regarded as "proof".

Please share! There is fame and fortune in your future -- I'm serious; cash rewards are out there for the "fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

Is there any proof good enough? I suspect that if a man showed up at the ocean, walked on water and raised the dead, if he said he was Jesus thare are those who would still deny it.

That's a very theistic view of the problem, not a scientific one though. Scientists regard proof as just that...proof.

For example, I would believe in god today if say he put a message up in the sky using the stars, say 100K light years across that says, "God was here, believe in me or burn for all eternity". Sure, there are people with theistic mentalities that would arrogantly presume they know better then logic and evidence, but very few of them would be Atheists. If that message appeared in the sky you would probably see about a 99.999999% conversion of athiests that same day. If the message said, "I am Allah, believe in me or no virgins", my bet is there would be vast numbers of christians that would fail to believe.

Atheists don't disbelieve because we don't want to beleive, we disbelieve because we have no reason to believe.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: wavefreak

Vorax wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Vorax wrote:
simple theist wrote:

I haven't read any other religous texts. My belief in Christianity soley rests on the fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have proof of this? There are about a billion christians that would love to hear it, the've been trying to prove it for almost 2,000 years and have come up with nothing at all that can be regarded as "proof".

Please share! There is fame and fortune in your future -- I'm serious; cash rewards are out there for the "fact that Jesus was Resurrected and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

Is there any proof good enough? I suspect that if a man showed up at the ocean, walked on water and raised the dead, if he said he was Jesus thare are those who would still deny it.

That's a very theistic view of the problem, not a scientific one though. Scientists regard proof as just that...proof.

For example, I would believe in god today if say he put a message up in the sky using the stars, say 100K light years across that says, "God was here, believe in me or burn for all eternity". Sure, there are people with theistic mentalities that would arrogantly presume they know better then logic and evidence, but very few of them would be Atheists. If that message appeared in the sky you would probably see about a 99.999999% conversion of athiests that same day. If the message said, "I am Allah, believe in me or no virgins", my bet is there would be vast numbers of christians that would fail to believe.

Atheists don't disbelieve because we don't want to beleive, we disbelieve because we have no reason to believe.

You may be correct that Christians would deny such "proof" of Allah. But this is an atheist site. I am trying to determine where the lines are drawn for atheists. And not necessarily for the Christian god. Using resurrection or walking on water is a bad choice since that invokes Christian ideas.

Back to my question, what is sufficient proof? Having god writing "I am the Lord" in the stars is absurd. Is there anything reasonable that would constitute proof?  


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:

wavefreak wrote:

Back to my question, what is sufficient proof? Having god writing "I am the Lord" in the stars is absurd. Is there anything reasonable that would constitute proof?

First, why is that absurd? Seriously? We are talking about someone who supposedly created the entire universe - organizing the stars in a pattern that is obviously not random would be simple for a god. More to the point, such an act would be ethical given his rules regarding beleif in him. Demanding worship, without providing evidence, and punishing by torture if the worship is not received - is unethical in the extreme.

If god were real and he were to provide such an indicator of his existence then disbelief in him would be a fair choice - there is no fair at this point, so the biblical gods question of faith is unethical. As it is now we are expeted to believe in god without any proof at all he exists. If someone had evidence, and they still chose to ignore it, then they really would be "choosing" and turning from god and then this rule about accept him or burn for all eternity might at least have some grounds in justice and ethics - as it is now, it's not just injustice to convict disbelievers to this fate, it can only be considered egomaniacal and evil.

All of that just goes as more evidence that god of the bible isn't real and infact doesn't make sense as a concept of a god. If the biblical god was real, he would have the intelligence and ethics to realize the demand is unreasonable given our intelligence. Unfortunetly for christians, there just wasn't much thought put into this god. The people who invented him were nomads who just weren't very educated or thoughtful. Had this religion been created today, they could have made the god sound much more convincing with our levels of understanding in philosophy and logic.

To your question...

Walking on water, healing cripples, turning water into wine..those are parlor tricks that any magician worth his salt today can do...raising the dead? Sure that would qualify, but only under scientific scrutiny.

However, here are some more ideas for you:

- I want to see a faith healer heal an amputee under controlled scientific conditions, why do they all (including christ), only heal the lame, the blind, etc...make an arm grow back.

- I want all of you christians to pray for me, if I am converted, then I'll know he is real and praying works

- If an angel appeared to me under controlled conditions so the entity could be witnessed by others, recorded and it's attributes measured so I can be sure I'm not dellusional.

- Our minds supposedly can communicate with god, yet we have never found a single thing about our minds that shows we are picking up information from beyond our universe and known laws of physics, if a means of measuring this exchange could show that peopple are gathering organized information from an undetectable source via some receptors in our brain, then it wouldn't be a far step to conclude this is god.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote: In my mind,

jread wrote:
In my mind, when I agree that faith is irrational I don't see it as a negative definition of faith. In my opinion, there is no other definition for faith besides it being an irrational basis for a belief.

It's a transcendent belief which escapes the rational view of the world. By admitting and accepting this, I don't feel at a loss in my day-to-day life. A lot of other aspects of my life encompass and revolve around rationality. I love learning, studying, and acting in a rational mindset. Although, I must acknowledge that my faith is an irrational principle which I cannot empirically verify the thing which I have faith in.

I actually found myself agreeing with just about everything you wrote.  Interesting to take "irrational" as a complement...never thought about it like that.

I did start to wonder, do YOU, personally have proof of what you believe in?  Is that what gave you this irrational faith? 

How would you compare this to "delusional"?? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: For example, I

Vorax wrote:
For example, I would believe in god today if say he put a message up in the sky using the stars, say 100K light years across that says, "God was here, believe in me or burn for all eternity".

And if he did, and only you saw it, and you were aware of yourself (that is not asleep, not on medication, etc etc etc), what then?

Vorax wrote:
Atheists don't disbelieve because we don't want to beleive, we disbelieve because we have no reason to believe.

And if the reason came?  Not on a global scale mind you but on an individual one... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:

Except for when 1=3. And yes it is entirely possible to mathematically make 1 = 3. (I would post how but I've forgotten and no longer have those notes)

1=3 is true if you define "=" as "less than" or "3" and "1" as being representations of the same concept, etc.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: - I want all

Vorax wrote:

- I want all of you christians to pray for me, if I am converted, then I'll know he is real and praying works 

 

Again you confuse me with somebody else. I can't converse with somebody that continually places me in a category that is erroneous.