What's the cause...

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"And this is again what is wrong with believing anything on faith."

The rest of your post is predicated on this false assumption, so I will only reply to it.

You do not understand what faith is if you think it is believing without evidence. That idea is a blatant misrepresentation of what faith is. With that idea of faith in ones' mind it is difficult to grasp faith's true meaning and purpose.[/b]

Believing without evidence is A meaning of the word faith and it is the one I use.

Given that you have no evidence for the existence of god it is also what you do.

Whatever else you might do, and whatever else you might mean by faith, you DO
believe in your god without any evidence for the existence of your god and despite
all the evidence that your mythology is in fact false. (The evidence for the non-existence
of souls for example. Or the fact that the bible contradicts the laws of physics and contains
falsehoods)

So you do believe without evidence which is A meaning of the word faith and it is that which
I was talking about.

I made no assumptions let alone false ones.

I don't care what other meanings you attribute to the word faith.

Because you indisputably do believe things without evidence and that is what I have a problem
with.

I don't care what you call believing without evidence, but we do have a word that covers it, faith.

If you don't like that use of the word faith please tell me what word you would prefer I use for
talking to you about "believing things without evidence and despite any and all evidence to the
contrary"?

Originally posted by josephw
Food for thought. Thank you for posing it that way.

Faith it seems, has different meanings depending on what the application is. If I say I have faith in God, what do I mean? I already believe in God, so faith here isn't about belief. I think then it has more to do with trust.

Faith too it seems, always has an object. Depending on whether that object i ...[text shortened]... or not determines the value of that faith.

Faith is not blind unless it's object is false.

God doesn't exist. So belief in that 'object' is false.
So your faith is blind (by your definition).

Originally posted by googlefudge
God doesn't exist. So belief in that 'object' is false.
So your faith is blind (by your definition).

Actually, your faith in the non-existence of God is based on no evidence at all, therefore your faith is blind.

My faith is in God. In that sentence faith means trust and reliance, and is not about believing in the existence of God. I know God exists. Why do I need faith for that?

Originally posted by josephw
Actually, your faith in the non-existence of God is based on no evidence at all, therefore your faith is blind.

My faith is in God. In that sentence faith means trust and reliance, and is not about believing in the existence of God. I know God exists. Why do I need faith for that?

you can't use the term faith to describe non-existence. it would be like saying you have faith in the non-existence of the pink unicorn or faith in the non-existence of the FSM. it is a ridiculous absurdity to suggest such things.

further, you don't know that god exists. knowledge requires the ability to demonstrate it and to date, you have not managed to confirm the existence of your god(s). you believe in it on blind faith.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you can't use the term faith to describe non-existence. it would be like saying you have faith in the non-existence of the pink unicorn or faith in the non-existence of the FSM. it is a ridiculous absurdity to suggest such things.

further, you don't know that god exists. knowledge requires the ability to demonstrate it and to date, you have not managed to confirm the existence of your god(s). you believe in it on blind faith.

It is blind faith that believes God doesn't exists. There's no evidence for the non-existence of God.

Therefore what you say about faith is nil and void.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"And this is again what is wrong with believing anything on faith."

The rest of your post is predicated on this false assumption, so I will only reply to it.

You do not understand what faith is if you think it is believing without evidence. That idea is a blatant misrepresentation of what faith is. With that idea of faith in ones' mind it is difficult to grasp faith's true meaning and purpose.[/b]

Your evidence would be that which has been thought out for the last 2000 or more years, how incredible life is, could not possibly come from ANYTHING but our lord in heaven. Proof, the bible tells us so. There are nothing but words and spiritual feelings, which are just that, feelings. That has been proven scientifically, they can magnetically stimulate this certain portion of the brain and you think you are in the presence of other worldly beings. Fact.

Originally posted by josephw
Actually, your faith in the non-existence of God is based on no evidence at all, therefore your faith is blind.

My faith is in God. In that sentence faith means trust and reliance, and is not about believing in the existence of God. I know God exists. Why do I need faith for that?

I don't have faith in anything as I have said many times before.

I don't believe anything without evidence to justify that belief.

I do believe that your mythology and god is false but I don't and can't claim to know
that your god and mythology is false.

As for god's in general, I don't have a belief in them but the term god can be applied so
broadly that I can't claim to have a belief that nothing that might be termed a god exists
somewhere.

So for gods in general I simple have no belief in their existence.
And reserve specific belief in the non-existence of certain proposed deities where evidence
demands it.





And while you claim to 'know' that god exists you do so dishonestly.

As VoidSpirit says, any claim of knowledge must be able to be demonstrated objectively to others.

Without evidence that justifies belief let alone knowledge claims of god you can't prove that your
god exists, (or even provide evidence that hints that it exists) and thus you can't legitimately claim
to know that god exists.

You believe without evidence, this is not just one of but the main definition of the word faith.

It is certainly the meaning of blind faith.

You believe blindly, you believe based on faith.

I don't.

And it is your [and anyone else's] blind faith that I object to above and before anything else.

Believing based on faith is immoral and dangerous.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Your evidence would be that which has been thought out for the last 2000 or more years, how incredible life is, could not possibly come from ANYTHING but our lord in heaven. Proof, the bible tells us so. There are nothing but words and spiritual feelings, which are just that, feelings. That has been proven scientifically, they can magnetically stimulate thi ...[text shortened]... ertain portion of the brain and you think you are in the presence of other worldly beings. Fact.

They can, although I would point out that it doesn't appear to work on everyone.

Dawkins tried it and didn't feel anything.

This guy talks about these kind of experiences (before my favourite description of Christianity 😉 )

YouTube

Originally posted by sonhouse
Your evidence would be that which has been thought out for the last 2000 or more years, how incredible life is, could not possibly come from ANYTHING but our lord in heaven. Proof, the bible tells us so. There are nothing but words and spiritual feelings, which are just that, feelings. That has been proven scientifically, they can magnetically stimulate thi ...[text shortened]... ertain portion of the brain and you think you are in the presence of other worldly beings. Fact.

"Proof, the bible tells us so."

You are mistaken again. It is the fact of the existence of all that exists that is the evidence for a creator/God.

Your thinking is bogged down in words words words.

Just sit quite for a while and look at the heavens. They are quite clear in their meaning. You're missing it in the confusion of the words.

Originally posted by josephw
There's no evidence for the non-existence of God.

Ok well lets examine that claim for a moment.

First lets specify we are talking here about a specific god concept and mythology as
opposed to the existence of gods in general.



For example lets take the FSM.

The FSM was invented as a parody of creationism and creationists, specifically but
not limited to the myths of the Christian religion.

I could if I wanted go and find the guys who invented the FSM and talk to them about it.
There are also records of their inventing this god.

This is all evidence that the FSM doesn't exist. (not proof, but evidence. I can't actually prove
that the FSM doesn't exist just as I can't prove that many other god concepts don't exist
[The exception being a god that is supposed to have detectable properties that we can
actually test for] )


So it is possible in principle to have evidence that indicates that a god concept and the
mythology surrounding it is actually false.


So looking at the Christian god of the bible what do we find...


Well there is the evidence that indicates that the stories of the bible were in fact made up
in just the same way (although for different reasons) as the FSM was made up.

You can trace through history the development of the Christian mythology as written in the bible
and the various factors that influenced it.

For example... (and there is much much more)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667/


"..... Mistake #3: Ehrman says “we do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers
and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the
sensationalists claim ad nauseum [sic] in their propagandized versions).” Taken strictly literally,
this sentence is true. But that is misleading, and therefore disingenuous. As such, it amounts to
a straw man (at least of many mythicists; some few mythicists, the more incompetent of them,
make that specific claim, but attacking only the weakest proponent of a position is precisely what
makes this a fallacy). No competent mythicist makes this claim. Rather, they claim that virgin-born
gods were a common phenomenon in the region at the time and dying-and-rising gods were a
common phenomenon in the region at the time (in precisely the way these were not anywhere
else, e.g. in ancient China), and so for Jews to suddenly start claiming they have one, too, looks
pretty easily explained in terms of standard theories of cultural diffusion. (See my chapter on the
origins of Christianity in The End of Christianity, ch. 2, pp. 53-74.) ....

.... Religious syncretism is the process of combining ideas from several sources, often the most
popular or useful ideas in the air, into a new whole, making for a new religion. All religions are
produced this way. Christianity therefore certainly was as well (it would go against all prior
probability to claim otherwise, and against all the evidence as well). Judaism had a prominent
component of sacrifices atoning for a nation’s entire sins, a belief in the holy spirit making Jewish
kings into the sons of god (see Not the Impossible Faith, chapter 9), and a tendency toward ascetic
denigration of sexuality. Paganism had a prominent component of dying-and-rising savior gods, who
likewise offered ways to cleanse their followers of sins and thus procure them entry into paradise–not
necessarily by their death, but always in some way, and in many cases through baptismal rituals long
predating Christianity’s adoption of the same or similar ritual (see The Empty Tomb, p. 215, n. 210);
and pagans had many traditions about virgin born sons of god. Note what happens when you combine
the Jewish side with the pagan: you get Christianity. This is actually almost certainly what happened,
and thus should not even be in dispute. ...."

And you can test the claims the bible makes about the world and how it works to see if they are actually
accurate.
Because if they really were inspired by the god described in the bible then they aught not to be wrong.

However many of the things claimed in the bible are factually wrong.

The flat earth, geocentric view of the universe for example.
Or the physically impossible great flood.
Ect ect.


Also there are various claims that are made in the Christian mythos that can be tested.

For example the existence (or otherwise) of souls (or life spirit or other magical force making living matter somehow
different from non-living matter).

The existence of souls and the afterlife is a vital component of (most) Christian beliefs and mythologies.

Thus the fact that science has determined beyond any reasonable doubt that we are the physical workings
of our brains, and that everything that happens in the body does so based on the same boring non-magical
and predictable laws of physics that everything else follows, means that we can say beyond any reasonable doubt
that souls or spirit or life force don't actually exist.

Everything about life can be explained via chemistry, physics, and biology. No magic involved.



There is more but as you can see I already have here a stack of reasons for backing up a positive claim that
the god of the bible does not in fact exist.
And that the Christian mythos is in fact false.

Which is met with the total and utter absence of any reasons or evidence for supposing that the god of the
bible does actually exist, or to back up the Christian mythos.


This means that it is reasonable to believe (but probably not claim to know, depending on your definition of
and requirements for knowledge) that the Christian god of the bible does not exist.

This doesn't require blind faith (believing without evidence ) because there IS evidence to justify the belief.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Proof, the bible tells us so."

You are mistaken again. It is the fact of the existence of all that exists that is the evidence for a creator/God.

Your thinking is bogged down in words words words.

Just sit quite for a while and look at the heavens. They are quite clear in their meaning. You're missing it in the confusion of the words.[/b]

At most the cosmological argument is evidence of A creator god or gods.

It doesn't get you to and specific creator god or gods.


However the cosmological argument fails to get you to even evidence for A god.

It's a logical fallacy. The argument from ignorance.
AND it's based on false premises.


And it's highly arrogant to claim that all you have to do is look at the heavens to
see that the universe was created by your god because not only have people
of different religions throughout history looked up at the sky and seen many
different gods but that astronomers and cosmologists who dedicate their lives
to studying the universe are among those least likely to believe in a god.

It is evidently and obviously NOT clear from just looking at the universe that
your god exists.

Originally posted by josephw
It is blind faith that believes God doesn't exists. There's no evidence for the non-existence of God.

Therefore what you say about faith is nil and void.

the only thing nil and void is your fallacious argument.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok well lets examine that claim for a moment.

First lets specify we are talking here about a specific god concept and mythology as
opposed to the existence of gods in general.



For example lets take the FSM.

The FSM was invented as a parody of creationism and creationists, specifically but
not limited to the myths of the Christian religio ...[text shortened]... nd faith (believing without evidence ) because there IS evidence to justify the belief.

Such folly. And all quite silly and childish ramblings. In fact, virtually everything you said is based on faulty reasoning.

I don't have time to waste on each, but will ask you a simple question. Can you show me where in the Bible it says the earth is flat?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the only thing nil and void is your fallacious argument.

So, for you, the idea that you were created, as was everything in existence, by a creator/God is fallacious because in your opinion everything in existence wasn't created?

Do you have any evidence for the idea that everything in existence wasn't created that isn't fallacious?

Originally posted by josephw
In a sense you are correct. I would not argue with that reasoning. [...]But there is no room for doubt when it comes to faith as it relates to the truths of God. That is the faith I was referring to in the previous post.

You say in a sense I am correct and then proceed to say something that is the diametric opposite of what I said, in every sense.

Doubt is a necessary evil it seems in this world "humanity" has built.

Doubt is "evil"?