What do you call it when the Bible gives two different numbers as the same amount? Is that a contradiction, or an apparent contradiction?
You have not defined “Trust.” You or the dictionary you are using is engaged in a Circular Definition: A circular definition is one that uses the term(s) being defined as a part of the definition and this assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined. (As we are not clear what your “prior” usage is. Try again please.) If someone wants to know what a cellular phone is, telling them that it is a “phone that is cellular” will not be especially illuminating.
ALL THE ABOVE IS SUPERFLUOUS AND CAN BE IGNORED.
Your post begins here: “Faith is to trust.” You are defining faith as trust. Okay, fine. We can begin at this point. We can ignore other concepts and we do not need to call faith evidence of any kind.
FAITH = TRUST
I trust a million things. (Now what are you talking about?) My trust is based on evidence. Objective, observable facts that have led me to trust.
What objective, observable facts do you have that have led you to trust your idea of God? Did he make you chicken soup when you were sick. Did he take you to the hospital like your mother did. Does your god fix your meals, do your laundry, clean your house? What things did your god do that your mother also did that earned you his trust?
2 Likes
I’m sorry if I was not clear in my example of faith. You said that you trust based on observable facts. We are in agreement!
Trust is a confidence in the outcome of something based on your experience with it.
You trust what you trust. I trust what I trust. I trust that my mom will always help me to the best of my her ability. I know this because this is what she has shown me. Empirical evidence.
Trust, being the source of faith is also personal. You aren’t going to trust my mother based on my opinion of her unless you trust me in my opinion.
To trust me you have to know me.
People who have faith in God have all their own very personal reasons why they do. Just like everyone who does not have faith.
That’s all I meant to say.
No… go back to “faith.” You don’t understand “agnostic” and are using it incorrectly. Life is easier if you stay on one topic at a time.
Faith = Trust
If that is not what you mean you can change it. Think about what you want to say and try again.
Honour killings are about behaviour, not belief. Perhaps tone down the self righteous indignation a few notches you prig.
I was trying to call you out for your arrogant assumption that it’s up to you to save believers from themselves. Not an atheist position because there is one and only one atheist position; a disbelief in god(s). It does does not include a dumb arse messiah complex,
Reason and logic are not reliable tools for discovering truth. Based on your judgement? No not for a second. Far to emotional and judgemental
Yes, that certainly is an action which is fueled by a belief. That’s how those tie together. Soooo if we can show them that it’s not good to believe in imaginary invisible superpowers, then we may have less need to worry about honor killings and everything else I listed because those beliefs will not fuel those actions.
And I don’t think I ever said it is the atheist position to try to change the beliefs of others. I said that’s something I want to do. It’s OK to distinguish between the atheist position and what the atheist does.
And I am perfectly content with my arrogance, thank you very much.
You trust your mom and you have every reason to believe your mom is real. Even if she happened to not be your biological mom, you still know this person is real and is responsible for certain things. What kind of actual predictions can you make using your God? And if those predictions come true, how can you verify your God is the source of that outcome?
Bringing it back a little closer to the actual topic, there’s no dispute that we have lots of versions of Christianity alone, not to mention lots of other religions besides Christianity. But within Christianity, lots of these groups get messages from the Holy Spirit, and they can’t all be correct. Unless we are willing to accept that the Holy Spirit is giving a lot of contradictory mutually exclusive messages. So how can we even narrow down which version of Christianity is correct?strong text
G’day Tdawg, welcome to AR, good to have you here.
I apologise for the length of this post, its a good subject and its a lovely day and I have the time and the inclination to repsond that I haven’t had in a while. Indulge me.
Thats the problem right there. How to ‘show’ them.
I’m certain the questions you posed in the OP for theists about faith, its value and it uses, was rhetorical and from your own experiences you’d have already known the answers that are likely to be given (Gods ways are not our ways etc etc). There are very few things stronger than ingrained dogmatic faith. Not completely indestructable but pretty damn strong. "Faith can move mountains’ is technically a lie; its only an idiom, but faith itself is near impossible to shift even just a little and thats a fact.
Arguments from reason only make theists dig in their heels. After all, their ‘God’ is listening in and evaluating the fate of their eternal soul on the basis of their resistance to heretical interrogation.
They also have, if they have managed to read up on it, the benefit of 2000 years of accumulated knowledge of manipulating philosophy, language and logic. Most theist reasoning is, despite the healthy use of fallacies, I think pretty well thought out for the most part. They can be very comfortable with its use against the unwary. The problem is the premises they begin with are without exception unsubstantiated presuppositions. They have never provided unequivocal evidence to prove the existence of their ‘God’ in the first place. And its more than just that they can’t, its that they shouldn’t really dare. If they deliver the evidence that proves their ‘God’, their faith is rendered pointless.
I am going to make an ass of myself and assume you and I, Tdawg, had similar deconversion experiences, beginning with niggling doubts about some small thing, which when investigated only produced more doubts which when examined in greater detail revealed gaping holes in the fabric of the entire faith edifice. For me it took years as I moved from theism to deism and back again then onto spiritualism and then to things that go bump in the night but there was a gradual exchange for me where reason, secular history, science and reliance on common sense displaced the assumptions of faith.
Right now I am very comfortable with my atheism, my view of the cosmos and my mortality. But as I arrived to this cosy spot my formerly materialistic brother suddenly announced his adherence to the tenets of Christadelphianism, a wicked little brethren operation that divides and separates families. My brother was a good bloke, a good brother, but he was immensely fearful about the world in general and on becoming a father to two lovely young kids, his responsibility for their protection and upbringing terrified him. He even admitted it was not for any faith in a god that pushed him into the group but the hope they would provide the moral and actual security he wanted for his family. I realised after researching this exclusive fundamentalist group that I was about to lose my brother. I did my best to intervene. I increased my presence at his house and in his life and made the most of any opportunity to object to brethren influences, but it was a losing battle as his wife proved to be even far more attracted to the spiritual comfort of the ‘family’ environment. I ended up arguing with him, her and every member of that group. Sometimes they bamboozled me and left me speechless and seething, sometimes I felt I had won small victories, tiny battles, but in the end the brethren won the war. One brethren member admitted they were most concerned that I would deliver my brother’s soul to the devil and that they had been forced to issue an ultimatum to him to submit his family for baptism or leave. He had resisted choosing for seven years which was something of a record, and that was the only paltry success I had. I lost a brother and he’d gained an uncomfortable fake peace.
Since then I have engaged in discussions with door knocking JWs, fundamentalist street preachers, jesuit priests, and ignorant bonehead census form Christians and learned to temper my approach. And of course with theists online in atheist forums like here on AR.
I freely admit to having learned a great deal from everyone here in AR in the couple of years I have been participating. I have sharpened up my knowledge and understanding of epistomology, philosophy, science, psychology, mathematics, cooking, ballistics and animal husbandry.
But the down side is learning how dreary it is to attempt to discuss theology with theists. Their comprehension skills and abiltity to engage in reasonable exchanges dont seem to have changed very much since the days of Celsus and Porphyry when the early Christians met every objection with assurances that faith alone would make everyone understand everything and save these precious wisps of nothingness called souls.
I’m always glad to see new people join the AR ranks. Like most of the regulars here I grow weary of the fruitless exchanges with theists and I look forward to new contributions.
I have seen no new arguments or approaches from theists that don’t just whither back down to the same old circular, wilfully ignorant defenses of pious faith in things unseen and the utterly improbable. And there is always a constant stream of newly minted insulting, judgemental god botherers, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or just rogue messiahs who each come thinking they bring new vital dynamic ideas to us ignorant godless heathens who understand nothing and believe in less. And all they do is deliver the same old specious routines.
My deconversion started with a tiny self-realised doubt. Faith may have patched over the doubt if I had persevered but the inconsistency, the evident lie, once recognised becomes an infernal itch and the urge to investigate was encouraged by the confidence that my faith, now being tested by my ‘God’ for fidelity, would be always be proof against whatever uncomfortable truth might be revealed. It wasn’t. But it did prove to be my actual salvation from the close minded theist view.
But back to the matter of how to “show them that it’s not good to believe in imaginary invisible superpowers”. I like to think seeding doubt is probably the best way to move theists into re-evaluating and then even escaping the limitations of their faith. I’ve been trying not to argue (I don’t know that I’ve been successful at that), but rather ask questions that they might answer for themselves, that might expose that itching doubt. Its a grave undertaking, because loss of faith is an enormous trial. For some it can be very painful, even terrifying, but thats the nature of change and growth; cracked eggshells for omelets.
So, again, its good to have you, Tdawg and all the other new arrivals, theists and atheists alike. Looking forward to new discussions and ideas.
Have you ever trusted someone or something only to be let down?
Why do theists insist on using tortured semantics, only to present an absurdly erroneous argument?
Lining up synonyms for faith and pointing out that we have all done these at some point doesn’t make faith a reliable method for validating anything, and more importantly it doesn’t remotely evidence any deity, quite the opposite in fact, it states quite plainly that you have no evidence, and what’s more you know it, but still want to cling to the belief.
It is however the only book Christian’s claim to have been inspired or conceived by an omniscient and omnipotent deity.
I’m sure if you pause for a moment from desperately trying to preserve your belief, and ask yourself why an omniscient being would conceive, or even allow, a message to be passed on with any errors in it, you’ll see the claim unravels.
I’d expect contradictions in books from fallible human authors, but it’s absurd to claim they’re from an omniscient deity.
Stop trying to sweep the objection away, and actually stop and with an open mind ask yourself does your position on this argument sound plausible?
1 Like
You asked what my observable facts were that led me to a path a faith. Mine are a little strange.
My son has cerebral palsy. He did not speak more than one or two words sentences such as: cup, milk, toy etc…until he was 10 years old.
Josh was abused in school by his teachers, and we took him out. When I did he started to speak.
He began by telling us that he could see. I was told that he was neurologically blind from birth. His neurological anomalies are in the primary optical center, and a portion of his motor cortex. He sees differently. We found out later, he has chromoethesia and can see the color of tone. People can’t usually lie to Josh or surprise him because he can tell.
He told me to get baptized. I used the word agnostic because that is the term I affiliated with back in the day. I know I used it wrongly. Haha. It was a cover for being lazy and safe.
I really didn’t care if there was a God or not because I didn’t understand the implications. I just liked being non-confrontational. There is so much bad in the world I thought God was either very choosy or wasn’t helping anyone. I determined that one time and didn’t ponder it again.
And then Josh spoke.
I had never taken him to church. I had never read him the Bible. I was disgusted with organized religion and disinterested in history or holy books. We don’t watch TV. He still just watches the same shows that he watched in his childhood. At that time, they were on DVD.
Imagine my surprise when he starts instructing me to do such things.
So many things have happened since then that I’ve started keeping a journal.
From that one miracle that I noticed as a miracle many have happened. Huge ones that are very personal, but also defy generality.
I came to faith through the voice of a miracle. I have a picture if you want to see it.
That’s terrible, my niece has cerebral palsy. I’m not sure how you are claiming this evidences a deity though? Could you be more specific?
He told me there’s more. Lately he is having me look up stuff that is over my head. Euclidean geometry, astrophysics, chemistry and crystalline structures, magnetism.
After a while I realized that he was not having me look it up for him. He was having me look it up for me to understand what he was trying to show me.
I look something up and talk to him about it. Then he tells me if my summarization of it is right or not wrong. If it’s wrong he has me go back if it’s right we proceed.
He’s been doing that for months.
There are so many more things that I’ve started writing journal/book about them. I have to research stuff just to know what he’s talking about.
It is easier to understand ideas of apparently supernatural quality because of what is going on with him.
He sort of revamped my idea of everything. Because of him I even questioned my doubt and found that I was living in the limitations of a child. I had avoided Faith because of the perceptions of a child. I revisited the idea of God and found myself and my purpose.
I will always try my best now not to let one person or group determine my opinion of anyone individually now.
He taught me how to have a more open mind and a more open heart.
Can your niece draw? Even if it is difficult for her you should try giving her something to draw with and letting her direct you with either her mouth or her hand or both.
Can she see? Can she hear? Does she speak?
I think words such as faith, scripture, God, and Jesus have become so loaded that people either reject or accept statements when they’re used without even really considering them.
That’s not what I’m asking for. This is a debate room but I don’t really want to debate. I want to relate. I feel like our existence is a puzzle and everybody has a piece to offer. What’s your piece?
What took you away or kept you away from a place of faith? I’ll gladly tell you anything else you want to know within reason. But what about you?
Uh, I thought 
you guys agreed on “Faith=Trust”
You just wrote Trust, being the source of trust is also personal.
See - doesn’t make sense.
Now, personal experiences can build trust (I prefer the confidence),but that’s a moment to moment assessment (or day by day). I have confidence that a chair I sit on will hold me, or I will drive safely, or the meal 
I cook will be delicious BUT I have experienced a “letdown” in all those scenarios (a car accident, a shitty meal ) - so confidence levels for me, is a more accurate descriptor.
Trust in your mate may be one of the highest forms of trust in many levels. A person can discover that, one day, that trust was betrayed.
I made a video on my feelings on faith. The quality is sort of crappy but it covers a lot. Listen to it, and tell me what you think. I’m sorry about the people that made you feel the way that you do. Your reasons are personal and valid to you and no one can take that from you but yourself. I can tell you’ve done a lot of studying. Maybe we can learn from each other.
That’s your perception and quite frankly, I have no idea of how accurate your perception of reality is.
QANON followers get all sorts of information and messages regarding the deep state. People have been “picking up” messages everywhere - from the sky 
(astrology) to animals (totems) to every form of fortune 
telling.
YouTube is filled with videos on everything you’ve mentioned above. Maybe you could go to a science based forum and write “word for word” what is being said and see if people educated in these various fields are getting the “same messages” or insights you claim you are.
I’m sure that’s true. I came here mostly to learn. I only talked about my perceptions because somebody asked a question about faith and empirical evidence. My son is my empirical evidence. I have scientific reports, brain scans, pictures, and I have him.
All I can do is offer to you what I know about him if you ask.
My empirical evidence is not going to be the same as yours. Faith is personal. Explain how I feel about that elsewhere. There’s even a link to a crappy video about how I feel if you care to find it. What is significant to you is going to be somewhat different than what’s significant to me.
All I can do is offer my perception of the truth knowing that it is real and I am of sound mind.
It’s up to you do what you want with it.
Then you need to stop calling it “empirical evidence”. It is your interpretation of reality. Whether you are of “sound mind” isn’t the question. Mental illnesses are recognized and does not interfere with the scientific method for determining validity of claims.
For example: have you watched “A Beautiful Mind”?
Nash had schizophrenia.
1 Like