Faith

@Setanta,

Quote:

Fear seems to be an important concomitant of faith in the minds of many religious people. We are almost guaranteed to have at least one discussion each year introduced by a religiously-motivated person asking how so-called atheists can have any morals if they don't fear god, or suggesting, in fact. that there can be no morality where such a fear is absent.

I think the problem with gods is that man have created many gods throughout human history. It's usually based on culture. Is buddha a lesser god than the christian god? How about all the Greek gods that predated the christian god? There are similarities between the christian god and the greek god. Which one is the true god?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Which one is the true god?

If we start out assuming there is one, here's how I would narrow it down.
I think it's crazy to think of a non-biological being who lacks physical characteristics (including vocal chords) having a name.

Imagine if he does show up and he says, "Hi, I'm Joe, I am your God".

Anyway, if I didn't already know him, I'd start narrowing down the possibilities by chucking all the ones with names.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

You are refusing to acknowledge the difference between believing something and having faith in something. I've explained it in no uncertain terms. And instead of a rebuttal, you insist that I don't understand faith. Spoken like a true believer. But the definitions speak for themselves.

You say that I am hell-bent on drawing a distinction between belief and faith. Your believer-side is simply having a reaction to being shown that you can't have faith in the qualities of something that remains in the realm of belief. Do not pretend that you do not understand this.

Quote:

Have I not written, more than once, that there isn't much of a difference between faith and belief?

Yes you have. And that's your problem. You believe that belief and faith are interchangeable. They're not. You're trying to validate a belief in a god with nothing to support it.

Your wife exists; anyone can see her. Belief in her is not required. No one can see the god. Belief in it is required. Your use of the word faith in relation to the god is your attempt to make your belief seem more substantial.

I told you that faith is a belief concerning the structure or behavior of something whose existence is evident. You answered by telling me that the existence of God is not objectively evident. Whether you know it or not, you just described the god as nothing more than a belief. Anything you say about the god after that would be nothing more than more belief.

Quote:

You have no idea from where I acquired my belief in God. It wasn't a book. You're making silly simplistic arguments. What would you have me call God, if not "God?" As for whether or not God is a "male," of course God transcends human genders. I just can't be bothered with repeating "he/she/it" in all of my posts.

You got the name and gender of the entity we're discussing from a book, unless you want to call it a coincidence. You can't even describe the god, and yet you call it a he. And now you want me to believe that the only reason for that is because it would be too much effort or bother to call the god it? Sure. What a major overhaul that would be.

You said that you believe that the god loves its creation. I asked you in what way you believe the god you believe in loves its creation? And you tell me
that that is a silly question, and that I am simply revealing the shallowness of my understanding. However, it was you who brought love into the discussion, claiming that you believe it loves its creation. I simply asked you to explain what you mean. However, you did go on to say that you are a humble creator who loves your creations. I don't know what you intended to mean with that since in your next breath you say that you don't think for a moment that God's love is similar to the hubris of human creators.

Quote:

. . . your arguments are far too simplistic and biased.

You believe that the god exists and is the creator of all things, and that it loves its creation. Does that sound simplistic to you?

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Yeah, I've always thought it a shame that there can't be a discussion about spirituality, faith, religion or anything in that vein without having to deal with gratuitous jeers. Someone always shows up for the sole purpose of repeating how stupid it is to have an "imaginary friend"or how ridiculous and contradictory"the bobble" is, and how one may as well pray to 'Dog' or 'the flying spaghetti monster'.

This is ironically amusing when one considers the history of these topics at this site. First because so many theists, and Snood is an excellent example, rush into any of the few threads which have intended to discuss so-called atheism in order to attack the evil non-believers. More importantly, though, is the number of threads in which some witless god-botherer comes along to say that so-called atheists are this, that or the other, but especially that they are amoral or immoral. The god-botherers pick far more fights than atheists do, so small wonder if they are held up to ridicule in their turn. If your faith is so wonderful, and so sustaining for you, should it not be able to endure some laughter?

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
[belief in God is]Rooted in notions predating more sophisticated knowledge.

Not that anyone who knows God would be the slightest bit affected by it but that shallow, condescending statement is probably the height of attempted insults to believers. The idiocy in thinking 'modern knowledge' obviates any possible reason to believe in God is the height of hubris.

I guess you had to write something.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

This is ironically amusing when one considers the history of these topics at this site. First because so many theists, and Snood is an excellent example, rush into any of the few threads which have intended to discuss so-called atheism in order to attack the evil non-believers.

I'd be interested in you showing me an example of me rushing in to "attack the evil-doers". I don't think you can find an example of when I was not responding to jeers, but initiating.

Quote:

More importantly, though, is the number of threads in which some witless god-botherer comes along to say that so-called atheists are this, that or the other, but especially that they are amoral or immoral. The god-botherers pick far more fights than atheists do, so small wonder if they are held up to ridicule in their turn. If your faith is so wonderful, and so sustaining for you, should it not be able to endure some laughter?

I've never tried to say atheists or agnostics were by definition amoral or immoral. And I disagree with your statement that "god-botherers" (the fact that you cannot just call them "faithful" or "believers" or something non-pejorative is instructive) start more fights, although it is a completely untestable notion.

But you're right, the faithful should be able to endure some laughter, and I'd just add two small caveats:
1.Calling it "some laughter" is too generic (and borderline disingenuous). There are all types of humor. Some of it isn't even intended to wound. If we call it specifically what it is that gets reactions, it's ridicule, jeering and mocking.
2. The faithful are just human, and although they should expect these types of comments, they shouldn't be expected to endure them without comment.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

snood wrote:
Yeah, I've always thought it a shame that there can't be a discussion about spirituality, faith, religion or anything in that vein without having to deal with gratuitous jeers. Someone always shows up for the sole purpose of repeating how stupid it is to have an "imaginary friend"or how ridiculous and contradictory"the bobble" is, and how one may as well pray to 'Dog' or 'the flying spaghetti monster'.

This is ironically amusing when one considers the history of these topics at this site. First because so many theists, and Snood is an excellent example, rush into any of the few threads which have intended to discuss so-called atheism in order to attack the evil non-
believers. More importantly, though, is the number of threads in which some witless god-botherer comes along to say that so-called atheists are this, that or the other, but especially that they are amoral or immoral. The god-botherers pick far more fights than atheists do, so small wonder if they are held up to ridicule in their turn. If your faith is so wonderful, and so sustaining for you, should it not be able to endure some laughter?

Well said. I came here to write similar.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

you can't have faith in the qualities of something that remains in the realm of belief.

I think That is one of the most transparently false statements I've ever read.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I think That is one of the most transparently false statements I've ever read.

I think that that is one of the poorest excuses for a rebuttal I've ever seen. Your believer-side is simply having a reaction to being shown that you can't have faith in the qualities of something that remains in the realm of belief.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

you can't have faith in the qualities of something that remains in the realm of belief.

I believe in the flow of electrons and I have faith in their qualities such that when I turn on a light switch they will create light in a bulb.

The examples are numberless.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Here you are trying to equate something too small to be seen with the existence of the god. A poor analogy.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I explained that here as well.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

Here you are trying to equate something too small to be seen with the existence of the god. A poor analogy.

The electron and God are both unseen but both exist. Seems like a perfect analogy to me.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Ever heard of an electron microscope? Ever heard of a god microscope?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

You can't see electrons with an electron microscope.

But to answer your question and carry the analogy a bit further,
you can use both electrons and God to reveal things you can't see without them.

So yes to both.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

No, I mean how an electron microscope works.

The electron microscope uses a beam of electrons and their wave-like characteristics to magnify an object's image, unlike the optical microscope that uses visible light to magnify images. Optical microscopes can magnify between 40 to 2000 .times but the electron microscope can resolve features that are more than 1 million times smaller.
________________________________________

So tell me how your analogy applies in light of this new bit of information that has come your way.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

You forgot the starting point. The fact that we can't see electrons or God.

I'm guessing I've spent more time using electron microscopes than you have.

2 Replies

How many gods does a microscope detect?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Dammit, you did the same thing Glennn did.

God IS the microscope or means of seeing, not the object being seen.

0 Replies

In no way have you established there is a god to help you, other than in your own imagination.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know