Faith - how do you get it if you don't have it?

[txag007]

No. Evidence. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Evidence. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying that the evidence supports Christianity more than any other religion. Which is essentially the standard used to apply to any scientific theory. So of course this is proof, or at least, proof when defined as it usually is in science. Faith plays no role! Excellent.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Faith is a form of irrational thought (belief in the easter bunny, santa clause....and dare I say it anything labeled divine or mystical...Vishnu... Jesus Christ... The Flying Spaghetti Monster)

[/ QUOTE ]

this statement is too sweeping when you lump all faith into the category of being irrational.

a) there are faith ideas that are contradicted by science.
(irrational)

b) there are faith ideas that are not contradicted by science.

even science itself must speculate and reason and "whatif" about what might be true in order to even begin to think about how to obtain experimental results.

some ideas in b) can certainly be seen as "not viable" including but not limited to the fsm.

the facts are that the fsm is not contradicted by science and therefore it could exist - very technically this means the idea cannot qualify as irrational. the fsm idea does qualify as "not viable" as does the bunny and the fairie and santa.

ultimately it could be said that ideas live and die based upon the willingness of the human population to embrace those ideas and host them in their mind.

any human, unable to understand the usefullness of hosting certain ideas for which there is no scientific proof true or false, is a human with an inferior mind - not a lot unlike a feral child that missed the language window early in life and was thus severely stunted.

ray

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So given this definition of faith


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the main problem here. The Bible authors weren't consulting Webster.

All through the Bible God's words and activities are accompanied by evidence. Read Romans 1 which said God Himself makes Himself known to all.

Biblical faith mostly meants trust or committment. Nowhere is there even the slightest hint that anyone is supposed to just arbitrarily decide that God exists and the Bible is His Word.

Acts 1:3
To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Acts 17:31
because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

[Rearden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Faith is a form of irrational thought (belief in the easter bunny, santa clause....and dare I say it anything labeled divine or mystical...Vishnu... Jesus Christ... The Flying Spaghetti Monster)

[/ QUOTE ]

this statement is too sweeping when you lump all faith into the category of being irrational.

a) there are faith ideas that are contradicted by science.
(irrational)

b) there are faith ideas that are not contradicted by science.

even science itself must speculate and reason and "whatif" about what might be true in order to even begin to think about how to obtain experimental results.

some ideas in b) can certainly be seen as "not viable" including but not limited to the fsm.

the facts are that the fsm is not contradicted by science and therefore it could exist - very technically this means the idea cannot qualify as irrational. the fsm idea does qualify as "not viable" as does the bunny and the fairie and santa.

ultimately it could be said that ideas live and die based upon the willingness of the human population to embrace those ideas and host them in their mind.

any human, unable to understand the usefullness of hosting certain ideas for which there is no scientific proof true or false, is a human with an inferior mind - not a lot unlike a feral child that missed the language window early in life and was thus severely stunted.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Ray,

fsm as a concept was intoduced both to 1- poke fun at organized religion and 2- like its precursor the "celestial teapot" show that the burden of "proof" as it were hardly falls on the athiest. All you are doing is voicing an OPINION as to fsm being not viable. As far as I know there are no statements made about fsm which, as matters of faith, seem more outlandish than laws of significant (numerically) religions. That is the whole discussion point of fsm. Dawkins brings this up as a talking point in a speech of his in Virginia... I dont have the link handy but feel free to Youtube it (fsm comes up in the q&a section at the end where dawkins says thats its useful for a laugh and also to suggest the lack of exclusivity in "faith"... I can believe in celestial teapots if I want... such belief if tailored right has the same lack of evidence as a belief in Christ or Ra the sun god)

From an debate standpoint you have to realize that you can rarely declare one faith more viable than another (christ, fsm, the force). Unless a faith openly (and few do) suggests that the sky is green they stay in the realm of faith and outside science... once science thwarts them they shift (the churches stance on a flat earth, earth being the geosynch center of the universe, etc) all are equally "valid" just due to a point you yourself bring up... numbers. The number of followers determining the "truth" of these ideas (1 billion Hindus just cant be wrong). There's also a thread on this board with David asking whether or not any religion deserves more credibility than astrology since... its all faith.

Your last statement suggests that faith is a needed requirement for humanity. I think youre somewhat incorrect. If youd like a longer arguement than I can ever present "God Dellusion"-Dawkins, "End of Faith"-Harris.. they do an excellent job on this matter. Human beings need imagination for certain artistic endeavors; faith in a system of monotheism, were it lost, would hardly impact the future of art (though there would then be less paintings of the fictional "european looking" Jesus Christ.. pale skin.. western features... you know the lie.. youve seen it in every eurocentric church there is).

To many athiests questions of viable belief seem pretty laughable. If you choose to call a spade a spade you'd note that without overly numerous exception folks that call themselves Catholics were... raised Catholic by Catholic parents (starting from baptism before they could speak right on through communion before they could master times tables). Hindus generally raise Hindus. Muslims raise Muslims. etc. With the limitted issue of conversion (take a look at data on how rare it is, in comparison, to flip your mold) this accounts for religion. It is religious indoctrination. If someone raised a Catholic, who currently practices, can tell me that such indoctrination had no impact on them and that while they still had baby teeth they had a clear enough concept of god to declare themselves for a religion.... I'd laugh in their face and happily call them a liar. As a person of faith dont you find it an interesting quandry that people blindly adopt the religion of their parents/family? who then is the lazy and severly stunted thinker?

If you Youtube the previously mentioned Dawkins video (his virginia speech) there will be a section where some girl asks "well what if youre wrong about god?!?!" (dawkins being an atheist). He replies in a far more eloquent fashion than I had typed above by stating "well what if youre wrong..." and continues to suggest that this girl should acknowledge that there are thousands of religions throughout the world each claiming to be the correct one (after all how would you get followers if you just say "maybe" or even admit "probably not"). He continues on to suggest the obvious to an outsider observer; that this girl recieved her faith as a carbon copy of her parents due to indoctrination at a young age. Were she born in the greek era she would now be defending Poseidon; likewise with Thor (viking), Ra (egyptian), etc... all religions equally as viable as christianity (save the numbers as validity component you and I mentioned prior)

PS: I have seen the fsm. HE came to me in a vision after praying for years. Have fun refuting this... you cant fiat an exclusive nature to religious visions... no religion can... which is why religion's basing themselves off of active prophets [Mormons] have so many splinter groups... if you can see god, and he can see god, I sure as anything can claim to see god as well.
PPS Fsm gave me a vision of the future in which Brandi Rose would indeed fly one day. Sup Bro was there too.

[txag007]

As I said before, there is a point where you have to make a choice.

[Schweitzer]

Reardon is referring to Richard Dawkin's talk about his book "The God Delusion" at Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, Virginia.
He talks about his book here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU

but the question and answer section which Reardon refers to is a seperate clip found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M

I found these clips entertaining and strongly suggest people at least watch the Q&A section.

[Rearden]

Thanks Schweitzer

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Your last statement suggests that faith is a needed requirement for humanity. I think youre somewhat incorrect. If youd like a longer arguement than I can ever present "God Dellusion"-Dawkins, "End of Faith"-Harris.. they do an excellent job on this matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, it requires a great deal of "faith" to believe a society will function at all, let alone better, under Dawkins' or Harris' model. There's absolutely no "proof" that we would be better off - it's simply speculation. And the few attempts at developing a secularist, non-religious society ended up being far worse than anticipated, regardless of how well it sounded in theory.

Dawkins and Harris "hope" humanity will be better off without religion and you have "faith" that it will be - but "proof" - hardly. If the human race was governed solely by intellect alone, it might have some merit, but the one thing we know for certain, that's not the case. There's more to being human than reason alone and religion takes the entire human experience into account.

We have absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the aggregate of humanity would benefit by doing away with religion. And considering the correlation between religion/godism and the rise of the human species from its primitive state to our modern lifestyle, the evidence would seem to indicate that religion is more of a benefit to humanity than a curse.

[Rearden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your last statement suggests that faith is a needed requirement for humanity. I think youre somewhat incorrect. If youd like a longer arguement than I can ever present "God Dellusion"-Dawkins, "End of Faith"-Harris.. they do an excellent job on this matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, it requires a great deal of "faith" to believe a society will function at all, let alone better, under Dawkins' or Harris' model. There's absolutely no "proof" that we would be better off - it's simply speculation. And the few attempts at developing a secularist, non-religious society ended up being far worse than anticipated, regardless of how well it sounded in theory.

Dawkins and Harris "hope" humanity will be better off without religion and you have "faith" that it will be - but "proof" - hardly. If the human race was governed solely by intellect alone, it might have some merit, but the one thing we know for certain, that's not the case. There's more to being human than reason alone and religion takes the entire human experience into account.

We have absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the aggregate of humanity would benefit by doing away with religion. And considering the correlation between religion/godism and the rise of the human species from its primitive state to our modern lifestyle, the evidence would seem to indicate that religion is more of a benefit to humanity than a curse.

[/ QUOTE ]

In attacking Harris and Dawkins you left out...
John Lennon- "Imagine"

But more seriously
You're arguing that the rise of irrational thought in the form of faith is linked to the development of society? If so I would like to refer you to an entire time period; The Dark Ages. A lovely time where religious dogma dominated Europe and stifled scientific progress. It seems to be a trend that such progress is quieted by organized religion no? (though luckily today they no longer make scientists down hemlock). You're suggesting that if all of the money and effort spent creating ornate churches and paying for clergy has no better use?

I beg to differ. Millions of dollars and countless man hours, were it devoted to say the third world or the environment, would help humanity more than creating ornate stained glass fixtures in tribute to the hereafter.

Additionally, religion hurts people. One simple and quick exmple of this is the church's stance on condom use in Africa. It's laughable that an international body concerned with supposedly the well being of its members suggests that condom use is wrong (even amoung married couples). Every sperm is sacred indeed. The fact that millions of people in the third world in general will die prematurely thanks to aids should hang on the minds of all those cheery missionaries who's moral righteousness helps to damn these people to hellish conditions on earth.

My question to you John is whether or not youve read "God Dellusion" or "End of Faith" or even "Letter to a Christian Nation" all of which are fairly new books. It would be relevant to this arguement whether or not youve even read these authors arguements before you discredit them (for what it's worth and to put us on equal footing I've read both the bible and some critical works on it that support it "case for faith" etc). Im curious what you, as a person of faith (atleast thats the impression you give) think of those books and arguements.... if in fact youve read them. If not of course I suggest them.

Also while youre at it... I havent heard any truly solid arguements as to the casuality of the rise of religion and the human species. Are you discounting every religion before christianity? spiritualism in general? tribal mysticism? etc. Also Id be curious as to your ability to attain numbers for "believers" throughout history.

"If the human race was governed by intellect alone..." we can only dream