Why is faith considered a virtue?

Unquantifiable means things like love and true friendship, beauty and all of the things we believe in so strongly that we forget they have no basis in proof. For most people they seem so real that questioning them seems ridiculous, but they are completely subjective and lack objective proof. Faith is what makes them so real to most people whether they realize it or not.

I cringe doing this but I can't help but think of a passage from Kahlil Gibran about love,

"But if in your fear you would seek only loves peace and loves pleasure, Then it is better for you that you should cover your nakedness and pass out of loves threshing floor, Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears."

To me that epitomizes life without faith.

 

I feel really bad for these kids, actually. they forced to pretend to believe this stuff. in sheer terror of 'letting down' parents/pastors/teachers, whoever, they have to carry this dreadful burden throughout their lives. very few are so well equipped in the compartmentalising arts that such heavily invested falseness and illogic can be entirely isolated from the rest of the psych. in other words, it's bound to tell. seepage and all that.

 

None of this is true. It's intellectually cowardly for you to ignore my post, move on, write up some lies and then accuse people of "deaf ears" to top it off. It's curious how many atheists are unable to countenance anything close to the real Christianity.

 

Personally I don't care what they believe as long as they don't try to force it on me or try to tell me they have SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

LOL!!!

AboveAlpha

 

they're emotions, though. not 'things', as it were. and beauty, while in some sense is in the eye of the beholder, is actually quantifiable. we're pattern and symmetry seekers, so yeah ..... patterns and symmetry appeal to us visually. in faces, bodies, mountains, forests, art, music, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

what is Real Christianity, please? could you give us the details and the rules?

 

Love is an emotion, but the belief that it is shared or has a transcendent quality is completely unproven. It seems unlikely that any two people feel exactly the same emotion. Love as a romantic ideal seems naive.

Instead we can see love as the rationalization of a need to procreate and care for offspring and the urge to develop social bonds to help provide and protect oneself and ones family.

One view of love takes faith, the other does not.

As above seeing beauty as a set of patterns and symmetry takes no faith. But believing that beauty has a deeper meaning than simple appearance does.

 

Romantic love is the product of the mating urge - but that fact doesn't diminish its power. It feels wonderful regardless - and that's the beauty of it.

But where does faith fit in?

 

First, I'm talking about today's world. Back then, they did not have the benefit of our scientific progress and discoveries that put the nail in the coffin of mythical monotheistic religions.

Second, Aquinas was a moron. I debunked his flawed "proofs" of God back in college. I think it took 10 minutes. Sure, better than Anselm, as his only took 2 minutes to debunk.

So you can't think of an educated person from the last century? Oh, yeah, all the great minds of recent time were basically buddhists. How coincidental...

Ken

 

Yeah, and I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. You are a perfect example of the weak (nonexistent?) critical thinking skills that American schools produce. People who cannot see through a pyramid scheme or religious pseudo-science babble.

Do you even realize the innate logical flaws in believing there was a flood that literally covered all land on earth, two of every animal was on the Ark? To even think such a thing is to have a totally flawed and impaired view of the biodiversity of life. And how do you feed the carnivorous animals for 40 days and 40 nights? And how do we have millions of years worth of evolutionary drift if, say, all "horses" came out of the ark a few thousand years ago. And forget that the flood was an act of brutal, evil genocide. Is it moral to commit genocide against people (including children) because they are not worshiping you? Sounds pretty tyrannical. Ignoring you lack of wit, if you actually had an ethical backbone, you'd be a conscious objector -- meaning there are those among us who reject the Christian God because there's so much terrible stuff "he" does in the Bible, that "he" does not deserve worship, "he" is like a bad king who should be deposed.

Oh, but under your view of the Biblical "truth," God wields the power, right? Heaven or Hell? So you bow and scrape to the tyrannical despot hoping to avoid punishment like a good slave? Geez, wake up and smell reality. Geez, not only is it easy to disprove the existence of the Christian God, it's easy to show that, if you assume "he" does exist, he does not DESERVE our worship or obedience. Why the hell do we have the benefits of the fruit of the tree of knowledge if we are just going to ignore our own internal ethical barometer and accept God's instead? It's like an infant trying to crawl back in the womb. YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY, SONNY!

Ken

 

Relax, fear and ignorance are a common theme among believers but if you can't carry on a discussion why are you here?

 

It's so sad if you actually believe the things you say you believe in this post.

 

But I just said there's evidence. So, if there's evidence proving it, what's the point of arguing?

1) There's multiple photographs of the ark (including satellite images).

2) The Turkish government confirms both it and it's location - including multiple Chinese scientists who have taken samples of the ark back and confirmed its authenticity.

3) When examining the fossil graveyards throughout the world, we notice strange fossils of animals, plants and even water droplets.

4) The millions upon millions of fossilized dinosaur bones show no teeth marks. This suggests they have not been scavenged. There's no burns either, which suggests no heat death either.

5) The fossil graveyards show millions of dead animals that wouldn't otherwise be together under any normal circumstance.

6) Multiple reliable and renowned ancient historians reference the ark and its location - they also speak about it as if its location is a widely known fact.

7) Over 500 different cultures from around the world have documents that all reference a global flood and they are strikingly similar.

 

No, there's photographs of a geological formation creationists are claiming is the Ark.

None of that is true. You're taking exaggerated claims from creationists that have been refuted by other creationists for crying out loud. Even the fringes of fringe don't believe any of what you said and have refuted these "findings" as a hoax. The "Chinese scientists" you claim took the sample back were actually members of Noah's Ark Ministries International, which is NOT a scientific organization but a religious one.

Me thinks you're just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up now.

You do understand how fossilization occurs, right? Animals quickly are buried under sediment. Of course they wouldn't be scavenged, they were buried.

Like what?

Who?

How would these cultures reference a global flood if Noah's Flood, according to the Bible, killed every human on the planet except for Noah and his family?

 

Since when does "today's world" consist of the imaginary realm governed by your personal prejudices?

You do not exactly come across as a blazing beacon of intellectual prowess yourself, but I would hardly presume to infer anything about your educational level on that basis.

According to your bigoted operating definition of the term? Why would I bother?

 

I can tell you that it isn't what you've written since the New Testament specifically bans stoning for social crimes under even the most limited interpretation of the Pericope Adulterae. Christianity is organized loosely into covenants with Jesus having formed a new covenant that changes select parts of the previous covenant with the Jews that included laws about stoning people.

 

Since there were many Great Deluge stories in the epics of the ancient world there likely was some kind of regional great flood and there is evidence at the end of the last ice age a sea did flood out after an ice barrier gave way so there was a local flood of epic nature likely wiping out many tribes. That's different than a global flood covering the highest peak humans and animals couldn't even BREATH at such heights for long we need to take oxygen now for such heights. And that amount of water wouldn't just go away it would take something like a huge ice body breaking up in orbit and raining down ice chunks to melt and bring that much water and it wouldn't then leave. And you would be looking at taking a century to end the process.

Blind faith is weak, in many ways, save fanaticism of their followers. Faith from a position of reasoned faith tempered by humanity is better many Atheists used reasoned faith we look at science and the positions of Deists and choose using that the reasoned "faith" there's no proof of a Deity so until proven there's science and a dynamic but mechanical universe. And I choose to reject such claims considering hedging my bets rather unethical, since its based on no proof just a possibility. A possibility that apparently there's no need for in a mechanical universe under natural law.

Frankly those of blind faith scare me they are insane and irrational to me.

 

When you say "likely" it means you do not know. Perhaps you should examine the evidence and draw a conclusion from there.

But to be an atheist relies on one using blind faith.

If a person makes a statement and presents it as fact, they need evidence to back up that statement. You can't make a statement of "I don't believe you" without a cause.

Logical Statement - "I don't believe you, because... [ Insert reason here ]"
The Atheist - "I don't believe you...." <-- No reason or cause presented.

My only question here is: why don't atheists believe in God? Can anyone tell me why?

 

Geological formation of what? Seems like you're just repeating what sceptics have been saying for quite awhile now. That area is now covered in snow, so it doesn't look like this anymore.

No, Noah's Ark Ministries had nothing to do with what I just told you.

1) Fossilized Jelly Fish
Source: http://www.livescience.com/1971-oldest-jellyfish-fossils.html

2) Fossilized plants
Source: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/plantfossils/Plant-Fossils.htm

3) Fossilized water drops
Source: http://www.npr.org/2012/03/28/149527582/raindrops-in-rock-clues-to-a-perplexing-paradox

The process of fossilization should normally take several thousand years to start. Yet, we have fossils of jelly fish that don't make sense. Jelly fish, before they die, usually turn into blobs before they are ripped apart. Yet, these fossils show living jelly fish. This suggests that the jelly fish fossilized instantly.

Same with plants. Plants would soon wither before the fossilisation process would begin, yet they look absolutely healthy here.

Fossilized raindrops makes little sense if they are to be preserved for millions of years. The wind would easily wash up the raindrops, or the ground would absorb it. Yet, that's not what we see here. So, do you care to explain all of this?

Yet, the Karoo fossil site in Africa , where you see fossils sticking out of the ground, you see groups of various animals who wouldn't ever be near each other in one spot. Many of the animal bones you see are separated, so you just see a soup of bones... So, if they were buried and preserved, then wouldn't the whole animal be intact? Why would we be seeing groups of animals near each other that wouldn't normally be near each other?

Berosus
Hieronymus
Josephus
Nicolaus
Theophilus
Marco Polo

Just to name a few.

Because they are descendants of Noah.

 

Because I have evidence to back up what I say. I'm still waiting for the evidence for atheism. No one seems to want to provide any, yet somehow, they all want me to believe what they are saying.

 

Why don't you believe in the 299,999 odd other gods? When you have the answer to that question, you have the answer to your own question, above.

 

what is the evidence for not collecting stamps? is it a house without stamps in it? or is it following a person around for a lifetime to check for any lapse into stamp buying? if either are evidence for not collecting stamps, then you'll need to commit yourself to a fairly large task if you want evidence of even one atheist's atheism.

what's that you say? you're wanting evidence of the noun atheism, rather than the verb atheism? since it's a negative, I wish you luck. you'll have as much (luck) finding a non as you will finding a nothing.

 

Yes you are of course right. But common sense that comes through simple objective observation says the same thing. That is, you do not have to believe in your god, or the other person's god, to SEE what happens when you do not have kids in a stable, responsible, relationship.

I would also imagine that even if a particular religion did not have laws against promiscuity an attentive society would suffer from what it caused, and enact laws against it. We actually used to have laws against it, but people thought it was mixing religion with gov't and did away with them, when in fact, it is just in the secular interest of society to discourage promiscuity because it leads to problems, societal problems and disorder.

Most of the 10 commandment are just common sense laws, for if followed they keep down conflict and disorder in any society. Like not fooling around with the other man's wife, not stealing, not killing, not bearing false witness, for it you do, the offended party might try to extract justice, which can set off a Hatfield and McCoys scenario, carried over generations. Society does not need this kind of chaos and disorder.

The trouble is, we have confused common sense laws and rules of conduct with religious laws, and if you call them originating with religion and you have separation of church and state, you throw out the baby with the bath when you rescind these laws just because they were contained in some religion.

It is not in the best interest of any society to glamorize sexual promiscuity, and that is what American advertising does in order to sell someone something they probably didn't need.

 

What do you mean "of what"? Do you know what a geological formation is?

"In 2007, a joint Turkish-Hong Kong expedition including members of Noah's Ark Ministries International (NAMI) claimed to have found an unusual cave with fossilized wooden walls on Mount Ararat, well above the vegetation line.[25] In 2010, NAMI released videos of their discovery of the wood structures.[26] Members of Noah's Ark Ministries International reported carbon dating suggests the wood is approximately 4,800 years old. It is unlikely that there was any human settlement at the site at altitude of 4,000 meters.[27] Randall Price, a partner with Noah's Ark Ministries International from early 2008 to the summer of 2008, stated that the discovery was probably the result of a hoax, perpetrated by ten Kurdish workers hired by the Turkish guide used by the Chinese, who planted large wood beams taken from an old structure near the Black Sea at the cave site.[28][29] In a response to Price, Noah&#8217;s Ark Ministries International stated that they had terminated co-operation with Price in early October 2008, and that he had never been in the location of the wooden structure they identified, and regretted his absence in their find. On their website they say they asked for the opinion of Mr. Muhsin Bulut, the Director of Cultural Ministries, Agri Province. The web site says that his response was that secretly transporting such an amount of timber to the strictly monitored area and planting a large wood structure at an altitude of 4,000 meters would have been impossible.[30] At the end of April 2010, it was reported that Turkey's culture minister ordered a probe into how NAMI brought its pieces of wood samples from Turkey to China.[31] A Scottish explorer investigating the NAMI claim was reported missing, on 14 October 2010, from an expedition on Ararat. His last camp site and personal effects were subsequently located but the circumstances remain unresolved.[32]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah's_Ark

Really? This isn't what you were describing to us? A joint effort between China and Turkey with Chinese "scientists" taking back samples to China?

Wait, all you were saying was that we have fossilized plants, jelly fish, and rain drops? Well duh, of course we have those. There's nothing strange about that.

One, you do realize that these fossils are dated to hundreds of millions of years ago, right? When humans weren't even around? I thought creationists were saying that this Flood happened thousands of years ago, not hundreds of millions. Two, rapid burial doesn't equate to global flood.

Uh, your own article states how they were fossilized, maybe you should read it?

Again, these fossils are dated to hundreds of millions of years ago. And there is no such thing as the Karoo "fossil site" in Africa. You're describing it as some small area where there are just a ton of fossils of various animals that shouldn't be there. The Karoo Supergroup consists of fossils found through numerous countries, "including all of Lesotho, almost the whole of Free State, and large parts of the Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal Provinces of South Africa. Karoo supergroup outcrops are also found in Namibia, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi, as well as on other continents that were part of Gondwana."

This is just pure and unadulterated ignorance.

http://bibleprobe.com/noahark-timeline.htm

I'm assuming you got this information from this website, yes? Maybe you should look at the words that these authors use to describe where this supposed Ark is, and the words that they use to describe how they know about it. Pay particular attention to "it is reported" or "it is said".

The only reference to Noah's Ark that Marco Polo makes is this:

"In the heart of Greater Armenia is a very high mountain , shaped like a cube (or cup), on which Noah's ark is said to have rested, whence it is called the Mountain of Noah's Ark. It [the mountain] is so broad and long that it takes more than two days to go around it. On the summit the snow lies so deep all the year round that no one can ever climb it; this snow never entirely melts, but new snow is for ever falling on the old, so that the level rises."

Do you see the words "is said to have"? Yeah, not very definitive if you ask me. I mean, we know that the Bible says that it landed on Mt. Ararat.

So, you're claiming that these 500 cultures are progeny of Noah, and therefore have Flood accounts. Then why would we have 500 accounts that say different things and not the same exact story throughout the world? And why would EVERY culture in the world not have a flood narrative?

 

Of course the concept of God had he advantage for parents of coming from some place other than themselves.
By the teens, the rules and the honor for parents had both suffered greatly.

Saying that the Truth was, that Realities will punish sexual misconduct, that was weaker than saying, God will get you.
And if she got pregnant, you're married de facto.

 

Well ,for me, I would first note let's use divine force (you can't prove such a thing is a single being, a pantheon or a herd of celestial cows crapping out universes from some other plane of reality. Now to me from my explorations of science and from far wiser men able to bring complex concepts to my level (Cosmos, Nova and books suited to a layman) and a study of theology (including myths and such) the body of current evidence strongly points to a mechanical universe far over other options. In this there seems no need for any divine force and all evidence used for such a reality fall into the untestable so therefore is meaningless. I can't rule I'm wrong but to be an Agnostic I would have to in good conscience think it likely the divine force is there and I see no evidence for it compelling.

How could one prove it well, lets see, you would need a theory of a divine force that's testable or others can under peer review verify. The as a Christian you need to prove the nature of this god and that faiths claims are true over other faiths claims at the same standard. A high bar. Or I would have to meet this being and its servant in the afterlife that would kind of prove it to me.

To me the default position is there is no god or goddess or pantheon etc. as the prevalent and most tested position since science hasn't found any real proof, and the deist must provide the evidence and prove it noting science up to now has demonstrated a mechanical universe and missing components but gaps doesn't mean "god did it" just we don't know - which is fine.