Why is faith considered a virtue?

1) blind faith in what? science? if yes, you'll need to demonstrate how it's blind. no small task, since scientific findings always end up on public record at some point. we're surrounded by the physical evidence of scientific findings, too. faith doesn't cut it, either, since the correct word for our acceptance of scientific findings is trust. and that trust is earned.

2) agreed. if a person makes a statement and presents it as fact, they need to back it up WITH EVIDENCE. the same sort of evidence science provides for findings, hence earning our TRUST.

 

1) No. Atheism itself is a blind faith since there's nothing to prove it to be true.

2) If you agree, then provide evidence that proves atheism to be true.

Well, doesn't everything that exist first need a cause? If you believe in science, then you have to believe in the Big Bang. You'd have to believe the Big Bang is an effect to a cause, wouldn't you? So, what do you believe caused the Big Bang?

 

Alright. Tell me what a geological formation is.

I've heard of this, but I don't believe this was it. I believe there was a Chinese expedition around 2003. If I'm wrong about this, I'm willing to drop it - because I have no source for this. This was something I learned by ear. The rest, I was able to fact check.

So... Your only rebuttal is that we weren't around when it happened, so we just don't understand how things fossilized? Is this what you're saying?

Scientists don't agree on how the fossils were formed. What you read was just someone's guess.

The Fossil Site in Karoo.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo
Seems like we're talking about the same thing.

Also, I didn't describe it as small (o_0).
You also didn't debate what I said, which lets me know you agree with me. So, if you have no answers, then clearly you see the issue I'm pointing at.

I got my list from another source, but I did use that URL as a reminder of how to spell some of the names. I was going to link the source, but then I thought to myself, "He won't click on the link anyway", so I left it out.

Also, Marco Polo claimed to have visited the Ark twice. This is a pretty known fact. Dunno why you're trying to twist his words.

Why would 500 cultures have flood stories that all sound similar to each other? You have to admit that it simply doesn't make sense, unless they were somehow linked to some sort of truth.

 

So, now you're comparing atheism to collecting stamps? I don't believe they are remotely the same.

You don't believe in any gods. My question to you is why? What evidence do you have that has convinced you?

Because I have evidence for the Judeo-Christian God that appears to be more compelling. I also have one of the only 3 religious text that makes bold predictions of the future, and has a 100% accuracy rating. The other 2 religious texts would be the Book of Mormon, which has several of its predictions proven to be false. The other is the Quran which only makes a prediction of the Last Days (which appears to just be a copy and paste from the Torah).

 

atheism makes no claims. please try to understand this.

and, what caused your god?

 

once again, atheism is a NOT. evidence of nots is an absurdity. are you reduced to absurdities now?

you have 'evidence' for god the same way millions of others have 'evidence' for other gods. however, if you have empirically compelling evidence for yours, you're the first person in history to have it. why aren't you on the 6pm news?

 

You know you should be more careful what you say because you might hurt someones feelings. Just think of all the theists who now realize they will never reach that level of understanding and how depressing it must be for them.

 

Faith can have a secular and religious definition

Faith is needed in life. Faith that your car will start tomorrow morning, that your dwelling won't be burned tomorrow morning, and much more.

Faith founded in ignorance is a very bad thing. Especially the Muslim and Hindu religions

 

Why is evidence of a "NOT" an absurdity? Are you saying evidence of God not existing is an absurdity? If so, then why don't you believe in Him? Seems to me that not believing in God is an absurdity based on what you just said.

What caused the number 7?

That's what it means to try to figure out the cause of God. For the universe to begin, something would need to exist outside the realm of the universe. The universe is space, material and time, is it not? So, whatever made the universe has to be space-less, time-less and material-less. Makes sense?

 

It's just a natural rock formation.

You were just touting this as if it were a known and irrefutable fact that guided your beliefs on the subject, and now you're willing to just drop it because you have no source for it? That seems silly to me, sorry.

No, please read carefully. Most creationists say Noah's Flood happened a few thousand years ago. You're claiming that fossils of fauna that lived hundreds of millions of years ago somehow is evidence for the Flood described in the Bible. The timelines don't match up.

Secondly, you claimed that rapid burial was evidence for the Flood. I don't see how that is possibly true. A global flood doesn't have to happen for organismsto get buried quickly.

Even if nobody had an explanation for them, or they turned out not to be raindrops, I don't see how that is possibly evidence for a global flood.

You described it before, and right here as a "fossil site" and you also described it earlier as "one spot". It isn't a fossil site or a spot, it's a stratigraphic layer that spans muchof Southern Africa. I also don't know why you think that these groups of fauna shouldn't be find "near" each other. I put "near" in quotes because remember, these fossils can be found hundreds of miles apart.

Always good to reference a source, my friend.

A pretty known fact to whom? I've read The Travels, authored by Polo, and he never mentions trips to Noah's Ark.

I don't know what you mean by "similar to each other". I'm not sure what stories you're referring to, or how you think that they're similar to one another. Do they all tell the story of God ordering a Global Flood to kill all humans except for a family that survives on a boat? If not, if they're just similar because they're stories of a flood, then that's not really evidence of much except they have stories based on a similar, and common, natural disaster.

 

crank:

It strikes me as odd that you are only interested in the explanation of what faith is from theists religionists, as opposed to getting it from atheist religionists.

If you want to find people who can explain faith--blind faith, that is--I suggest you speak to the next atheist religionist who insists that our fine-tuned universe happened by itself and that life resulted from non-life, despite the fact the scientific evidence says both are impossible.

How about giving that a try?


Alter2Ego

 

Care to provide this evidence?

 

Vicariously I:

It depends which religion you are referring to when you say the above (bolded in red). My religious faith is based on evidence of intelligent design and on undeniable proof that the Judeo-Christian Bible is inspired of God.

Alter2Ego

 

"Undeniable".

 

No it actually doesn't. We are not talking about what one has faith in, we are talking about the act of believing in something in the absence of evidence, i.e. religious faith.

As for the rest, thanks for the laugh and no I'm not being insulting, just honest.

 

We don't know yet and I don't know yet science is exploring this with other phenomenon, we do know we are here and can explore this reality. Where did a god come from, something must have made god and more complex than god then who created the creator of the creator on back?

I don't know is a fine position for me at this time.

 

Vicariously I:

Right, such as the atheist religionists' belief that our fine-tuned universe is the result of the unproven theory known as "big bang," during which space merely expanded and somehow, everything fell magically into place. That, along with the atheist religionist belief that macroevolution is fact, despite the reality that the fossils evidence said it never happened. At Post 111, I mentioned both of those as examples of "act of believing in something in the absence of evidence." Or did you not notice that I touched on that already?

Alter2Ego

 

I'm not asking for an explanation of faith. I want to know why some (perhaps all) theists consider the act of faith, virtuous. Are you able to explain it?

And no, I can't explain why someone believes something came from nothing, and happened all by itself. you'd have to ask those who believe a god did just that.

 

the ACT of faith is the same regardless of the subject matter. why have multiple theists posted 'it depends on which faith'? are you guys simply trying to avoid answering the OP question?

yes, your religious faith is SPECIAL religious faith. just like all those other billions of people of all different faiths. oy vay ...

 

you mean, like all those theists who believe their god just appeared, magically, from nothing?

because a magic man in the sky (who behave suspiciously like bronze age desert goat herders and has a pronounced interest in one particular tribe local to said desert) is a far more likely explanation for everything

 

this thread pertains ONLY to religious faith.

and we don't have faith our car will start, we have trust. and trust is earned.

so, you're saying that religious faith is NOT virtuous then. there are many who would agree with you on that, I think.

 

believe in who? who is him? you would first have to define the particular god you refer to, then provide all the empirical evidence you have for this particular god's existence, then demonstrate that this proven god actually impacts our lives (and you'd need to prove this empirically), etc etc. wait, what? you can't do any of those things? well, there's your answer, dear.

it appears you have the universe, and all creation, totally figured out. well done, your nobel prize is in the mail. if I'm mistaken, and you're just spouting wish-thinking woo, then I'll ask you again to explain how your god was caused.

 

The Ancient Religious Texts that those who are members of Faith in various Monotheistic Religions is too simple a concept compared to what is really going on.

We barely are scratching the surface of what is reality and we have made HUGE strides with our basic understandings of Cosmology, Physics and especially Quantum Mechanics.

What is written in these texts and books is like what a Kindergardener writes in crayon.

Reality is much more complex than what Religion dictates.

AboveAlpha

 

Humans made it to refer to the quantity.

No, that doesn't make sense. Why would whatever made the Universe have to be the exact opposite in terms of substance?

 

ROFL. Clearly, that's not a natural rock formation.
Source: http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/470/Noah-s-Ark-Has-Been-Found-Why-Are-They-Keeping-Us-In-The-Dark

Here's a video:
https://youtu.be/IfPGUmdAafo

I think you're running out of excuses here.

I have so much overwhelming evidence that it doesn't even matter. Plus, I'm simply just being honest. I won't argue a point when I know I can't win it. Simple as that.

Uh huck yuck!
I'm saying the fossils aren't millions of years old.

1) Many of the animals fossilized look exactly like the animals living today. How could the evolutionary process stop for some animals but continue for others over a course of millions of years?

2) Geologists are totally baffled over the fossil graveyards. They're even more baffled over the whole intact whale fossils on top of mountains. Many scientists describe it as simply "impossible" because the formation of the mountains would've totally obliterated the fossils over a span of millions of years. Yet, that is not what they see.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/u...n-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html

The problem with this article is that rock doesn't bend. Rock breaks. So, if something fossilizes, and then the sedimentary rock is then pushed up to form a mountain, the fossils are totally obliterated because, as you guessed it, rocks don't bend. The earth twists and quakes as the tectonic plates are thrust upward to form mountains. In a span of millions of years, those fossils simply wouldn't be wholly intact. What had to have happened is that, the animals died and were buried quickly and preserved. While the mud was still soft, it was pushed upward to form a mountain and hardened.

You're not being honest. You knew I said the fossils stretched for miles and miles. Just admit to your mistake.

Feigning ignorance doesn't automatically give you a pass.

You were diligent enough to find the source for the historians I provided, but you're not diligent enough to find out what the 500 cultural stories are? Somehow I don't really believe you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

There's so much evidence out there that it's practically laughable. You had no idea about any of this being true because our beautiful friends at the Smithsonian (and several scientific institutes) have been trying to hide the facts. Some were caught destroying evidence.

Remember the whole soft tissue inside the dinosaur bone deal back in 2004? Well, the scientist who made the discovery was FIRED for releasing that info.
Source: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

We've found human skeletal remains WITH dinosaur remains that date as far back as the dinosaurs themselves. Once reported, the people who first made the discovery catch others venturing out to destroy the evidence. Now why do you suppose they'd do that?
Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=y...QSsooHoBg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


[/b][/color]