How many atheists are willing to admit that they use faith everyday in their lives?

We fail to define it, and the faith that is associated with theism.

For simplicity, I see this leading me to have faith in determinism - I am able to keep track of the necessary subsystems of my complete reality to actuate the experience desired - how do you do it?

That seems like an incomplete argument.

Thanks for the reminder. Do you want to be friends???

Atheists do not trust each other, because they have learned and taught each other inaccurate information, and are not compelled to seek communion with each other because they get to enjoy the compassion and tolerances of Christians, Jews, Hindu, and Buddhists.

Atheists are dispicable people and need to be segregated so as to force them to organize their concept of reasoning with scientific theories to complete the system of determinism for humanity.

What do you say to that?

 

is it faith if you don't think about it? some times i wonder if im gong to die going outside or not but its boring not to a better example might be that i some times believe what people tell me

i don't believe in gods but i don't know they don't exist

i dont go around telling people whats good or bad because my magic sky daddy says so

 

this is a problem and an example of the problem we have because atheists have not segregated themselves and organized schools in the effort of producing the better system of reasoning free from the complex semantic discrepancies that Swensson is describing.

Normal Faith


Here, he doesn't realize it but he is making a complex indirect argument, because the semantics is out of whack - Swensson doesn't know any better.

This is not too bad, and I would hope that my explanation of "keeping track of subsystems," is of benefit to Swensson.

 

It's not a problem as long as you keep track of your definitions. When two definitions could both be applicable, one has to specify which one is in use. Most of the time, this is done explicitly or by context. I called it normal faith in lack of a better word or rather, a better distinction. Trying to fix it will have this sort of problem.

I thought the argument was pretty direct, seeing how I stated a flaw of badly defined language right away.

 

I think the standards proliferation problem is false - it is probably based on the antiquated theory that it is impossible to gather and correctly categorize the terminology. The linguistic discipline is probably the area that is underdeveloped for various reasons, including determined religious opposition, and the subsequent lack of market potential, other than for the nearby language interpreters, and computer programmers.

Essentially, if we had a more reliable semantic standard, you would not lack a better word for,"normal faith." If you had used "secular faith," it would be more accurate. If you were practiced at recognizing that the gods are allegory for logic systems, and familiar with the logic systems, you would recognize which logic system you deploy to perform the activity.

This is a very common error of atheists.

Atheists expect Christians to accept and understand that gods are allegory, but atheists forget to do so, all the time, just as you did.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15094..._conservatives_and_the_religious_right_insane

Eventually, Rob Boston, is going to be a disciple of mine, or a martyr for a lost cause. He implies that science can answer, and rcommend solutions to our social problems - doesn't he???

Well, when are we going to have a system of answers that to get the utopia going! Don't tell me that once he solves the theist-atheist oppression problem that that is going to do it - don't tell me that!

We all know there are some serious riffs within the atheist demographic - that need to be solved, otherwise atheists are going to get mowed down in the near future, because they do not trust each other, and cannot form community, and are dependent on their guardians for their safety - doesn't he?

 

Lulz. You're comparing sensible, everyday faith in stuff like the sun rising again tomorrow the way it's done every day since time immemorial to the kind of faith Islam and Christianity demand of people?

The comparison works only to illustrate the dangers of taking something to a ridiculous extreme. Faith, like so much else, is best in moderation.

 

He promises he has more to add to this list, but I have not seen one, and this article is a couple of years old - I think he is an idiot, and deserves to be (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) slapped - what do you think?

10 Great Things About America That Drive Conservatives and the Religious Right Insane
Religious Right groups and their allies in the Tea Party claim to respect American values, but much would change if they had their way.
May 15, 2011

And we can go through all the stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) that the comments have for us to analyse and diagnose. Let me know - I got nothing else to do.

Atheists and Christians are welcome to sponsor me - don't expect me to do it for free. I need money to get me some of these nice secular girls to top me off - they won't do it because I'm good looking, or that I deliberated, the next social-political system for the United States - they're not interested in that stuff.

 

Some of us need a more accurate description. It's a pity atheists cannot accept that I have the most accurate description, and I am going to be very famous for it.

 

I also spend a lot of time praying that your god does not tinker with the controls, and run the car into the parked car, while I take a break from drinking rum the night before my dear friend enlisted.

 

Didn't you wonder why I pointed out this definition of atheism?

The answer to your question is that I believe that literally any kind of god could exist. It's the reason I happen not to believe that any specifically defined one does.

 

What does this have to do with atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in a deity?
Do any of your examples suggest otherwise?
Here's a hint. The answer is no.

 

I'd say it goes directly against Proverbs 24:29.

 

With your anology about the motor vehicle you are confusing faith with trust. I trust my motor scooter gets me to and from work everyday because I have put a few processes in place to ensure this. Namely routine services and preventative maintainence. I also trust the mechanic is suitably trained and experienced to handle any issues. I also trust the motorists around me are careful enough and have enough road sense to avoid any accidents.

Some years ago my wife's project vehicles were due for their yearly safety inspections. My wife instructed her drivers to take them to the Toyota dealership for a check and any issues to be addressed then and there. Nothing unusual here. Upon return she saw baci strings (look it up) tied to the vehicles. Instead of taking the cars to Toyota, her drivers took the cars to the temple to be blessed by monks. That's faith.

 

We get the point that you trotted out an equivocation fallacy.
You need a more nuanced approach than that.


Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

 

At least he had the good taste not to show his face on this ridiculous thread again.
This was a hit and RUNNNNNN!!!!!!!!

 

It's my opinion, and it's how I react when confronted with religious bigotry. I don't claim to be a perfect Christian by any means. I know many atheists who are objective human beings who live honorable lives. I respect those individuals, and they return that respect. They and I judge human beings on their individual merit. I'd do verbal-combat with those who attack all atheists as vehemently as I would with those who attack all believers in God. Unlike many of my good, Christian brothers and sisters, I don't turn the other cheek when attacked. I will return fire with fire.

 

Are you possibly confusing being confident with faith? I don't use or need faith since it has a 100% rate of failure.

Guess what that is? It's confidence in one's driving skills and a clear understanding that other drivers may not be as skilled... so you drive cautiously.

It's odds and science. Nothing else. You can take car deaths from say 25 years ago vs. today on a highway with the same traffic and other conditions. The rate of death is less with better engineering especially with people being more religious than now.

That's not faith, that's ignorance. He didn't get into his car and think "I think I'll do alright without my seatbelt and I have faith." He just didn't think. He was a casualty of statistics in not using a seat belt vs. using one... and a causality of science where his car struck at a certain angle or whatever. Is it faith to believe you will die in a Yugo but survive in a Volvo? No, it's confidence in science and engineering and in the construction and testing. That's it. I have a sister-in-law that was almost hit by an 18-wheeler but it hit 1 car further ahead of her. She claimed grace. I maintain she was in a specific place where her speed and that of other vehicles were at a rate which caused the car in front to get hit and not her silly Baptist buttacus. Just to prove a point, her god did her in 1 year later in a car crash that just tore her up. Same faith, different outcome.

Sorry about your pal but that's statistics and genetics. The pollutant/biological agent was stronger than his immune system. This is why diseases have mortality rates. It's not faith, it's exposure to pathogens and contagions, the amount ingested or exposed to vs. a person's genes and immune system.

Again, faith has a 100% failure record but if it's confidence, the bad incidents reduce because one will take more responsibility for what they are doing and where they are. Stand in the middle of a highway. Do you have faith that you won't get hit or are you confident that your brain will tell you that death could be imminent through foolish actions?

Let's hear it, faithers.

 

Now, that's confidence instead of faith. Confidence takes a given such as sunrise and measures its failure. It has none in this instance. Faith basically states a higher power is in control and there's a possibility of a faith-based failure such as happens in car wrecks..

 

Do I use faith when I cross the street?

No, because I don't do it with my eyes shut and hands over my ears.

 

How do you justify that with your faith, as it suggests you not do that?

 

I'm not one for organized religion. I was raised as a Christian Protestant. I'm also a free-thinker. I'm also human, not divine. I don't sit by silently when confronted with lies, misrepresentations, or bigotry. If God decides to punish me for my behavior in the afterlife, so be it. I live my life as I believe I must, and I'll accept the consequences.

Religions are based upon moral principles and teachings. Religions set expectations for human behavior, attempting to define "right" and "wrong". In my opinion, Christianity presents the purest and most-desirable standards. At the very least, one must admit that religions try to create good human behavior. Those who ridicule and attack religion should be prepared to offer an alternative set of moral principles..... OR admit that they have NO standards for morality.

The most frequent attacks I see made on Christianity are not attacks on the religion itself. The attacks are most often made on those of us who are incapable of being perfect Christians. The attackers attack what they see as our hypocrisy. I seldom see attacks on Christian, religious principles themselves. They're hard to attack without looking foolish.

It's impossible to attack atheism for any reason other than it's illogic. Atheism doesn't adhere to any rules of human behavior. It's simply a disbelief in God. That's the ONLY universal principle of atheism. Unless atheism establishes a comprehensive set of moral standards, it's nothing but an insignificant opinon among the world of great ideas.

 

I wonder what happened to Unifier???

 

If atheism is so insignificant why are christians so worried about it? So afraid of it that they need to attack it?

So many christians contend that because atheists don't believe in a god that they have no morals....so , I guess, the ONLY thing keeping christians in line is a belief in god....they are admitting that without this belief they themselves would be immoral.....

OK, I got it...

 

I'm not the least bit afraid of atheism. However, I believe that many Christians and Jews do fear atheism. Their fear results from the dictatorial attempts by some atheists to marginalize religion, and to restrict the practice of religion that's guaranteed in our Constitution. When attempts are made to infringe upon Constitutional rights, folks have a reason to fear.

No, you don't get it! If you'd have read my earlier post in this thread, you'd have seen me say that many atheists do have moral principles, and live moral lives that deserve respect. What I said in the post you quoted was that atheism in and of itself has NO set of moral principles to which atheists are expected to conform. That's a fact! Individual atheists acquire different beliefs about morality, none of which can be defined as a "universal, atheist principle". Without a universally-accepted set of moral rules, individual atheists can't be accused of hypocrisy. If you provide us with the Atheist "Bible", I can judge your behavior on the basis of your accepted belief system..... like you so readily do with Christians.

Get it now????