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

It is funny, especially when it is coupled with such profound ignorance of science as in the example above, the "indisputable facts" bit.

 

LMAO. You know it's good when it has "indisputable" in it.

 

The extent being that the dictionary includes that meaning, among others.

The dictionary also says a frog can be something in your throat, part of a violin, a bayonet thingy, or, an amphibian.

The goddists like to play equivocation fallacy with "faith" to try to bring their level of rationality up to that of an atheist, or to try to drag the atheist down.

Id think they'd have more respect for there concept of "faith" than to abuse it so. Apparently not tho.

- - - Updated - - -

Or "irrefutable". the guy with the badge loves that one.

 

Not true. I already addressed calculated risk. I talked about statistical probability. Which guarantees nothing. Your "logical deduction" in this case is nothing more than blind faith that what you perceive will hold true. This is what you're not getting. Calculated risk does not undermine faith. Because when taking a calculated risk, you still have faith that your results will fall on the side of probability. Unless you honestly consider the possibility of not coming back every time you get behind the wheel of a car. Which I doubt you do because unless you are rather paranoid in nature, nobody does this.

Your ego is caught up in the idea of rejecting actions of faith because it has already decided that it believes itself to be "above" faith, if you will. But this was only one example. Barring statistical probability, there are others. Have you ever had to do something on the spur of the moment that you were not sure you could do? If not, you probably haven't been tested very much in life which might explain your cynical view of faith. A comfortable, untested life knows no faith. Only philosophy. Have you ever had to outrun something? Had to overpower something? Had to make a giant leap (figuratively or literally) that you didn't know you could make because you had zero past empirical evidence to tell you? These are all results of faith. Or belief without verification. And they are necessary for survival. Let's take a hypothetical here. If you're in the jungle and you're being chased by a lion and your only two options are outrun or die, are you going to sit there for a second and weigh the statistical probability of outrunning a lion, or are you just going to run for your life and have faith that you can survive? In such a scenario, you'll suddenly find your cerebral take on faith to be quite the hindrance. Whereas the Han Solo approach will work to your advantage, "Never tell me the odds."

You see, too many cynics have the wrong definition of faith. Which is why they reject it. They believe it is some sort of willful denial. The true definition of faith is just pure trust that the outcome you need will come into fruition even if you do not see the means directly in front of you. And this kind of trust can only come through complete voluntary surrender of the ego. Or in other words, letting go of needing to fully understand everything beforehand. Faith allows for spontaneity. Whereas a constant need for logical explanation leads to stifled action. Which, in the case of the lion chasing scenario, can mean the difference between life and death.

 

Um. No. Not examples of faith. It is not faith that causes me to run from the lion: It is the flight instinct. By the way, the lion is gonna win that one...

 

And this is why you get eaten and I don't. Because the philosophy that you cling to has now backfired and cost you your life, making you a tasty meal for a hungry predator.

Faith = 1
Cynicism = 0

Notice how I use cynicism as the opposite of faith and not reason. This is because, like faith, reason is often falsely defined as well. True reason is not the rejection of faith but the recognition of its inherent value and utility. Inability to recognize this is not reason but cynicism.

Bow, you know I think you're a bright guy and I respect you a lot. But no offense here, I think this might be a bit over your head. I can tell I'm talking about some stuff now that might be a little too far outside of your reality. And that's okay. Unfortunately, most of society is stuck in that paradigm. I always expect a bit of a broader understanding of this type of stuff from libertarians because they are more success-minded rather than failure-minded like the lefties, but unfortunately, the biggest pitfall for most of you guys is that same prison of materialist cerebralism that you can't think beyond. If it's not tangibly quantifiable to you, you can't comprehend it. And this keeps you trapped and actually limits your capabilities. It's a mind snare of the ego that demands to fully understand everything and can't make sense of that which cannot be explained.

 

faith [ fayth ] 1.belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
2.religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it
3.trust in God: belief in and devotion to God

rea·son [ rz'n ] 1.justification: an explanation or justification for something
2.motive: a motive or cause for acting or thinking in a particular way
3.cause that explains something: a cause that explains a particular phenomenon

cyn·i·cism [ sínni sìzzəm ] 1.cynical quality or disposition: the state or fact of having cynical attitudes or beliefs, or a cynical character or quality
2.cynical remark: a cynical action, comment, or idea

Your argument is a complete fabrication. Tangibly quantified with these definitions.
You're full of it.

 

I love it when the atheists reference the Christians' dictionaries - they're more reliable than the Bible, but they are not scientifically challenged definitions.

Certainly a brilliant critical thinker like Bruce realizes that the definition of cynicism that is provided is kind of a circular reasoning. Cynicism is the belief that people are motivated by their own self interest, and we deplore narcissists - the self indulgent. Cynics are not pessimists either, which is the definition that President Obama wants you to believe.

 

All from the same secular source.
Next.

 

As that nice Mr Clemens put it, (religious) "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

 

And this is exactly the kind of post I would expect from you in response to something like this. Unenlightened, closed-minded, and profoundly unable to see the point. You never disappoint me, Bruce. You're like the son I never wanted.

 

Yup.
Totally unhinged when I use neutral sources to prove a point instead of reinventing the meaning of words for my own personal use.
You're right. Can't see the point of lying about definitions to try to invent a spurious position.

 

There are no guarantees in life, my friend. Whether you have faith that you can outrun a lion or not has no bearing on your success. Unfortunately, the laws of physics will determine the outcome of your encounter with the apex predator.

Science = 1
Faith = 0

Your faith is of little utility when you end up as lion poop on the jungle floor. Inability to recognize this is the abandonment of reason.

Thank you. Likewise.

My reality is informed by my experience. As is yours. That has no bearing on the veracity of my position. I think faith is a cop out. I think it is the antithesis of reason. I think people use it because it's easier to just believe in something and get on with your life. We want answers. Some of us--the faithful--believe they have them. Others, we demand to see the evidence because that forms the basis of logic and rational thought.

That "materialist celebralism" is precisely the foundation of rationalism. I'm not going to apologize for being a rational being.

It's not about comprehension. It is about objective reasoning and the purposeful rejection of the irrational. To use the Christian God as an example, is it possible that it exists? Certainly. Anything is possible. Santa Claus, extraterrestrial life, Allah, all possible... Is it probable? There is not enough evidence to answer that question. So the rationalist must objectively say "show me the evidence." Without evidence you have nothing. You are only guessing, speculating. WITH evidence, you are still guessing, but now you are making an educated guess.

Now, at this point you might be asking "so what? who cares?" A fair question. I have no quarrel with the faithul up until the point they use their faith to effect me or my fellow citizens. When faith is used to, for example, exclude certain individuals from certain public acts of civil law, I must insist on seeing the evidence that substantiates the faith before I can justify agreeing to the exclusion. When it is used to limit the ability of consenting adults to engage in a number of activities that, though harmful to no one, may contradict the teachings of the faith in question, again, I mut demand the evidence. And when faith is used to justify wars or flying airplanes into buildings, well... that just pisses me off.

By the way, Han Solo also said "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side." Rationalism, my friend. Rationalism.

 

cynicism is just the scabby side of naivete

 

Thank you for helping to prove my point! The title of this thread is "How many atheists are willing to admit that they use faith everyday in their lives." You disagree with my use of the phrase "scientifically indisputable fact". For the sole purpose of this discussion/debate, I'll concur with your opinion. If your claim is correct, then EVERY scientific theory and law is based on "FAITH".

No, my conclusions are not based on a falsehood. I drew 2 optional conclusions. The first optional conclusion I offered was that "God exists". The second optional conclusion I drew was that the presently-accepted physical law is WRONG, and therefore "There is an UNKNOWN physical phenomena that would allow energy, time, matter, and space to spontaneously generate themselves." My first optional conclusion assumes that the physical law I mentioned is a FACT. The second optional conclusion I drew was that the physical law I mentioned is WRONG, and that another as yet unknown physical law would allow for the spontaneous generation of time, space, mass, and energy. There are NO other conclusions that can be drawn! If you believe otherwise, please let us know what it is.

My premise was simply an acceptance of present physical law. Would you prefer that I create a physical law that doesn't exist, and use IT as a premise? If you believe that God does not exist, then it's YOU who are ignoring what's presently accepted as a GIVEN Physical Law, not me! You're basing your belief on FAITH that something as yet UNKNOWN would allow for spontaneous generation of our universe.

I'm not a fundamentalist, and you are definitely NOT a scientist. At the present time, physical law states that time, mass, energy, and time cannot be created from nothing. That's not my personal opinion, that's the opinion of physical science! You freely admitted that "An actual scientist or even casual student of science know one cannot prove any scientific law". That very admission implies that NO "scientist" should ever claim that God does NOT exist! Such a claim would be based on the scientist's FAITH that his belief is factual, NOT on scientific data.

Perhaps you should get a little better at common sense and logic! After telling us that NO scientist would claim that scientific theories and laws are "indisputable facts", you imply that those believing in God are "indisputably wrong". If scientists are unsure if they're indisputably right, WHY would one then claim that the existence of God is impossible. YOUR conclusion is based on FAITH, for it's in opposition to the known laws of physics!

My entire post addressed what the presently-accepted physical laws tell us is "probable". The ONLY way anyone could support a claim that God does NOT exist, is by pretending that the presently-accepted physical laws are WRONG. If THAT assumption isn't "Faith", what is???

As for the title of this thread, are you now willing to admit that you use FAITH everyday in your life?

 

Please note the below post-response. The poster below claimed he/she was "scientific". For those interested in what I posted that caused the childish temper tantrum below, reference my post at http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...th-everyday-their-lives-9.html#post1062640800.
Little taikoo just LOST the debate BIGTIME! More confirmation that my claim that leftists are ALWAYS wrong is RIGHT.

 

When you have to declare yourself the winner, you lost. When you have to use abusive language toward your adversary and entire classes of people, you have confirmed it.
His was an appropriate use of "equivocation fallacy".

 

I guess it all comes down to what we mean when we use the word 'faith'. I do not describe myself as an atheist, but I seldom employ the word 'faith', as I do not have faith (as popularly defined) in anything.

I employ the balance of probability as indicated by relevant factors. e.g: I consider it more probable than not that I, and my vehicle, will return unscathed from a motoring journey. This is an expectation based upon a number of factors, including the facts, that I and others generally obey the road rules, I keep my vehicle in excellent condition, I have some driving experience, and my reactions have been tested and found to be above average. A journey uninterrupted by death and destruction is thus the balance of probability, but that view does not totally preclude the possibility of collision.

Similarly with the trustworthiness of someone I know, or have had extensive experience of (as with many people on this board). I would automatically believe anything such a person told me (assuming it is not outrageously unlikely - such as 'out of body' experience) until such time as I had contrary evidence of its veracity.

So in response to the OP, and despite not necessarily being an atheist, I can confidently state that I do not use 'faith' in my everyday life. Your 'faith' is your business and should properly remain so - if you have good reasons for your spiritual beliefs, you should have no need to proclaim them, nor should you need the confirmation of non-believers worldwide.

 

I simply pointed out the truth. Nothing wrong with me mentioning how the debate was concluded.

Do you find my use of the phrase "childish temper tantrum" to be abusive language? You're a very sensitive leftist. That was mild language.

 

You don't have a clue how embarrassing this is for you.

 

This is easy:

The primary difference between "Faith" in a divine power and "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow is related to the ability to rationally measure probability. You can rationally discuss the likelihood that the sun will come up, and analyse evidence for any side of any argument. Doing so would provide a conclusive answer, and reaching this conclusive answer would not require any assumptions or "creative interpretations" of data.

If you rationally analyse the "evidence" in support of a particular religious dogma, you quickly determine it is highly improbable - at best; unless you are willing to "move the goalposts" constantly by changing definitions and rationalisations for inconsistencies.

 

I don't believe in God because I have no clue. I don't actively believe there's no God.

Call me what you like.

 

Perhaps the folks who claim with certainty that God does NOT exist, are missing the entire point I was making? I did NOT claim that God's existence is an indisputable fact. My point is that anyone claiming that God does NOT exist, is basing that claim on FAITH alone.

To say with certainty that God does NOT exist, requires that the claimant IGNORE the scientific Law of the conservation of matter/energy. That scientific Law states that "Matter/Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed in form". IF that scientific Law is correct, then the universe could NOT have created itself! An adamant claim that God does NOT exist, therefore, MUST assume that Matter/Energy CAN be created from NOTHING. Such a claim is based solely on FAITH that the presently-accepted Law is WRONG, and that some UNKNOWN physical Law would allow Matter/Energy to be created from NOTHING.

The entire premise of this thread is that Atheists, like believers, use FAITH every day. That premise is FACT! If you wish to embarrass me further, provide us the NEW scientific Law that proves Matter/Energy can be produced from NOTHING. Otherwise, I REST MY CASE!