The Methods of Faith - A Continuing Discussion

It's an honor to be an early comment, Tristan.

Last night's thread was ... riveting.

I'm copying two comments from the previous thread...(continuity)


Tristan, I've corresponded with you before I believe. Until you have a life experience that you can actually feel the love of God working for you, you will continue to be an atheist. But, one day, you will experience something that you, nor science, can explain and you will know what faith is all about. Trying to put your order of life into other's lives is an exercise in futility.
Barbara B., Sep 25, 2008, 7:13pm EDT






Barbara B...Will every one, every atheist, have this "experience" and find out what faith is all about? (Please follow Tristan's link to his new thread...it's up two comments)
Michael H aka ac slim , Sep 25, 2008, 7:19pm EDT

Ill continue my comment....
"Barbara B...Will every one, every atheist, have this "experience" and find out what faith is all about?"

Because if you answer 'yes' then you believe there is no such thing as a dead atheist. If you answer 'no'...then how are you certain that Tristan will have this enlightening experience and then 'know' what faith is all about?

Tristan,

About those people that have faith in ANYTHING without some form of evidence . . . where's YOUR evidence they exist ANYWHERE outside your imagination? SHOW me the scientific theory, or even opinion, which renders that possible, please.

I'm back ... come on someone, step up yo to the plate ... :-)

Bye the way, notice how every time John wants to insult someone he attaches their name to mine ... :-)

Jerry, I'm not trying to insult anyone. It's called "reasoning". You ought to try it sometime. Seriously  ; )

Slim says, "Sue...speaking for myself...I did not "chose" to not believe...I just don't believe." I know that about you, Slim, but Tristan said in his blog, “I am an Agnostic Atheist. I do not have hard proof of the non-existence of a god or gods, and I am not 100% absolutely sure there can be nor is such a being. But I choose not to believe in the proposal because the evidence provided that suggests said being has proved to be lacking in substance, structure, and credibility.”

All I was saying is that Tristan doesn’t need to use the word Atheist with agnostic, though I’ve just learned that there is also what is termed theistic agnostic, so I guess that explains why he chooses to use the word Atheist with agnostic. You are not an agnostic Atheist, Slim, according to what you say. You are either what they term as a weak or a strong one and probably a strong one.

I said to Tristan, "We've already established that faith is belief without proof. Do we have to reiterate that every time we use the word faith or are we changing this as we go along?

If faith in God as I stated above is is belief without proof (and you agreed with me yesterday) then it would follow that non-belief because of lack of evidence would be faith in the non-existence of God."

Then you go on to say that I’ve got that wrong because there are 2 only two tenets but there are three. You said,

“1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.”

I add number 3. Maybe he does and maybe he doesn’t,.
What about that third one for agnostic atheists like yourself which is that God may exist but there isn’t the proof necessary for you to believe so, as you stated in your blog?
You have totally left yourself out of this.

If you can't prove God's non-existence, then if you are not an agnostic atheist you are an atheist that believes unequivocally that no God exists. Fine, but you still hold a belief that no God exists and you can't prove it so it's also an unproven faith or belief.

Please don't tell me yet again that it's a lack of belief in gods, because a lack of belief in gods is merely a belief in gods' non-existence.

We're in a soundproof room with no view or light from the outside. I say, I believe it's raining. You say you don't believe it's raining. No one has proof of whether it's raining or it isn't. Is your statement that it is not raining any less a belief or faith in something that can't be proven than mine is?

Hi, all. Sorry I missed the first 300+ comments. I just scanned the whole thing. It's good to see several familiar posters here and I look forward to gaining more insight. Tristan, you lucky dog! I try to provoke people into commenting by the hundreds, to no avail. I guess I just don't have the diplomatic touch. I think you've expressed atheism pretty well.

I'd like to offer some observations on the meaning of two of the most important words in this area: faith and belief. I'd like to compare the relationship between my wife and myself and the faith and belief of the religious.

For the past 30 years, I have been in love with my wife. Love is something that defies complete definition, but we have experienced characteristics of our love, which include desire to be with each other, desire to help each other, willingness to sacrifice for the sake of each other, commitment to stay with each other thru thick and thin, etc. There are many more. I conclude that she will love me still, come tomorrow. I have also concluded that the same will be the case the next day, and on, til we no longer live on this little orb together. I commonly say that I have "faith" that our love will endure. I could say that I "have faith in" her love. Have I taken a leap of faith? I suppose so. Underlying this faith is something that many religionists have trouble accepting: uncertainty. I don't know for certain what's going to happen. I have no reason to believe that my wife loves any other. Nor do I think one of us is bound to die any time soon. These are just two of a myriad of things that could possibly come between us, but I don't keep these in the front of my mind. I have settled these issues for myself in a way that lets me not dwell on them or other depressing prospects. This is a rational kind of "faith" that I hold in my "heart", but is also compatible with the many, many facts of the case as I have come to know them by actually living with them over the years.

There have also been many times when our assumptions about this love have been tested. These times have seen us sometimes quite upset or frustrated with each other, but each time, we center ourselves with the underlying assumptions that frame our relationship and our commitment to each other. We use communication, honest, open, trusting, rational, reasonable communication. Emotions usually cause the spats in the first place, and sometimes we have gotten increasingly angry with each other, compounding the problem with knee-jerk, tit-for-tat responses to the little digs people do when they are stressed, tired, needy, fearful, etc. We have observed this and witnessed its effect many times. We have come to learn that there is no argument that is likely to separate us, none that carries enough force to blow away the deep, symbiotic feelings we have between us. Time after time, through some very good times and some very bad, we have seen our rational minds work through our differences in the spirit of caring and commitment, and we have grown and prospered in the ways of love. We are "lucky in love" because we found each other so long ago, but we have made our own luck, you could say, since then.

That is a quickly expressed description of my faith that our love will endure through the rest of my earthly life. It is not absolute. In the thinking of persons like ourselves and Tristan, there can be no unvariable aspect of existence. Everything is transient, as far as we have observed. Everything seems to change. I'm being careful to express these thoughts in non-absolute terms, even though I'm closer to "believing in" the love between my wife and I than anything else in life. Like the aforementioned faith that the sun will come up tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar, I'm pretty positive that it's going to happen. I know that I can't "know" this for 100% certain, and that's ok with me. I accept this changeability as a natural part of existence. It's a good thing, change. It's the thing that is common to all things in nature, and it is one of the things, I have observed, that drives religionists to distraction. I don't have the answer to this. Why do many people require absolute certainty regarding the final outcome of all their efforts and of our collective time on earth? Why do some hold to assuptions which cannot be borne out under any sort of rational scrutiny? Why is it required of many religionists that they accept a number of pre-set notions as to the origin of the universe, the purpose of life, the role of the human race on earth, the final outcome of all this, etc? Many of these requirements fly in the face of science, and they go far beyond the limits of the comparably rational, if totally personal, relationship between my wife and I. And these required "beliefs" have many irrational parts which don't exist in our human relationship. AND, there are many more systems of belief which contradict other ones, AND for each one, the adherent is required to accept on faith the absolute correctness and exclusivity of the rectitude and righteousness of the set of beliefs in question. That's just going too far. That's leaving reason far behind. It's taking a chance on things we can't see, can't test, and upon whose nature we can't even agree.

My wife and I, we'd just as soon continue to question the existence of our love. If at some time in the future it ceases to exist, we'd rather not delude ourselves that it still does. I'd rather we alter our relationship to reflect the new facts, even as we do today, and decide to pursue a course that will lead to the greatest happiness for all involved. So far, I feel quite relaxed about these dark possibilities. I think their likelihood is miniscule. I could be wrong, I know that. But that's ok. With 30 years of testing and retesting, each test re-affirming the original conclusion, I can sleep nights.

I apologize for the length of this comment. These things are not easy to describe succintly.

Sounds like you have a nice marriage, Rick. It still doesn't address that the faith that you have that your love will endure is not any different than, if instead, you had faith that it would not endure unless you had solid evidence either way to the contrary.

Sue writes:

If you can't prove God's non-existence, then if you are not an agnostic atheist you are an atheist that believes unequivocally that no God exists. Fine, but you still hold a belief that no God exists and you can't prove it so it's also an unproven faith or belief.

What are you if God announces that He exists and you ignore Him?

Sue also writes:

We're in a soundproof room with no view or light from the outside. I say, I believe it's raining. You say you don't believe it's raining. No one has proof of whether it's raining or it isn't. . .

What if someone who has access to the outside announces to you that it is raining. Do you ask him to prove it? What would it take for you to take him at his word?

-Mark

"What are you if God announces that He exists and you ignore Him?"

I suppose you could be just about anyone, Mark. As I said yesterday, the seed of faith is planted in all at some time or other. The very fact that people talk about faith means the seed has been planted. If they ignore it, in that instance, I don't know the time frame God allows them for their ignorance of it and I don't know what God's plans are for them. Of course, as believers we also ignore God's existence, at some points in time, as the human sinners that we are. That is also God's private affair with each individual.

"What if someone who has access to the outside announces to you that it is raining. Do you ask him to prove it? What would it take for you to take him at his word?"

Of course, this is off the topic of what I was explaining, which is that you cannot prove the existence of God to a non-believer and that non-believers also believe in the non-existence of God. To answer your question for its own merit, Mark, I would say that for a matter like rain, not all that important, I would take into account how well I knew the person, whether he had been trustworthy in the past, and probably believe what he told me.

Rick,

To my mind, you did an excellent job of describing faith, in something "unseen". I don't think most people that believe in God are doing anything essentially different than what you speak of, in terms of accepting that absolute proof, or something like that, is not really that important, or necessary to act in "good faith". with hope that things will turn out well, and sort of knowing that the very acts themselves are a part of the whole relationship, and not just a "bet" sort of affair.

People speak of "proof", but in the final analysis, that just means evidence enough for a given person to no longer doubt or wonder overmuch. There is no panel of experts anywhere that is special, or more than human, who's judgment of any given matter constitutes proof in the general sense. It's really just another invention of the mind, which has no counterpart in the real world. Each is "alone" by and large, and will believe when they have seen enough evidence, themselves. This is true of anything one might believe, not just God and so forth.

I just want to be more clear, Mark, that by saying you could be anyone, I don't know what you are because, as I said, you could be a believer, a non-believer or anything in between.

Wow, we're already off to a running start, I see. So much to get to,

First off, thank you for pointing out my poorly-worded sentence, Sue. I didn't mean to say "choose" there...one doesn't choose a belief. As I (and Michael) have stated before, people believe things when they are convinced of them.

"I add number 3. Maybe he does and maybe he doesn’t" Sue, it's a binary state. Either something exists or it does not. What does "maybe" have to do with it? Either a light is on or it is not. Either a God exists or it does not. There's no "half-on" or "half-existing".

You continue to suggest that a lack of belief in something equals a positive believe in its non-existence. You're incorrect in that assumption, and it is by that reasoning that we atheists are often misunderstood. I know it seems to make sense to you, but the positions are two very different things.

Now then, on to Rick.

"I conclude that she will love me still, come tomorrow. ...I commonly say that I have 'faith' that our love will endure." I would call it a reasonable expectation based on experience. Just as we assume that a ball will fall to the ground if we let it go -- it's not by faith, but by the expectation based on experience we have of gravity...an experience that we've had our entire lifetimes, and have heard about through the lifetimes of others throughout history. That much experience demands reasonable expectation that it will continue, does it not?

I know you understand this fully, and there's no need at all to apologies for length. I thank you, Rick, for your rational words and your reasonable outlook on life. May your marriage be long, happy, and fruitful.

I can't say for sure if everyone will have that experience. Perhaps some souls have come from another place.

But, is there anyone in an atheist's life who they would lay their life down for? Is there love in an atheist's life? If so, then the existence of a higher being could have placed those feelings in your spirit. Love, that's the clue to our existence. I don't know, maybe we're a huge experiment from life from planets beyond. But, if there was an argument for God, love is the best proof of his existence.

John,

I have faith that you're just a figment of my diseased gallbladder, and that you when they take it out of me, you'll go away.

Honestly...go back and read my comments to you.

Nice to see you back, Tristan.,

Oh, okay, so that word was just a mistake on your blog. We'll just forget that part then.

"Sue, it's a binary state. Either something exists or it does not. What does "maybe" have to do with it?"

I didn't say that maybe had anything to do with it. You did when you said, "I am not 100% absolutely sure there can be nor is such a being." That sure sounds like a maybe to me.


"You continue to suggest that a lack of belief in something equals a positive believe in its non-existence."

Would you be able to give me an example of how that is so, as I gave you an example of how I think that a lack of belief in one thing acknowledges a belief in another?

Barbara. It seems it happened in reverse for me. I had experience that I "knew" were "from God". Then I became sane.

"Is there love in an atheist's life?"

Yes.

"If so, then the existence of a higher being could have placed those feelings in your spirit."

Right. Or maybe inside-out turtle doves from the 223 dimension, sector Marcus the Gold (peace be upon his big toe) put love into us...with a five-foot wide cake pan. Cause if all that exists, love is the best evidence for it!

Tristan,

"Just as we assume that a ball will fall to the ground if we let it go -- it's not by faith, but by the expectation based on experience we have of gravity"

That's what faith means.

Dictionary.com; First definition for 'Faith';

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.


About those people that have faith in ANYTHING without some form of evidence . . . where's YOUR evidence they exist ANYWHERE outside your imagination? SHOW me the scientific theory, or even opinion, which renders that possible, please.

Okay Sue. I'll talk slowly.

There can only be two options for the existence of a thing. 1) It exists, and 2) it does not exist. Whether or not I know, care, or believe it DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. It is in one of those two states.

Now, I can either have knowledge that option 1 is true, or I can not. I can also have knowledge that option 2 is true, or I can not. IN ADDITION, I can have a belief that either option is true, or that either option is false.

I have no knowledge that something called "God" exists. I have no knowledge that it does not exist. Either way, I have no knowledge. I'm agnostic about it (just like I'm agnostic about the price of toothpaste in Russia).

But I have seen no evidence that would say that something called "God" exists. Therefore, I do not have a belief that a "God" exists. (Remember, "God" is still inhabiting one of the two states...either it IS or it IS NOT. I got nothing to do with it.) I've already linked you to my 'Agnostic Atheist' video, so this is already covered.

The term "agnostic atheist" is answering two DIFFERENT questions: one is "do you know", the other is "do you believe". Sue, do you know that penguins dream? Do you believe that they do? Two separate questions.

John, we're talking about faith in the existence of something, not faith in the person or thing that already exists, as in that definition. That's where you're not getting me. We have the faith of his existence so we can have the logic of faith in Him and his abilities. The non-believer has not gotten to that point of the defintition since he doesn't even believe the thing exists to whom he can show that faith in the person or ability.

Congratulations, John. You took one definition from a dictionary of a term that has multiple meanings (but that we've already defined to have this discussion) to make a point.

Dictionary.com; Third definition for 'Delusional';

a false belief or opinion


How many little people are inside my head, John?

Tristan,

Speaking of that definition;

About those people that have faith in ANYTHING without some form of evidence . . . where's YOUR evidence they exist ANYWHERE outside your imagination? SHOW me the scientific theory, or even opinion, which renders that possible, please.

Tristan, you can drawl it out as slowly as you'd like, but it doesn't negate what you said. I only made #3 for you because you said , "I am not 100% absolutely sure there can be nor is such a being." If you are not 100% absolutely sure that there is such a thing, then you are also saying that you are not 100% absolutely sure that there isn't. You can talk till you're blue in the face but what you said is not what I said; it's what YOU said. That means that if it's not 100% so that you believe that there is such a being, there remains a possibility, slim as that may be, that there is such a being. 100% is still 100% in my math books. Are there different math books for Atheists?

Sue,

"John, we're talking about faith in the existence of something, not faith in the person or thing that already exists, as in that definition."

Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Maybe saying a different way will help you.

I don't know there isn't a god, but I don't think there is one.

I don't know if Braum's is closed right now, but I don't think it's open...it's kinda late.

John. If you want to go by your definition (and ignore the previously determined one) then fine, what I claimed about people having confidence in ANYTHING without some form of evidence is...still correct. A mother could have confidence in her son's ability to win a spelling bee -- even if she's his long-lost biological mother who knows nothing about his spelling abilities, and only recently met him for the first time. Sure, it might be wishful thinking, but it's still faith.

Anyway, Sue...if you asked me "Do you believe that Braum's is closed right now?" I'd say "Yes". If you asked me "Do you know that Braum's is closed right now?" I'd say "No. I have no idea...you can call and find out for sure."

Oh, what's that...a test? Hey, anybody wanna call God and see if he's real?

"I don't know there isn't a god, but I don't think there is one."

Thanks, that helps me out even more. If you don't know for sure that something is a fact but you only think it's a fact then you are implying that there's a possiblity that it's not a fact.

Tristan, you are trying to say that you don't think there's any maybe here and I have proven to you that, according to your thinking, there is one. Any logical person that reads this will see that. I THINK you're a logical person so I THINK you see that, but I am not 100% absolutely sure that you do, so MAYBE you don't. I also think that maybe you're just evading the issue because you don't want to have to change more of your blog.

It's been fun though. Have a good time with John and take care, Tristan. :)

Yes. There's a possibility that Jerry is right. There's a possibility that you're right. There's a possibility that John is right. There's a possibility that Raelians are right. There's a possibility that Hindus are right. There's a possibility that Zoroastrians are right. There's a possibility that Forest Gump was right. There's a possibility that a pink, telepathic spider lives on Mars. I'm not ruling anything out...but I don't believe any of it.

There's not a possibility that the geocentric model of the universe is right -- it's been proven wrong. You can't prove or disprove the existence of there being a god (but you can for a *specific* god), and this isn't new. Otherwise, I'd point you to the newspaper article that talks about proof that there is no such thing as a god (or unicorns).

But...and this is vastly important...don't think for a SECOND that that makes God's possibility of existence and non-existence an even 50-50. If you think that's what that means, then you need to educate yourself in probabilities.

Tristan,

Your entire article, and the bulk of your arguments, rest upon the presumption that there exists "many people" that have replaced reason and evidence with faith. But, you have not provided ANY evidence that such people exist, in the real world. None.

What you have done, essentially, is declare that evidence you have not witnessed, or approved, is not evidence. That's delusional thinking, for any rational person knows that they do not perceive everything anyone perceives, and, that they have no way of speaking to the veracity of another's observations. You have simply declared that what Tristan believes is fact, regardless of any objective evidence, yet what anyone else believes, without being able to provide objective evidence you validate, is being unreasonable. So what, one more egocentric judgment person. Weehoo.

What issue am I evading? You want me to say "I know 100% that there is no God". I can't honestly say that with assured certainty. I can't honestly say "I know there is no Batman" in that same sense.

What you're trying to lure me into is the realm of absolutes. I think we're confusing the lines on that. From my blog:

I don’t like "absolute certainty"; I think it’s a red herring. We can’t know anything to an absolute certainty. But if you want to define knowledge in practical term --the way we use it in everyday language where we talk about something to some degree of certainty--if it’s okay to say "I know there’s no such thing as leprechauns", if that qualifies as "knowledge", then an I’m a Gnostic Atheist. In the same sense that I know there’s no leprechauns, I know there’s no god.

Thanks for talking with me, Sue. Hopefully you'll continue to read my work and understand what I'm saying.

John, if you got the impression that I believe there exists an entire group of people who live their lives based on faith and not reasoned scientific evidence, then you need to take another look at Dominionists and Reconstructionists and stop talking like a high-and-mighty school bully. I'm growing tired of your insults and accusations.

Tristan, we weren't talking about probabilites. We were talking about possibilities, and you know it.

John, the reason I can't argue with you is because you don't see what you don't want to see. I will say this one more time to you, Christian to Christian. You find me one place in the Book where it says to go out and prove the existence of God to non-believers. It does not. It says to witness your faith, but not to try to prove it. As long as you desire to do what is anathema and heretical, I will not engage on threads where you continue it any longer.

Sue: without God, anything is possible.

Oh John...lemme answer Sue.

(by "the Book" I'm assuming you mean the bible?)

1 Peter 3:15 -- "...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have..."

Ahhh, there we go; "reasoned scientific evidence"

Reasoned by whom, Tristan?

Are you telling me that Rick's observations and experiences in his relationship are somehow unreal, or invalid, cause a little pack of folks in lab coats didn't approve each moment? Are you trying to enthrone some imaginary group of little scientist people, that I must consult before I can properly believe what my own eyes see? It's insane. Not kinda, not almost; It's dehumanizing insanity, and the worship of imaginary gods, that are nothing more than something Tristan imagines.

Let me leave you with this, Tristan. My FAITH tells me that there is, without a doubt, 100% absolulte assurance that there IS a God. No maybes about it! As 100%, absolutely sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow unless the end of the world comes, I am SURE!

Tristan, that's the witness, the evidence of faith, not the proof. I'm done here.

Sue. My FAITH tells me that there is, without a doubt, 100% absolute assurance that there IS a imminent Martian Invasion. No maybes about it!

That's the evidence of faith, Sue, not the proof. You're done here.

"Are you trying to enthrone some imaginary group of little scientist people, that I must consult before I can properly believe what my own eyes see? It's insane."

Goddamn right it is. So please stop.

I was referring to the Biblical reference that you gave John when I said it was the evidence of faith that we are supposed to let non-believers know, and not the proof, Tristan. I don't want you to think that I said something I didn't say.

And how does that invalidate my reply, Sue? What "evidence" does the faith in a pending invasion from Martians provide (other than the holder of such a faith is John Knight-level certifiably insane)?

Sue,

I really think one of us ought to write an article about the matter we are disagreeing on. This is clearly no place to get to the bottom of the question we are touching upon. I will say, again, that God, by definition, could make Himself known, in the most certain fashion a human can know anything; to anyone at any time.

So he could, he just doesn't want to?

I will, John, because it is something that I am adamant about. If I am wrong, I need you or someone else to show me, but you know as well as I do that the verse that Tristan put up is very telling of what I am saying. That hope is because of what we witness, but it is not because of what we can or should prove. There are other verses that make my point as well, but I know of none that make yours. I'll work on an article.

Sue, please answer my question. What "evidence" does that faith provide?

And, I've already covered this with Jerry (in the Horton Hears a Who reference), but it seems like you're suggesting that you can't possibly prove what you've "witnessed" from God, but that you've been specifically picked out in some way to be given special proof of your own. So why not to the rest of us? I can almost hear you saying it already: "every person receives proof of God. It's up to them whether or not they choose to accept his reality or not".

Tristan, read through the threads of yesterday and read what I've said. Read what I've said about not being able to prove faith and read what I've said about evidence of faith regarding coincidence and good fortune. Your answers are there. I have said all I can say here as carefully and as clearly as I can. I think I've contributed more than amply.

Perhaps you'll glean more when/if you read the article I post, and the comments from John and others. Right now, I just don't have the patience to go through it all again.

Tristan,

Of course He wants to, but He says He won't, unless one asks. He's very considerate that way (all ways really), and if you don't want Him in your universe, He stays out. He's not in any hurry, He's very patient. But, He can't wait forever.

Um, okay. So I just asked "Him" to definitively prove his existence to all people all over the world, within the next five minutes.

Wait, you're going to tell me I did something wrong, or that there's more fine print, aren't you?

I just checked online...there's still atheists around. I guess there is no God. Either that or you're full of shit, John.

This thread seems to be degenerating ...

Tristan,

Or, He's not an imbecile.

John, you told me he wants to show himself, and all you have to do is ask. I asked. Nothing happened.

[Grizzled Veteran of Bug Swarms] Michael H:

Tristan ... When you begin to think you can have a rational conversation with John Knight (if you ever do again)....you can just hit yourself in the head with the brick...it'll save a bunch of time.” ~ Sept 25, 10:11am EDT



GOT BRICK?

Dramatic Entertainment
on Gather.com.

Don't ya'll ever sleep?

I think I can say that I have 'faith' that god does not exist if 'faith' is defined as the trustworthiness or plausibility of an idea.

I don't think I can say that I have 'faith' that god does not exist if 'faith' is defined in the theological sense....as it usually is when talking about religious matters...the belief (with out proof) that god exists.

Many atheists have an aversion to the use of the word 'faith' when connected to a non-belief in the existence of god or a belief in the non-existence of a god. Personally, I really don't care if you say I believe that god does not exist OR if you say I lack the belief that god exists.

But if I am told that I have 'faith' that god does not exist...I get uncomfortable because of the correlation of the word 'faith' with religion. The believers are also known as 'the faithful'...we often here words such as these from the believers..."I have my faith"...it is my faith that proves to me that god exists"..."my comfort is my faith"...you get the picture.

Religious beliefs rely primarily on faith and/or special revelation....or special revelation resulting in faith. Reason and logic and evidence have nothing to do with religious faith.
(I am excluding personal revelation as evidence...it fails the test of evidence as personal revelation is not demonstrable to others)

The 'faith' we all share as expectations based upon past experience is not the same 'faith' that believers share about the existence of a god. This is why this atheist takes issue with the use of this term 'faith' when used to describe my lack of belief.

Barbara B..."But, is there anyone in an atheist's life who they would lay their life down for?"

You're kidding ..right?

"Is there love in an atheist's life? If so, then the existence of a higher being could have placed those feelings in your spirit."

Or not.

"But, if there was an argument for God, love is the best proof of his existence."

No, the Bible preaches love but god practices vengeance, hatred and intolerance. His methods are those of contempt and disgust and the destruction of those who are not HIS to command.

John Knight, and y'all, the difference is I live with my wife every day in the actual, corporeal, material world, and when I ask for her comfort, it comes across in real time with physical presence and hugs and strokes and encouraging facial expression, and a pair of hands and a back and a willingness to take on my burdens, and on and on. Ask God for help and what you get is what you already surmise, only without any kind of evidence that any help whatsoever is actually forthcoming. When I have faith that my wife will "put in a good word for me" or "help me with a difficult burden", it's an expectation of something entirely different than the promises of rewards in the hereafter, about which no one has a shred of evidence beyond heresay and conjecture. She may not even succeed in helping me, but that would not be because she judges me unworthy or unready. She's on my level. I can talk to her eye to eye. I find it much more practical to work on my problems with her, than praying to that god who may be standing out in the rain. I've said before that I may lack the 'god gene' or some other quality that one needs in order to sense that God is there. I've tried many times. He may be knocking and I just can't hear. It's like having perfect pitch, when you're a musician. It elevates your ability to discern music on every level. And again, I'm comparing such sensitivities of God to something real, tested, something of the physical world. Different levels of pitch-sensitivity, are a scientific fact. The thing about God is, if he is knocking on your door, it's the door of your heart and it's an absolutely personal thing, whether you "hear" it or not. For each of us to decide whether God is there, irregardless of any evidence which can be tested for its reality and trueness, that goes all the way back to the original question. You either believe in things that can't be shown to be there, or you don't, or won't.

Tristan, I believe you are searching for something. An answer. Perhaps if you ask, you will be given that answer. You're just asking the wrong people. You should ask God. But, then, you would have to go on faith and that's the question. But, if you don't ask, how would you ever find out if there is a God?

Again, there are many things in life that are unexplained happenings. Let's say, why were you somewhere else, when the place you should have been would have placed your life in jeopardy? Why was someone healed, when they were supposed to die from their afflicition? Why were we lead to live where we were when the great job opening came along? These are questions we can't answer with anything else other than divine intervention in my opinion. Love, it all comes back to love. God's love for us. Yes, bad things happen to people, not all are spared. We all will meet our end someday. We all have purpose here I believe, and once that purpose has been achieved, we move on. No person can ultimately bring you to faith. You must achieve that on your own with God's help. You just have to ask. I hope you find what you are looking for.

SPOT-ON EXPLANATION

Mr. McGirr slices it surgically.

[Occam’s Razor] Rick McGirr:

John Knight, and y'all … It's like having perfect pitch, when you're a musician. It elevates your ability to discern music on every level. And again, I'm comparing such sensitivities of God to something real, tested, something of the physical world. Different levels of pitch-sensitivity, are a scientific fact. The thing about God is, if he is knocking on your door, it's the door of your heart and it's an absolutely personal thing, whether you "hear" it or not. For each of us to decide whether God is there, irregardless of any evidence which can be tested for its reality and trueness, that goes all the way back to the original question. You either believe in things that can't be shown to be there, or you don't, or won't.” ~ Sept 26, 9:59am EDT

"You either believe in things that can't be shown to be there, or you don't, or won't.”

Not a totally valid statement Rick..via Ken...I can believe in things that can't be shown to me...we all can...but I (we) don't necessarily have to. It's not cut and dry and the level of evidence is not necessarily the determining factor. The believability of any concept is subjective to the opinion of each of us as to what we deem possible or more accurately...plausible.

"The thing about God is, if he is knocking on your door, it's the door of your heart and it's an absolutely personal thing, whether you "hear" it or not. For each of us to decide whether God is there, irregardless of any evidence which can be tested for its reality and trueness..."

The 'truth' is universal...it's not a matter of relative truth. I believe that it is not valid to say that "truth for me" and "is not the same as truth for you".

"For each of us to decide whether God is there (at the door)" is an allowance for different truths (a contradiction)... Ultimately...either god exists or he does not...one of these is TRUE. We can decide what we want to accept as the truth (is that god at the door or not)...but we can not decide what the truth is as a method of validating our decision as accurate.

The thread "woke up" ... (while I was sleeping) ... Rick ... well said !! But in defense of those who REALLY do have GOD in their lives ... it is a real time moment by moment thing ... NOT ONLY a future after life thing ... the latter is for those with ONLY faith, not REAL experience.

When you (anyone) truly have GOD in your life, ALL NEEDS ARE MET, even the wife type of partnership and consolation IF that is a "requirement" for your well being and happiness ... there are NO ACCIDENTS in life for those who realize GOD's INvolvement ... there IS a reason for everything (as maybe Barbara B. knows) ... with GOD in your life, GOD becomes your number one priority and all things are taken care of ... for the greater good which includes the totality of creation ... there are no "favourites", all are loved, yet many have better Karma because they work at it and are thus better "rewarded" ... what goes around comes around, as you sow so shall you reap, live by the sword and die by the sword ... cause and affects ... INtention is everything. We do actually make our own reality ... shared cocreatively secondarily with others, realized or not.

The REAL TRUTH IS ... THAT GOD IS IN EVERYONE'S LIFE ... many just do not realize it !!! You cannot REALLY deny, say Gamma Particles, just because you do not see them or their effects ... they were there (I'll bet) long before we had theory and instrumentation to "prove" their existence ... The "quantum realm" was always there also before it became "known" ... and by now even those that do NOT really know much about it will mostly concede to the "experts" that it is part of our joint reality ...

So to say that you (anyone and everyone) could care less if GOD existed, or even that you would prefer that he did not, and you were not about to live your life as if he did and you hated anyone who pushed him upon you ... all would be good valid personal opinions that should be honored and respected ... but to insist that there is no GOD adamantly would only show your ignorance ... IMnsHO.

Michael, you bring up the subject of "truth" ... just another thing like GOD that there is much disagreement on.

For a dualist (+/-), which really is an "ego perception" and normal and natural, there is separation between things, yes/no, white/black, good/evil, no GOD/GOD in your case :-) ... and GOD/Satan for the religious ... polarized duality that is dichotomous and conflicting.

All of the above folks insist upon one truth, theirs ... and everything in conflict with that so-called truth is then false ! For dualists there are no "valid" grey areas, grey areas are seen as wishy washy indecision, and area of flaky folks to be avoided ... as the Christians insist ... NO FENCE SITTING !!! ... (+/-) ... True/False ... Saved/Lost ... and everyone just KNOWS that they are right and good ... at least compared to their fellows !

The theist has Truth in God ... I have Truth in GOD ... the atheist has Truth in self (or wherever they place it).


But that is all from a WORLD based view of dualism ... the Basic Equation of Truth, the BET as (+=-)>(+/-) is a UNIversal view about that subject ... TRUTH.

Of course the TRUTH of Truth then requires some relativity ... the Spirit of GOD as the (=) inserted into duality to bridge (=) the Gap (/) and CHANGE the concept from world (+/-) to UNIversal (+=-) ...

DO the MATH ... There is but ONE UNIversal Truth ... (+=-) and it naturally INcludes the Spirit of GOD (=) withIN the UNIversal parameters defined by the parenthesis that ARE GOD as the LIMIT of the DEFINED UNIverse, the (***) that CONTAINS ALL as (+=-) !!!

Thus the ONLY ABSOLUTE TRUTH is THE WHOLE as (+=-) ... all other truths are but RELATIVES ... relative truths ... good is it's own truth and bad is it's own truth ... yes is it's own truth and no is it's own truth ... each and all relative ...

AND ... GOD is the ONLY concept available to mankind that could possibly UNITE ALL ... and even IF all were united ... they would still have disagreements because that is just the nature of Truth as (+=-), unless of course each "side" agreed to honour their diverse NATURAL differences and COOPERATE towards a common goal creating a SYNERGY of WIN/WIN ...

Transcendent Truth is (+=-) ... non-transcendent truth is allowed to be (+/-) ... it is really our free choice as to which we pick ... GOD set it all up that way ... or he didn't. :-)

Wonderful comments, everyone. I have been working on a post, that I'd like to share with you. I'll come back here and continue this thread with a bit more time to think as fast as I type...

Check it out

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977460034&nav=MyGather

BTW, Tristan, I love the image, with the sun shining between the twin towers, and the questions it asks. What if there were no religious animosity?

Jerry...There is a god...OR there is not a god. If there is a god...he is everyone's god....even if we don't acknowledge or believe in his existence. If there is not a god...then no one has a god. It doesn't matter what I believe about the existence of god or what you believe...either he exists or he does not. One of these is true...one is not.

It doesn't matter what I "Know"or you "know"...it doesn't matter I don't "know" or what you don't "know".

The truth is not one truth for one and another truth for another.

"AND ... GOD is the ONLY concept available to mankind that could possibly UNITE ALL "

Well...that hasn't happened and it will most likely never happen. And..you have not defined your premise with verifiable proof and you have excluded all other possibilities as reasons that mankind could unite without giving evidence.

You have made a broad sweeping invalid statement.

Good morning, all!

Barbara: "I believe you are searching for something...You should ask God."

See, that requires me to believe in God first. Doesn't work that way. If you don't understand what I mean, ask the Invisible Pink Unicorn about it.

I think Jerry just suggested that anyone with God in their lives won't ever get sick, will have their amputated limbs grow back, and will become financially stable (I guess WaMu ain't got God).

Actually, I don't think you can provide anyone that fits that description.

What If Jesus Ran For President?

"Faith" is belief without proof, yes. I have "faith" that gravity will not suddenly stop. I have "faith" that the earth will stay in it's orbit around the sun. My observations, and the repeatable experiments of others let me believe that these things are true. The same goes for my "faith" that my husband loves me and values our marriage. Past experience gives me no reason to believe otherwise.

As for God...personal experience, and my own ability for logical deduction, leads me to the belief that the god I was raised to believe in, the god of the fundamentalist American Christian intepretation of the Bible indeed does NOT exist. Substantiated phenomena and repeatable evidence is definately not racking up points in the creationist book.

As for the existence of SOME higher power....it CAN"T be disproved. We can't DISPROVE something as simple as Sasquatch. How can we possibly prove OR disprove the existence of spirit, or a soul. No one saw the Big Bang start, or knows how it unfolded.

I for one, based on my unsubstantiated, unrepeatable "faith experience" CHOOSE to believe there is something deeper than what we see. But I cannot believe that God himself gave the the message to ONE group of illiterate people wandering in the desert, and that message survived ALL it's many translations ( talk to someone who's read it in Hebrew!!) to give us the ONE guide for how ALL humans should live their life. Faith can enrich your life....but they also say ignorance is bliss.

"When you (anyone) truly have GOD in your life, ALL NEEDS ARE MET,"

Oh, Jerry....tell this to the Christians dying in Darfur. I'm sure it would give them great comfort to know they didn't really NEED food, water, parents, or the means to make a living. They have God, I'm sure they're FINE!!!!

I hate to seem too much like a gamer nerd here, but I'd call that "pwnage", Jerry.

First off, I spell those concepts of GOD, God< and god(s) the way I do for a reason ... and until any one of them is actually defined with some kind of agreement there will most likely never be any agreement.

The same thing applies to the word Truth (or I could say TRUTH, Truth and truth(s)) ... just like I have a different perspective about what the word "perfection" stands for than most do.

I also differ greatly between religion and the spiritual ... and (Beth, pay attention) when I said REAL and/or TRUE (and/or some variation of them) I meant it ... the devil is in the lack of detail folks.

I fully stand by my contentions and will until convinced otherwise ... but I have heard no arguments yet even close to changing my mind ... especially if the person gets "juvenile" on me ... Tristan ? ( I do NOT play video games, don't know any of the terminology, don't even want to know ... in fact I take most everything associated with where this world seems to be headed very seriously ) :-)

Tristan writes:

I don’t like "absolute certainty"; I think it’s a red herring. We can’t know anything to an absolute certainty.

Are you absolutely certain about that?

-Mark

Michael writes:

The truth is not one truth for one and another truth for another.

yes, yes, yes! Dawn has broken on Marblehead!

Yes ... dualists ... (+/-) insist upon only one truth ... each of them do ... that is why they never get along ...

PS ... everyone knows that Michael and Mark will never agree on -od. But they each hold the (?) truth.

Oh boy. I just love these discussions about "truth". We'll hear from people who think that truth is something subjective. We'll hear from those who understand that there's a real world out there and it exists whether or not they do.

So before we get too cryptic...does anyone care to define "truth", so that we know what the hell we're all arguing for (or against)?

Truth : http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976881791&nav=Namespace ...

Be sure to read the prior two linked articles and over 600 comments before reading the last ... :-)

Essential Truth ...

Essential truth is transient just like everything else. There is nothing that is not transient, even the truth. The most true truths that there are can become false, like, now. I have no idea why some keep looking for some answers that can never change. This is not required for life to go on. In fact, if we are not aware of all the changes that go on all around us, we become less apt to survive when a change breaks our bubble of safety.

All the things that Beth B has listed, in which she has faith in in the post above are actual things for which there is evidence, even the love of her husband. Her hubby is real, and he interacts with her daily, and is consistently loving towards her, so his love is real. Anyone observing their daily life would be able to document and study their daily interactions and possibly conclude the same.

All except one, and that is whatever she thinks about God. If she interacts with God, theere can be no measurement taken, no recording, no evidence whatsoever. There will be no proof of such an event. It's unbelievable, in a manner of speaking.

Michael, between your 'either there is or isn't' must be inserted a maybe or two. Between the existence and non-existence of God there are infinite possibilities, I think. If God can neither be proved nor disproved, then the whole thing is, of logical necessity, a big maybe.

"PS ... everyone knows that Michael and Mark will never agree on -od. But they each hold the (?) truth."
Jerry Kays, Sep 27, 2008, 12:03am EDT

No we don't ...in order for us to both hold the truth..we would have to agree and then we could still both be wrong or we could both be right...

Rick...."Michael, between your 'either there is or isn't' must be inserted a maybe or two. Between the existence and non-existence of God there are infinite possibilities, I think. If God can neither be proved nor disproved, then the whole thing is, of logical necessity, a big maybe."

There is the 'maybe' Rick...because the truth can't be known about the existence of a god. The fact that god exists or doesn't exist does not change the truth. There is no logical necessity for a "big maybe"..because certainty has no bearing either way. Either he exists or he does not....we don't have to know the truth for the truth to exist.