"Faith" and "Faith"

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticising their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own. The question is, are the two using the word in the same manner. Consider the following:

EXAMPLE 1:

Because of repeated observed, and peer reviewed verification, Derek has faith that when he drops a ball from the roof of his apartment building, that it is going to drop to the ground.

EXAMPLE 2:

Because of the passages found in (fill in the holy book of your choice), and a personal experience that he cannot submit for peer review, Jesse has faith that there is a creator, and he dedicates his life to this creator.


Are these two decisions of faith identical? If so, why? What makes them the same, other than the fact that they both use the word faith? If not, why not? What is the difference?

The spirit manifesting for those who have spiritual eyes to see and ears to hear is the difference. As an atheist you depend on scientific test and theories. A believer on the other hand has faith that ultimately the spirit will show them and lead them down the correct paths for their lives and assist them in their daily trials and tribulations to help them overcome the things that are not conducive for a child of God's spirit to grow and prosper. In time many believers have seen the spirit manifest. That does not happen at the same time for all so by faith believers hope generally in that which has not yet been seen by them.

Just as religion and ‘god’ are creations of man, so too is the notion of a ‘spirit’; all manifestations of morality, decency, right and wrong come from man. Men are capable of living just and virtuous lives absent religion and ‘god,’ including theists, as the religious tenets by which theists live their lives come solely from man. Faith/religion/belief is the façade behind which theists attempt to conceal this fact.

 

[Meriweather]

Just as religion and ‘god’ are creations of man, so too is the notion of a ‘spirit’; all manifestations of morality, decency, right and wrong come from man. Men are capable of living just and virtuous lives absent religion and ‘god,’ including theists, as the religious tenets by which theists live their lives come solely from man. Faith/religion/belief is the façade behind which theists attempt to conceal this fact.

God is an observation *and sometimes an experience) of man's, not a creation of man's.

 

[ding]

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since your body is doomed to death, your task on earth should be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it. Solzhenitsyn

Materialist reject everything beyond the physical. Nothing matters beyond well-being and the accumulation of material goods. All other human requirements and characteristics of a subtle and higher nature are rejected. Such that human life does not have any higher meaning than earthly pleasure and pain.

Materialists reject all forms of the spiritual even though they have first hand knowledge of intelligence which is a phenomenon which exists outside the realm of the material world.

 

[zaangalewa]

Theists accuse atheists ...

You are the atheist who fights like crazy aerial battles against the aeroplanes in your brain, which you call "theists".

 

[Czernobog]

You mean the topic of the discussion? Do better. You are dismissed.

No. The first sentence.

Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticising their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own.

That would be the topic of discussion to which you are apparently ill-equipped to discuss. You. Are. dismissed.

Which starts as a strawman, which I addressed and then I addressed the OP which was faith but not the way you wanted to discuss it.

Still demonstrating that you do not understand the concept of a Strawman fallacy. Unless you are saying that theists don't call atheists hypocrites for criticising theists' faith, while asserting a faith of their own. Is that what you are asserting is a "Strawman"? Because if that is what you are asserting, I will be happy to post quotes for you, from this very forum of theists do just that.

That's exactly what I am saying, Czernobog. We criticize your criticism of our beliefs. You are the one who has turned that into your logical fallacy strawman that we criticize your faith.

How many times do I have to tell you that I believe that you have faith that God does not exist. See? Right there I have just proven your OP wrong. I am not criticizing your faith that God doesn't exist. I am acknowledging your faith that God does not exist.

I'm not suggesting that you are "criticising our faith". I am suggesting that theists criticise atheists by claiming that we have faith in things which is no different than their faith in God. Do you, or do you not admit that this is true?

 

[ding]

No. The first sentence.

That would be the topic of discussion to which you are apparently ill-equipped to discuss. You. Are. dismissed.

Which starts as a strawman, which I addressed and then I addressed the OP which was faith but not the way you wanted to discuss it.

Still demonstrating that you do not understand the concept of a Strawman fallacy. Unless you are saying that theists don't call atheists hypocrites for criticising theists' faith, while asserting a faith of their own. Is that what you are asserting is a "Strawman"? Because if that is what you are asserting, I will be happy to post quotes for you, from this very forum of theists do just that.

That's exactly what I am saying, Czernobog. We criticize your criticism of our beliefs. You are the one who has turned that into your logical fallacy strawman that we criticize your faith.

How many times do I have to tell you that I believe that you have faith that God does not exist. See? Right there I have just proven your OP wrong. I am not criticizing your faith that God doesn't exist. I am acknowledging your faith that God does not exist.

I'm not suggesting that you are "criticising our faith". I am suggesting that theists criticise atheists by claiming that we have faith in things which is no different than their faith in God. Do you, or do you not admit that this is true?

Faith is faith. Are you telling me that when you have faith in something that doesn't mean you have complete trust in it?

 

[Czernobog]

That would be the topic of discussion to which you are apparently ill-equipped to discuss. You. Are. dismissed.

Which starts as a strawman, which I addressed and then I addressed the OP which was faith but not the way you wanted to discuss it.

Still demonstrating that you do not understand the concept of a Strawman fallacy. Unless you are saying that theists don't call atheists hypocrites for criticising theists' faith, while asserting a faith of their own. Is that what you are asserting is a "Strawman"? Because if that is what you are asserting, I will be happy to post quotes for you, from this very forum of theists do just that.

That's exactly what I am saying, Czernobog. We criticize your criticism of our beliefs. You are the one who has turned that into your logical fallacy strawman that we criticize your faith.

How many times do I have to tell you that I believe that you have faith that God does not exist. See? Right there I have just proven your OP wrong. I am not criticizing your faith that God doesn't exist. I am acknowledging your faith that God does not exist.

I'm not suggesting that you are "criticising our faith". I am suggesting that theists criticise atheists by claiming that we have faith in things which is no different than their faith in God. Do you, or do you not admit that this is true?

Faith is faith. Are you telling me that when you have faith in something that doesn't mean you have complete trust in it?

Actually, no. When I speak of having faith in something, I, generally, mean that I have a reasonable expectation in it. When I drop a ball from the roof of a building, I have faith - a reasonable expectation - that it will fall to the ground. Do I have complete trust that the ball will do this? No. Because, according to the Uncertainty Principle, there is a non-zero chance that it will float. That means there is a chance, however remote, that something occurs to disrupt gravity. However, because of the Law of Probability, I still have faith - a reasonable expectation - that the ball will drop.

Herein are the two differences between how theists use the word "faith", and how atheists use the word "faith":

First, theists free acknowledge that their "faith" is not based on any objective evidence whatsoever; "...confidence in what we hope for...". Not what we know; what we hope for. Atheists on the other hand view their "faith" as the expectation of future behaviour based on previous experience, It is based on what atheists know.

Second, theists view "faith" as, as you put it, complete trust in that which they claim to have faith. Not so, with atheists. We atheists have complete trust in...well...nothing. We recognise that the universe is chaotic, and there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty. Thus when we speak of "having faith in..." science, physics, or any thing else, we are merely asserting our reasonable expectations of outcome, again, bnased on prior experiential evidence.

Do you see the difference?

 

[hobelim]

We recognise that the universe is chaotic, and there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty.

How so?


If someone claimed that the story of the three pigs was a historical record you couldn't assert with 100% certainty that it is not?

How is "there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty " a more rational position than "God did it"?

 

[hobelim]

Just as religion and ‘god’ are creations of man, so too is the notion of a ‘spirit’; all manifestations of morality, decency, right and wrong come from man.

Spirit is the ancient term for consciousness. To say that all manifestations of morality, decency, right and wrong do not come directly from the spirit/consciousness of man is just foolishness.

If there was no spiritual awareness there would be no concept of good and evil among men.

 

[Votto]

You should sue.

Well, that was an absolutely useless input. If you have nothing to actually contribute, then why waste time posting?

Don't be silly. It was free legal advice.

Was I looking for "free legal advice", or did I propose a question of reason to discuss for better understanding. If you don't have any thoughts on the question just fuck off. There is no reason to just be a dick. My OP was not rude. It was not condescending. It was a valid question in search of honest discussion.

No. It wasn't. Like every OP you have ever made, this is nothing more than one of your strawmen arguments.

I don't criticize you for having faith. I criticize you criticizing my beliefs.

That's it.

So, it is your contention that faith is faith is faith?

No, it is my contention that faith is faith is faith IS faith.

 

[Czernobog]

We recognise that the universe is chaotic, and there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty.

How so?


If someone claimed that the story of the three pigs was a historical record you couldn't assert with 100% certainty that it is not?

How is "there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty " a more rational position than "God did it"?

"Nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty," actually allows for the possibility that "God did it," Rational atheists do not assert there is no God as a conclusion. We are well aware that it is possible that God exists, and God did it. We only require the same thing that we require to move any other hypothesis, or theory from "It is possible" to "It is likely" - objective, verifiable evidence.

As to your silly Three Little Pigs question. I presumed that anyone reading my post was intelligent enough to understand that I was restricting my position to the empirical, rational universe. Is it possible for "The Three Little Pigs" to have actually happened? Well...I suppose if one subscribes to the Multiverse hypothesis, sure. It is possible. After all, it is, hypothetically, possible that there is a universe out there in which EVERY work of fiction is a reality.

However, since I can only prove the existence of this universe, I will keep my observations, and positions relevant to this universe. So, obviously no rational person thinks that a work of fiction is a non-fiction.

 

[hobelim]

We recognise that the universe is chaotic, and there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty.

How so?


If someone claimed that the story of the three pigs was a historical record you couldn't assert with 100% certainty that it is not?

How is "there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty " a more rational position than "God did it"?

"Nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty," actually allows for the possibility that "God did it," Rational atheists do not assert there is no God as a conclusion. We are well aware that it is possible that God exists, and God did it. We only require the same thing that we require to move any other hypothesis, or theory from "It is possible" to "It is likely" - objective, verifiable evidence.

As to your silly Three Little Pigs question. I presumed that anyone reading my post was intelligent enough to understand that I was restricting my position to the empirical, rational universe. Is it possible for "The Three Little Pigs" to have actually happened? Well...I suppose if one subscribes to the Multiverse hypothesis, sure. It is possible. After all, it is, hypothetically, possible that there is a universe out there in which EVERY work of fiction is a reality.

However, since I can only prove the existence of this universe, I will keep my observations, and positions relevant to this universe. So, obviously no rational person thinks that a work of fiction is a non-fiction.

If you are going to keep your observations and positions relevant to the known universe why would you waste time arguing with people who have mistaken a work of fiction for non-fiction?

How rational is that?

Do you, as rational as you are, think that the story of Genesis is about the creation of the universe?

If not, why would you argue science to disprove what scripture cannot possibly be about unless you think it is hypothetically possible that people living 6000 years ago knew what happened 14 billion years ago.

Again, how rational is that?

 

[badger2]

Post #2 is incorrect.

'Faith: firm or unquestioning trust.

Trust: to have faith in.'
(Webster's Third New International Dictionary)

 

[ding]

Which starts as a strawman, which I addressed and then I addressed the OP which was faith but not the way you wanted to discuss it.

Still demonstrating that you do not understand the concept of a Strawman fallacy. Unless you are saying that theists don't call atheists hypocrites for criticising theists' faith, while asserting a faith of their own. Is that what you are asserting is a "Strawman"? Because if that is what you are asserting, I will be happy to post quotes for you, from this very forum of theists do just that.

That's exactly what I am saying, Czernobog. We criticize your criticism of our beliefs. You are the one who has turned that into your logical fallacy strawman that we criticize your faith.

How many times do I have to tell you that I believe that you have faith that God does not exist. See? Right there I have just proven your OP wrong. I am not criticizing your faith that God doesn't exist. I am acknowledging your faith that God does not exist.

I'm not suggesting that you are "criticising our faith". I am suggesting that theists criticise atheists by claiming that we have faith in things which is no different than their faith in God. Do you, or do you not admit that this is true?

Faith is faith. Are you telling me that when you have faith in something that doesn't mean you have complete trust in it?

Actually, no. When I speak of having faith in something, I, generally, mean that I have a reasonable expectation in it. When I drop a ball from the roof of a building, I have faith - a reasonable expectation - that it will fall to the ground. Do I have complete trust that the ball will do this? No. Because, according to the Uncertainty Principle, there is a non-zero chance that it will float. That means there is a chance, however remote, that something occurs to disrupt gravity. However, because of the Law of Probability, I still have faith - a reasonable expectation - that the ball will drop.

Herein are the two differences between how theists use the word "faith", and how atheists use the word "faith":

First, theists free acknowledge that their "faith" is not based on any objective evidence whatsoever; "...confidence in what we hope for...". Not what we know; what we hope for. Atheists on the other hand view their "faith" as the expectation of future behaviour based on previous experience, It is based on what atheists know.

Second, theists view "faith" as, as you put it, complete trust in that which they claim to have faith. Not so, with atheists. We atheists have complete trust in...well...nothing. We recognise that the universe is chaotic, and there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty. Thus when we speak of "having faith in..." science, physics, or any thing else, we are merely asserting our reasonable expectations of outcome, again, bnased on prior experiential evidence.

Do you see the difference?

Let's test that.

Do you have reasonable certainty that God doesn't exist or do you have faith that God doesn't exist?

 

[Meriweather]

Let's test that.

Do you have reasonable certainty that God doesn't exist or do you have faith that God doesn't exist?

For some reason math immediately comes to mind.
n x 0 = 0 (no matter what n is.) Therefore...
Faith x 0 = 0 of whatever faith is deemed to be.

Not sure I am even on topic, as I haven't read a lot of this thread...just something that popped into mind.

 

[ding]

Let's test that.

Do you have reasonable certainty that God doesn't exist or do you have faith that God doesn't exist?

For some reason math immediately comes to mind.
n x 0 = 0 (no matter what n is.) Therefore...
Faith x 0 = 0 of whatever faith is deemed to be.

Not sure I am even on topic, as I haven't read a lot of this thread...just something that popped into mind.

The mathematical equation for there is no evidence they will accept that will compel them search for God on their own.

 

[Meriweather]

The mathematical equation for there is no evidence they will accept that will compel them search for God on their own.

Too often all atheists want seem to want to discuss is God as it relates to science. People of faith are more interested in God as He relates to our personal lives.

 

[ding]

The mathematical equation for there is no evidence they will accept that will compel them search for God on their own.

Too often all atheists want seem to want to discuss is God as it relates to science. People of faith are more interested in God as He relates to our personal lives.

But they aren't very good at science or logic.

Right now, Czernobog doesn't see anyway he can possibly lose our current debate. He is so certain in his ability to not be wrong that he hasn't even considered what I may possibly argue. Before I arrive at objective truth for anything, I explore all sides to see which side is the most credible. I don't believe he has ever done this with respect to belief in a higher power. He doesn't see how it could be possible so he has never bothered to look. Again the root cause is his certainty that he can't possibly be wrong.

So he he is never going to seek the personal relationship which is the proof he is looking for.

 

[Meriweather]

Right now, Czernobog doesn't see anyway he can possibly lose our current debate. He is so certain in his ability to not be wrong that he hasn't even considered what I may possibly argue. Before I arrive at objective truth for anything, I explore all sides to see which side is the most credible. I don't believe he has ever done this with respect to belief in a higher power. He doesn't see how it could be possible so he has never bothered to look. Again the root cause is his certainty that he can't possibly be wrong.

So he he is never going to seek the personal relationship which is the proof he is looking for.

All I know is studying evolution, string theory, origins of the universe, or the birth of a solar system (as interesting as these may be) aren't going to be of any help in my personal life or relationships. Atheists are not going to tell you to give up religion and believe in verb conjugations instead, but they do seem to feel that science can/should replace religion. How do they see that working?

 

[badger2]

Arming the Teachers

In post #78, "personal relationship" is self-glossing stupidity, which by default always already gets precisely the reality it deserves.

'The same logic of radical evil informs Derrida's analysis of faith. Derrida argues that faith is constitutive of every relation to the other, since one cannot (know [italics]) what the other will do or (see [italics]) what the other has in mind, or whether he or she wants to deceive me. So I have to trust the other -- that is faith. Faith is blind. Consequently, faith must be open to being deceived, trust must be open to being violated, and the credit granted to the other must be open to being ruinous.'
(Haegglund, Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life, p. 126)

Except in schools.