The Screams of Hell and the Atheist...

[strummingram]

Now you're conflating belief with faith. They are different things. Yes I am believing the scientists and the peer review process produced reliable data. But that belief is based on a system with a record and verifiable success. Its not based on faith.

Belief is faith. Your belief is based entirely on the comfortable presumption (faith) that they're doing what they do and doing it right. You, yourself, have very little, if any, true understanding of exactly what they're claiming to be proving. You're just accepting their "data" and their "system with a record" as being valid. You do that without your OWN participation and application of what you cannot do by yourself.

You can resist and deny the presence of faith as much as you want. But, the faith is there. I think you just have an aversion to the feeling that is produced in your consciousness from the WORD "Faith." It's just like when people recoil at the word "God." They associate those with myth-based religions and therefore must be fiction. They need to feel superior to that and, thus, they go to the lengths you are to refute and deny. But, the mythologies are just as important as the science. We needed them to get where we are now. It's all just spokes on wheel, basically. You seem to have a fear of Faith.

 

[strummingram]

It's very important for many religious people to equate a lack of religion as a religion in itself. It helps them believe they are on equal intellectual grounds with atheists and scientists.

Except, I am not religious.

There is no superior, or inferior, "intellectual grounds" either. they are just different.

 

[naturalmwa]

It's very important for many religious people to equate a lack of religion as a religion in itself. It helps them believe they are on equal intellectual grounds with atheists and scientists.

Its strange because they both want to venerate faith and degrade it. Its interesting to note that if you take the biblical gospels as actual accounts of real events, none of the disciples believed based on faith. They all received evidence in multiple forms over multiple years. If they deserved this level of proof even after hanging out with God, we should all respect ourselves enough to demand similar treatment. We should resist the urge self lobotomize. The Bible teaches us to use the gifts we were given. The Qur'an teaches us that the main gift each of us is given is our mind. Don't turn your mind off, God won't respect you. It may be the case that only skeptics make it into the kingdom as belief without proof is cheap and disrespectful to our very being.

 

[IACub]

Belief is faith. Your belief is based entirely on the comfortable presumption (faith) that they're doing what they do and doing it right. You, yourself, have very little, if any, true understanding of exactly what they're claiming to be proving. You're just accepting their "data" and their "system with a record" as being valid. You do that without your OWN participation and application of what you cannot do by yourself.

You can resist and deny the presence of faith as much as you want. But, the faith is there. I think you just have an aversion to the feeling that is produced in your consciousness from the WORD "Faith." It's just like when people recoil at the word "God." They associate those with myth-based religions and therefore must be fiction. They need to feel superior to that and, thus, they go to the lengths you are to refute and deny. But, the mythologies are just as important as the science. We needed them to get where we are now. It's all just spokes on wheel, basically. You seem to have a fear of Faith.

You're arguing semantics. But in the end it's a different kind of faith you're talking about. It's easy to have faith in science, because while I may not have witnessed an actual experiment, I have witnessed experiments, an I understand the scientific method, and I have faith in peer review.

From a religious aspect I cannot have faith in an invisible, all powerful God with zero proof.

 

[mstp1992]

Belief is faith. Your belief is based entirely on the comfortable presumption (faith) that they're doing what they do and doing it right. You, yourself, have very little, if any, true understanding of exactly what they're claiming to be proving. You're just accepting their "data" and their "system with a record" as being valid. You do that without your OWN participation and application of what you cannot do by yourself.

You can resist and deny the presence of faith as much as you want. But, the faith is there. I think you just have an aversion to the feeling that is produced in your consciousness from the WORD "Faith." It's just like when people recoil at the word "God." They associate those with myth-based religions and therefore must be fiction. They need to feel superior to that and, thus, they go to the lengths you are to refute and deny. But, the mythologies are just as important as the science. We needed them to get where we are now. It's all just spokes on wheel, basically. You seem to have a fear of Faith.

Belief is NOT faith, at least in the primary definitions of the terms. The two terms are interrelated, but not interchangeable; big difference.

 

[strummingram]

You're arguing semantics. But in the end it's a different kind of faith you're talking about. It's easy to have faith in science, because while I may not have witnessed an actual experiment, I have witnessed experiments, an I understand the scientific method, and I have faith in peer review.

From a religious aspect I cannot have faith in an invisible, all powerful God with zero proof.

It's more than semantics. And, semantics have their value. There are distinctions. In this case, very clear distinctions. However, there are also very close parallels, if you allow yourself to see them. If you feel some instinctive need to feel superior to the ones who have faith in something you don't have faith in, then you're not likely to see the parallels. But, they are there. I enjoy having faith in all of it.

 

[naturalmwa]

Belief is faith. Your belief is based entirely on the comfortable presumption (faith) that they're doing what they do and doing it right. You, yourself, have very little, if any, true understanding of exactly what they're claiming to be proving. You're just accepting their "data" and their "system with a record" as being valid. You do that without your OWN participation and application of what you cannot do by yourself.

You can resist and deny the presence of faith as much as you want. But, the faith is there. I think you just have an aversion to the feeling that is produced in your consciousness from the WORD "Faith." It's just like when people recoil at the word "God." They associate those with myth-based religions and therefore must be fiction. They need to feel superior to that and, thus, they go to the lengths you are to refute and deny. But, the mythologies are just as important as the science. We needed them to get where we are now. It's all just spokes on wheel, basically. You seem to have a fear of Faith.

We already established you don't know what faith is, but it was kind of you to eliminate all doubt. Yes I do fear faith. All rational people should fear the belief in things without proof. It retards development.

 

[strummingram]

Belief is NOT faith, at least in the primary definitions of the terms. The two terms are interrelated, but not interchangeable; big difference.

I never said that the "terms" were interchangeable. But, you even agree that they are "interrelated", and that is all I am saying. You're getting more hung up on the terms instead of the feeling and actual action and behavior. Faith and belief, science and spirituality, physical, metaphysical, "real and not real" are all inclusive. Everything is always getting closer to being understood.

 

[strummingram]

We already established you don't know what faith is, but it was kind of you to eliminate all doubt. Yes I do fear faith. All rational people should fear the belief in things without proof. It retards development.

Well, at least you can exhibit prejudice. "All rational people?" You mean rational by your definition and by your standard? Rational by the superior people, like you?

Fear, and anything based in fear, is something I try to avoid.

 

[IACub]

It's more than semantics. And, semantics have their value. There are distinctions. In this case, very clear distinctions. However, there are also very close parallels, if you allow yourself to see them. If you feel some instinctive need to feel superior to the ones who have faith in something you don't have faith in, then you're not likely to see the parallels. But, they are there. I enjoy having faith in all of it.

I don't feel superior to anyone based on their faith or my lack thereof. I'm simply trying to explain why I don't believe in God. Quite frankly, I enjoy having an intelligent, respectful debate with a believer.

Earlier in this thread I may have been a dick, but that was solely directed at Jake. I apologize for any collateral damage.

 

[IACub]

Can we agree that there's a difference in the word "faith" as it applies to religion, vs. I have faith the coffee will be hot this morning.

 

[naturalmwa]

Well, at least you can exhibit prejudice. "All rational people?" You mean rational by your definition and by your standard? Rational by the superior people, like you?

Reason is the essence of what makes us human. If there is a God, it is what we were made to be. To the extent that a person acts on reason, they are superior and acting in accord with their god given nature to put it in your vernacular. But reason isn't up to me. Like logic or science it is a process with rules and standards. Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. It is objective, so you're going to have a problem with it.

 

[panthergram]

It's very important for many religious people to equate a lack of religion as a religion in itself. It helps them believe they are on equal intellectual grounds with atheists and scientists.

atheists are intellectuals?

 

[IACub]

atheists are intellectuals?

Thanks for contributing.

 

[strummingram]

Reason is the essence of what makes us human. If there is a God, it is what we were made to be. To the extent that a person acts on reason, they are superior and acting in accord with their god given nature to put it in your vernacular. But reason isn't up to me. Like logic or science it is a process with rules and standards. Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. It is objective, so you're going to have a problem with it.

I agree with all of that... except the last sentence.

 

[strummingram]

Can we agree that there's a difference in the word "faith" as it applies to religion, vs. I have faith the coffee will be hot this morning.

I'm really not trying to include religion or mythologies, directly, into any of this. But, I agree there is a difference in the application and/or context of your example versus religion. But, I can't speak for others who claim to be religious. I'm not religious myself.

 

[naturalmwa]

atheists are intellectuals?

Obviously. One must question the prevailing notions to be one. Where it take comparatively little intellectual muscle to follow the herd.

 

[IACub]

I'm really not trying to include religion or mythologies, directly, into any of this. But, I agree there is a difference in the application and/or context of your example versus religion. But, I can't speak for others who claim to be religious. I'm not religious myself.

So you're not religious, but you have faith in a higher power?

 

[naturalmwa]

I agree with all of that... except the last sentence.

Excellent. Now remember by your definition you are now prejudice. Welcome to the team, its nice to see you evolve even while I'm skeptical that it will last.

 

[strummingram]

Excellent. Now remember by your definition you are now prejudice. Welcome to the team, its nice to see you evolve even while I'm skeptical that it will last.

I know I have my own prejudices. We all do. I'm not denying them. I am always trying to minimize them.

 

[strummingram]

So you're not religious, but you have faith in a higher power?

Of course. Religion is not necessary at all for me. Religion is confining. Religion is also used by people to control other people. The "Higher Power" is something we are all connected to. In fact, we are all one and that higher power experiences itself through us. The religions and mythologies around them were necessary at one point. Or, at least they were the best we had to help us better understand and relate to it.

I don't fear religion itself. I am a bit tepid toward people who apply literal translations to modern day situations. But, I usually find that the effect it has on me is minimal, if at all.

 

[strummingram]

Excellent. Now remember by your definition you are now prejudice. Welcome to the team, its nice to see you evolve even while I'm skeptical that it will last.

I have no choice BUT to evolve. So, your skepticism is yours alone.

 

[IACub]

Of course. Religion is not necessary at all for me. Religion is confining. Religion is also used by people to control other people. The "Higher Power" is something we are all connected to. In fact, we are all one and that higher power experiences itself through us. The religions and mythologies around them were necessary at one point. Or, at least they were the best we had to help us better understand and relate to it.

I don't fear religion itself. I am a bit tepid toward people who apply literal translations to modern day situations. But, I usually find that the effect it has on me is minimal, if at all.

I can dig it.

 

[artradley]

atheists are intellectuals?

Some are. Some aren't. However, the intellectual basis for Atheism is stronger than for Deism. Whether or not all Atheists use that intellectual basis is immaterial.

 

[strummingram]

Obviously. One must question the prevailing notions to be one. Where it take comparatively little intellectual muscle to follow the herd.

Now, THAT is some wisdom.

 

[naturalmwa]

Of course. Religion is not necessary at all for me. Religion is confining. Religion is also used by people to control other people. The "Higher Power" is something we are all connected to. In fact, we are all one and that higher power experiences itself through us. The religions and mythologies around them were necessary at one point. Or, at least they were the best we had to help us better understand and relate to it.

I don't fear religion itself. I am a bit tepid toward people who apply literal translations to modern day situations. But, I usually find that the effect it has on me is minimal, if at all.

I've seen this movie. Higher powers link us and need us to worship them so that they can experience itself.

 

[strummingram]

I've seen this movie. Higher powers link us and need us to worship them so that they can experience itself.

I'm not sure about the "worshiping them" part. That seems more like a human adjustment so THEY can be worshiped. I don't believe the Universe needs to be worshiped, or obeyed, or anything. I don't believe (or have faith0 in a God that is keeping score and going to punish us. That sounds more like a human endeavor.

 

[mstp1992]

I never said that the "terms" were interchangeable. But, you even agree that they are "interrelated", and that is all I am saying. You're getting more hung up on the terms instead of the feeling and actual action and behavior. Faith and belief, science and spirituality, physical, metaphysical, "real and not real" are all inclusive. Everything is always getting closer to being understood.

I haven't said anything until now. Just making sure the terms are used appropriately.
However, in a previous post you said "Belief is faith." This is not necessarily a true statement.

 

[RealWilliamWallace]

The foundation of Christian theology is based on a deep
and abiding trust in God. We trust in Him as the Creator
or our human life and we trust in Him as our Redeemer
from sin and eternal death.

The foundation of secular science is based on proof.
Men like Albert Einstein discovered the proof he needed
for his scientific theories

Bottom Line: Christianity and faith do not need to compete
with science and proof. Both Christianity and science serve
two different purposes..

You are correct that science and faith don't have to compete. But due to general human nature, they have throughout history, because those of faith try to insert their ideologies into science, where it does not belong. Even Einstein famously said, "God does not play dice" and allowed his spirituality in his later years to cloud his scientific judgement and reject the premise of Quantum Mechanics, which is now the basis for all Atomic Physics.

 

[strummingram]

 

[RealWilliamWallace]

Belief is faith. Your belief is based entirely on the comfortable presumption (faith) that they're doing what they do and doing it right. You, yourself, have very little, if any, true understanding of exactly what they're claiming to be proving. You're just accepting their "data" and their "system with a record" as being valid. You do that without your OWN participation and application of what you cannot do by yourself.

You can resist and deny the presence of faith as much as you want. But, the faith is there. I think you just have an aversion to the feeling that is produced in your consciousness from the WORD "Faith." It's just like when people recoil at the word "God." They associate those with myth-based religions and therefore must be fiction. They need to feel superior to that and, thus, they go to the lengths you are to refute and deny. But, the mythologies are just as important as the science. We needed them to get where we are now. It's all just spokes on wheel, basically. You seem to have a fear of Faith.

I believe and have faith that at some point in your life you took a shit, but I'm just using the data I've acquired over the years about the bodily processes of all human beings. According to your logic I would have to witness you drop a deuce to be sure it has ever happened. Mythology is just as important as science? These idiotic mythologies have held back science, not contributed to our understanding. What about all of the books burned, ideas crushed and heretics murdered by the religious establishment?

 

[strummingram]

I believe and have faith that at some point in your life you took a shit, but I'm just using the data I've acquired over the years about the bodily processes of all human beings. According to your logic I would have to witness you drop a deuce to be sure it has ever happened. Mythology is just as important as science? These idiotic mythologies have held back science, not contributed to our understanding. What about all of the books burned, ideas crushed and heretics murdered by the religious establishment?

The mythologies are what came before. They served a purpose. Just like you spoke in mimicry and gibberish before you spoke and articulated language others understood. But, you still had the need to be understood, be fed, to have attention, affection, etc. You had to have the beginning to have the end. Did learning to speak and communicate hold you back from being able to finally do it?

 

[RealWilliamWallace]

The mythologies are what came before. They served a purpose. Just like you spoke in mimicry and gibberish before you spoke and articulated language others understood. But, you still had the need to be understood, be fed, to have attention, affection, etc. You had to have the beginning to have the end. Did learning to speak and communicate hold you back from being able to finally do it?

No, but worshipping fairy tale "Gods" for centuries has limited speech and communication of the truth. Instead of looking to the sky and thinking about why the sun shines and why the rain falls, people worshipped supernatural powers and their conservative thought has stifled intelligence throughout the ages. Thank goodness I didn't grow up in a time where scientific thought was still absolutely controlled by the church or I probably would have been burned at the stake by now. The Renaissance might have occurred B.C. if it hadn't been for religion and by 2016 we would be much more advanced as a civilization than we are now.

 

[mthawkeyes]

I didn't think that was necessary. You obviously didn't get the message. This man as a child was the son of the most renown atheist in America...maybe the world. He was the focal point of the 1962 Supreme Court decree that ended state sponsored prayer in schools although in a few remote places it continues today...still it was a landmark decision. His conversion to Christianity is summary enough bud...nothing else need be derived from it. He had at some point in his life a great awakening...epiphany if you will. Whatever brought it about was certainly miraculous and no doubt ordained by God.

If a person freely choosing to accept religious dogma is miraculous, what is it when one freely chooses to reject it?

 

[Jakeleg Jake]

If a person freely choosing to accept religious dogma is miraculous, what is it when one freely chooses to reject it?

Living on the edge...

 

[mthawkeyes]

Living on the edge...

Going with Pascal's wager? Sound.

 

[strummingram]

No, but worshipping fairy tale "Gods" for centuries has limited speech and communication of the truth. Instead of looking to the sky and thinking about why the sun shines and why the rain falls, people worshipped supernatural powers and their conservative thought has stifled intelligence throughout the ages. Thank goodness I didn't grow up in a time where scientific thought was still absolutely controlled by the church or I probably would have been burned at the stake by now. The Renaissance might have occurred B.C. if it hadn't been for religion and by 2016 we would be much more advanced as a civilization than we are now.

How do YOU know it limited anything? Were you there? We know what we know now and have the advantage of hindsight. I'm not even disagreeing that maybe it did impede them, but that was the natural order of our evolution. People trade freedom and liberty for security right now. They do it willingly and eagerly.

 

[RealWilliamWallace]

How do YOU know it limited anything? Were you there? We know what we know now and have the advantage of hindsight. I'm not even disagreeing that maybe it did impede them, but that was the natural order of our evolution. People trade freedom and liberty for security right now. They do it willingly and eagerly.

You can quote "hindsight is 20/20" all day, but the fact remains that almost all brilliant scientists in our past have been severely persecuted by religious institutions.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-sciencechristianity.htm

So, I am just suppose to accept history and not learn from it, since it was "natural" and allow the same stupidity to continue? And how does trading liberty from security have anything to do with the current discussion? BTW, if people do this and you are opposed, then you shouldn't be, because according to your logic, it just follows the "natural order or our evolution".

 

[strummingram]

You can quote "hindsight is 20/20" all day, but the fact remains that almost all brilliant scientists in our past have been severely persecuted by religious institutions.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-sciencechristianity.htm

So, I am just suppose to accept history and not learn from it, since it was "natural" and allow the same stupidity to continue? And how does trading liberty from security have anything to do with the current discussion? BTW, if people do this and you are opposed, then you shouldn't be, because according to your logic, it just follows the "natural order or our evolution".

Where did I say "don't learn?" Whether it be from history or any other source. I'm not even an advocate of religions.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

It's very important for many religious people to equate a lack of religion as a religion in itself. It helps them believe they are on equal intellectual grounds with atheists and scientists.

A majority of the greatest minds in human history have believed in some sort of higher power or that there is something more to our existence than just flesh and bone. So just because there is a certain groupthink among modern scientists doesn't necessarily mean that groupthink is somehow intellectually superior.