What is faith? Really?

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Unless their show of faith yields some evidence to them to which you are not privy that makes their claim valid...

Private evidence is no evidence at all, in the sense that it cannot be judged by others.

Nonsense. Evidence is evidence. Whether you get to subject it to scientific analysis does not change the existence or nature of the evidence. A blood sample from a murderer at the scene of the crime is evidence even if the investigator overlooks it and it's never analyzed.

I could claim that I have evidence, springing from my secret mind powers, which tell me that rEv is actually an alien from Arcturus IV, here to judge humanity on its many failings...

You are not privy to my special evidence, but, from your statement, you must not disbelieve it...

You misunderstand again. No one is saying that YOU are required to believe the faith-based evidence that another person claims. But you cannot yourself claim that the evidence does not exist or is insufficient simply because YOU are not privy to the details and are denied an opportunity to subject that evidence to examination that you find suitable to convincing you of the truth of the claim.

[Animavore]

I'm saying that no one on earth has sufficient knowledge to render any rational judgment about the existence of God or gods.

Funnily enough, this is exactly what I think. And yet people still believe in them anyway.

"The laws of physics" as interpreted by hairless monkeys. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke

What have gods got to to with advanced technology? Unless you're suggesting they might be aliens or something?

Strange that literally everyone does exactly that when it comes to "religion."

Religious people do, sure.

Poor you. Have faith and pray hard and perhaps God will enlighten you.

What do you mean, 'poor me'? I don't give a shit about God.

And you, and science, have exactly zero evidence that they have not.

So? I'm not claiming they have not.Way to miss a point. I'm saying for me to believe I want the same for myself. I'm not believing someone on their say-so. They could be honest. They could also be mad and I've no way of getting inside their head to know.

Yup. Now where's your evidence that these things did not happen?

Missing the point again. I expect the same standard evidence for myself that these people had. I'm not claiming any of these things didn't happen. I'm referring to not believing just because it's in a book from way before my lifetime that I have no direct relation to.

Nobody's asking you to believe anything.

Never said they were. I'm not sure who you're arguing with any more. It's not me.

And you know this how, exactly? Do you work at the celestial God factory that manufactures these gods, or are you simply making a statement of truth tha has no foundation in truth?

Um.. what? There's like tons of religions out there and thousands of gods throughout different cultures. How can you possibly not be aware of this?

I'm not expecting them to do anything except STFU and mind their own business and not be so obsessed about how and what other people worship or do not worship. Atheists are arrogant pricks who think they are superior to everyone of faith and they put themselves up on a pedestal of virtue and knowledge that they don't deserve because they are actually ignorant poseurs.

Lol! What?!!
I do mind my own business. I'm not on a religious forum giving them shit for believing (the way you're on here now giving me shit for not)? I don't belong to any activist group. I don't tell anyone what they should believe nor care what they believe. Most of my family and friends are religious and none of them care that I don't believe either. That doesn't mean I don't have my reasons for not believing as much as to do for doing so.
Fucking uncalled for shit.

Sucks to be an Atheist I guess. So don't be one. Come be a Tolerist™ with me.

I don't want to be any "-ist". It's something I just happen to be by virtue of not believing. It's not something I go around calling myself in my day-to-day. No big, red, cheap and tacky "A" symbols for me. I'd rather the word didn't exist the way we've no word for people who don't believe in other phenomona like UFOs or astrology.

I think the way it goes is that if you don't seek it, God's not going to give it to you. This explains perfectly why Atheists never experience miracles.

Well then the gods and I are at an impasse. Aren't we?

I believe Christians have a set of instructions for finding God.

Yeah. So does everyone else. You do realise I've been a Catholic, deist and Buddhist/Taoist in my lifetime and did used to believe don't you? Do you think I was born this way?

Sorry, I was inexact. Change that to "I ain't seen no evidence so it don't exist."

More like, "I ain't seen no evidence so I'm not convinced".

I don't know anyone who would disagree that there could be evidence they haven't seen yet. And if there is evidence I have seen it would probably be more the case I didn't even recognise it than I dismissed it.

Or it could even be the case that the evidence is right before your eyes but you are unable to properly interpret what you see because your skepticism and atheism interfere with the necessary conditions for a relationship with God.

This is exactly what I just said.

If it's possible, then it's not impossible. If it's not impossible, then one cannot say it's impossible.

That's fine. 'Cause I don't.

That's the thing about God(s), they don't have to play by your rules. God can dangle all sorts of evidence before your eyes but condition your comprehension of that evidence upon your willingness to seek it out with an open heart and mind rather than one closed like a bank vault to anything outside "scientific" knowledge.

I believe that's what Christians call a "leap of faith."

And being God, God is perfectly entitled to restrict knowledge of him to those who make that leap of faith. It helps keep out the riff-raff.

Again. Impasse.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Nonsense. Evidence is evidence. Whether you get to subject it to scientific analysis does not change the existence or nature of the evidence. A blood sample from a murderer at the scene of the crime is evidence even if the investigator overlooks it and it's never analyzed.

Complete nonsense. Evidence only counts when it presented in public, to be judged. That is true of legal evidence, and scientific evidence. If someone makes a statement about the world, and says they have evidence, but does not make me privy to it (typically because it is only a strong subjective feeling), then I and any other rational observer can utterly discount it. In your example, if the blood sample is never presented for a court's inspection, it is clearly not evidence.

[Seth]

I'm saying that no one on earth has sufficient knowledge to render any rational judgment about the existence of God or gods.

Funnily enough, this is exactly what I think. And yet people still believe in them anyway.

Indeed. But perhaps they know something you and I don't...

"The laws of physics" as interpreted by hairless monkeys. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke

What have gods got to to with advanced technology? Unless you're suggesting they might be aliens or something?

Of course they might be aliens. They probably ARE aliens...if they exist.

Strange that literally everyone does exactly that when it comes to "religion."

Religious people do, sure.

So do critics.

Poor you. Have faith and pray hard and perhaps God will enlighten you.

What do you mean, 'poor me'? I don't give a shit about God.

But the essential question is whether or not God gives a shit about you.

And you, and science, have exactly zero evidence that they have not.

So? I'm not claiming they have not.Way to miss a point. I'm saying for me to believe I want the same for myself. I'm not believing someone on their say-so. They could be honest. They could also be mad and I've no way of getting inside their head to know.

Nobody's asking you to believe. All they are asking is for you to use reason and logic to understand that what they believe is none of your business, and that they have a legal right to believe what they like and practice those beliefs as they like, so long as they do so peaceably.

Yup. Now where's your evidence that these things did not happen?

Missing the point again. I expect the same standard evidence for myself that these people had. I'm not claiming any of these things didn't happen. I'm referring to not believing just because it's in a book from way before my lifetime that I have no direct relation to.

What makes you think that your expectations are of any interest to either persons of faith or God?

Nobody's asking you to believe anything.

Never said they were. I'm not sure who you're arguing with any more. It's not me.

Um, you said above "I expect the same standard evidence for myself that these people had."

And you know this how, exactly? Do you work at the celestial God factory that manufactures these gods, or are you simply making a statement of truth tha has no foundation in truth?

Um.. what? There's like tons of religions out there and thousands of gods throughout different cultures. How can you possibly not be aware of this?

I'm not expecting them to do anything except STFU and mind their own business and not be so obsessed about how and what other people worship or do not worship. Atheists are arrogant pricks who think they are superior to everyone of faith and they put themselves up on a pedestal of virtue and knowledge that they don't deserve because they are actually ignorant poseurs.

Lol! What?!!
I do mind my own business. I'm not on a religious forum giving them shit for believing (the way you're on here now giving me shit for not)? I don't belong to any activist group. I don't tell anyone what they believe nor care what they believe. Most of my family and friends are religious and none of them care that I don't believe either. That doesn't mean I don't have my reasons for believing as much as to do for doing so.
Fucking uncalled for shit.

Sucks to be an Atheist I guess. So don't be one. Come be a Tolerist™ with me.

I don't want to be any "-ist". It's something I just happen to be by virtue of not believing. It's not something I go around calling myself in my day-to-day. No big, red, cheap and tacky "A" symbols for me. I'd rather the word didn't exist the way we've no word for people who don't believe in other phenomona like UFOs or astrology.

I think the way it goes is that if you don't seek it, God's not going to give it to you. This explains perfectly why Atheists never experience miracles.

Well then the gods and I are at an impasse. Aren't we?

I believe Christians have a set of instructions for finding God.

Yeah. So does everyone else. You do realise I've been a Catholic, deist and Buddhist/Taoist in my lifetime and did used to believe don't you? Do you think I was born this way?

Sorry, I was inexact. Change that to "I ain't seen no evidence so it don't exist."

More like, "I ain't seen no evidence so I'm not convinced".

I don't know anyone who would disagree that there could be evidence they haven't seen yet. And if there is evidence I have seen it would probably be more the case I didn't even recognise it than I dismissed it.

Or it could even be the case that the evidence is right before your eyes but you are unable to properly interpret what you see because your skepticism and atheism interfere with the necessary conditions for a relationship with God.

This is exactly what I just said.

If it's possible, then it's not impossible. If it's not impossible, then one cannot say it's impossible.

That's fine. 'Cause I don't.

That's the thing about God(s), they don't have to play by your rules. God can dangle all sorts of evidence before your eyes but condition your comprehension of that evidence upon your willingness to seek it out with an open heart and mind rather than one closed like a bank vault to anything outside "scientific" knowledge.

I believe that's what Christians call a "leap of faith."

And being God, God is perfectly entitled to restrict knowledge of him to those who make that leap of faith. It helps keep out the riff-raff.

Again. Impasse.[/quote]

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Nonsense. Evidence is evidence. Whether you get to subject it to scientific analysis does not change the existence or nature of the evidence. A blood sample from a murderer at the scene of the crime is evidence even if the investigator overlooks it and it's never analyzed.

Complete nonsense. Evidence only counts when it presented in public, to be judged.

Counts for what? Are you under the mistaken impression that people of faith have some duty to present their evidence for public scrutiny?

That is true of legal evidence, and scientific evidence.

No it's not. Evidence is evidence even if no human being ever perceives it. What you're saying is that subatomic particles didn't exist until some scientist observed them. Just because you haven't seen or don't understand the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. You seem to think that you have some authority to declare faith-based evidence to be invalid or nonexistent merely because you can't examine it to your satisfaction. This is an indicator of narcissistic arrogance and little more.

If someone makes a statement about the world, and says they have evidence, but does not make me privy to it (typically because it is only a strong subjective feeling), then I and any other rational observer can utterly discount it.

You may do as you please, but that does not change the evidence by one iota. Just ask Copernicus about that.

In your example, if the blood sample is never presented for a court's inspection, it is clearly not evidence.

Of course it's evidence. Say that sample was collected but misplaced and never presented in court. In the future that sample is discovered and analyzed and it shows that the person convicted of the crime could not have committed the crime. People have been acquitted and freed based on exactly that sort of evidence.

Evidence is evidence. That you don't understand it or haven't seen, or don't believe it, it doesn't make it cease to exist as evidence.

[Animavore]

Indeed. But perhaps they know something you and I don't...

Or perhaps they're just barking mad. I've no way of knowing.

Of course they might be aliens. They probably ARE aliens...if they exist.

What, like in Stargate?

But the essential question is whether or not God gives a shit about you.

I couldn't care less if any of them do.

Nobody's asking you to believe. All they are asking is for you to use reason and logic to understand that what they believe is none of your business, and that they have a legal right to believe what they like and practice those beliefs as they like, so long as they do so peaceably.

I already do this. Do you think I walk from door to door trying to convince people of atheism or something? Or stand on the corner of Henry Street with my megaphone blasting those who don't believe as I do? Do you think it was the atheists who fought to have divorce kept illegal in Ireland in the 90s in accordance with our beliefs?

What makes you think that your expectations are of any interest to either persons of faith or God?

I don't. My interests are my own.

[Seth]

Indeed. But perhaps they know something you and I don't...

Or perhaps they're just barking mad. I've no way of knowing.

My point exactly. You have just stated the only rational conclusion that any atheist can draw about such deistic religious claims. And I mean the ONLY valid conclusion. Unfortunately, most Atheists think they do know when they clearly don't, and can't, but continue to insist that they do even when presented with the evidence that they do not and cannot know.

Of course they might be aliens. They probably ARE aliens...if they exist.

What, like in Stargate?

Or like something else.

But the essential question is whether or not God gives a shit about you.

I couldn't care less if any of them do.

You might, if God takes a personal interest in you.

Nobody's asking you to believe. All they are asking is for you to use reason and logic to understand that what they believe is none of your business, and that they have a legal right to believe what they like and practice those beliefs as they like, so long as they do so peaceably.

I already do this.

Good for you. I wish more Atheists were similarly aware of the limitations of their knowledge.

Do you think I walk from door to door trying to convince people of atheism or something?

Not you personally perhaps.

Or stand on the corner of Henry Street with my megaphone blasting those who don't believe as I do?

There are Atheists who do that.

Do you think it was the atheists who fought to have divorce kept illegal in Ireland in the 90s in accordance with our beliefs?

Does it matter?

What makes you think that your expectations are of any interest to either persons of faith or God?

I don't. My interests are my own.

And the interests of the people of faith are their own. Would that everyone could look to their own interests and ignore other people's peaceable expressions of their interests.

[Animavore]

Does it matter?

It matters to members of the state who do not agree with the Catholic Chruch's prohibition on divorce and don't want it foisted on them through secular law. This includes many Catholics who don't agree with the Chruch's own stance. Including myself at the time when the divorce referendum came around.

You might, if God takes a personal interest in you.

If the stories are to be believed it happens. I believe St. Francis of Assisi was a non-believer and playboy before God came to him out of nowhere.

There are Atheists who do that.

Americans seem to do religion and non-religion very differently to us over here. I guess it's because it's such a melting pot. Religion seems like such a market place over there. Over here you're either Catholic or not. It's just not that big a deal over here.
Irish people are very easy going.

[Seth]

Does it matter?

It matters to members of the state who do not agree with the Catholic Chruch's prohibition on divorce and don't want it foisted on them through secular law. This includes many Catholics who don't agree with the Chruch's own stance. Including myself at the time when the divorce referendum came around.

That's a problem with your form of government and elected officials. It's called "democracy." You see, democracy cuts both ways. Obviously the majority in your country supported a ban on divorce, and democratically speaking it is their right to impose that social decision on you, just as you want to impose your social decisions on them.

Suck it up, buttercup, that's democracy!

You might, if God takes a personal interest in you.

If the stories are to be believed it happens. I believe St. Francis of Assisi was a non-believer and playboy before God came to him out of nowhere.

I refer you to Pascal's Wager.

There are Atheists who do that.

Americans seem to do religion and non-religion very differently to us over here. I guess it's because it's such a melting pot. Religion seems like such a market place over there. Over here you're either Catholic or not. It's just not that big a deal over here.
Irish people are very easy going.

Indeed they are...except for the ones who kneecap people and blow shit up.

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

And why is an "insight into the nature of reality" any sort of metric by which God can or should be measured?

As usual, you miss the point by a mile. Believers insist that their faith is enough to tell them their particular deity exists (often while vehemently denying that someone else's faith allows them the same right, of course...)

Having established the equation "I have faith, therefore god", all the other corollaries that flow from this (god created the universe, miracles happen, etc.) are allowed to follow automatically, thus establishing a theocratic view of how the universe works.

And not to mention that Seth was earlier bleating on about those nasty atheists claiming the the evidence for god(s) was "supernatural". If he takes offence at the classification of made up stories as supernatural, then he must be of the view that said bullshit is firmly rooted in the natural realm. Therefore it makes his complaint above totally hollow. As usual.

[pErvinalia]

What's natural theology?

and as for the goodness of the deity, thousands upon thousands of tales of woe happening to the innocent show what drivel the concept of a good god is.

Why?

Because God, if he is real, is clearly a cunt.

[pErvinalia]

It seems to me that religious faith has similarities to being addicted to something. It produces a warm inner glow (a little like gin, I suppose), one is use to it and comfortable with it. One invents a cloud of rationalisations around the addiction, as after the fact justifications for the emotional high...

Sounds like a pretty spot on analogy to me.

[pErvinalia]

The reason that I understand this is because at one stage of my life I experienced phenomena that I could not explain as a part of religious worship which shook my foundation in rationality and reality. I still cannot adequately explain the source of those phenomena..

You got high on gun oil??

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

Unless their show of faith yields some evidence to them to which you are not privy that makes their claim valid...

Private evidence is no evidence at all, in the sense that it cannot be judged by others.

I could claim that I have evidence, springing from my secret mind powers, which tell me that rEv is actually an alien from Arcturus IV, here to judge humanity on its many failings...

You are not privy to my special evidence, but, from your statement, you must not disbelieve it...

And besides, it's fucking true!!

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

Nonsense. Evidence is evidence. Whether you get to subject it to scientific analysis does not change the existence or nature of the evidence. A blood sample from a murderer at the scene of the crime is evidence even if the investigator overlooks it and it's never analyzed.

Complete nonsense. Evidence only counts when it presented in public, to be judged.

Counts for what? Are you under the mistaken impression that people of faith have some duty to present their evidence for public scrutiny?

they should be when their bullshit affects society and public policy. They can believe in any nonsense they want, but when they start trying to force people to live a certain way with no evidence at all to back them up, they can get a fucking chainsaw up themselves.

Evidence is evidence. That you don't understand it or haven't seen, or don't believe it, it doesn't make it cease to exist as evidence.

yeah, but it also makes it totally fucking worthless to anyone but the deluded individual that dreamed it up. I.e. it's not evidence... it's indistinguishable from mental psychosis and lying and all host of other undesirable human traits and afflictions.