I have been pondering this the last few days and figured that I should make a thread. I'm sure most of you have had the same thought with the exception of most theists. The 3 major religions I am referring to are Christianity, Judism, and Islam. Each one of them having their own Holy Book which stresses the importance of Faith. Faith is a confident belief in a truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. In this case, "God" and "God's Will" outlined in the scriptures. Each use this concept of Faith just the same. You must believe before the truth presents itself. You must trust in "God" then "He" will answer. You must open your heart to let "God" in. Each Faith cleary goes against the definition of Logic yet this still has no bearing on their profession. Here's a question. All the Christians, Jews and Muslims of the World believe in their "God" blindly through Faith. All equally the same. A Christian Loves his "God" just as much as the next Jew or Muslim love theirs. They all believe just as strongly in their own religion. They all worship just as much as the other. Which one/ones if any go to Heaven? All of them are binded together by Faith but yet disagree on so many levels. How can they disagree and argue and fight and hate when they all have the same answer, Faith. If their Faith proceeds Logic in their mind what makes their Faith right for me and not someone else's Faith? How can Faith even be argueable? Seems to me that truth determined by Faith is subjective therefore perception determines one's truth. How can one argue Faith? They disagree to agree? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :bugeye: :bugeye:
I'm not sure if this is what you're asking, but one of my biggest questions to any theist has always been "when you say you have experienced Christ/God/Mohammed (Christianity/Judaism/Islam) and have deep faith in it - how are you completely sure of yourself when I can present just as many of a different religion with the EXACT same belief and faith and experience as you?"
Lightbeing, The answer is that faith cannot answer any questions, it is outside of reason and those who choose such an approach are simply guilty of unsound reasoning, irrational and illogical if you like. This is the crux of the atheist vs theist argument. The age old argument of faith vs reason. Cris
Okay, this has gone along the paths of mixed meanings long enough. The term faith is not a specific enough term to use in this discussion. Faith just means to trust something. The mere word "faith" does not imply that there is no reason for the trust you have in something. At the same time, of course, there does not need to be a reason behind your faith. Just like you can trust someone because they have proved themselves trustworthy, or you can trust them just because you are a trusting person. I have faith that if I sit on this chair, that it will hold my weight. The reasons for that faith is that it appears to be sturdy, and I sat in it the day before. In the same way, when I was coming to Christianity, after I had found solid answers to the questions I posed to the Bible and the Christian faith without fail for over a year, I had faith that future questions would be solidly answered as well--and they have. So in a way, God had to first prove Himself to me before I believed in Him. That is my faith. I know that there are Christians who just believe, or say that you first have to believe before there is evidence, or any reason to. However, this is not what the Bible sets as an example. The people who are faithful are given reason for their faith first. God introduces Himself to the people in the Old Testament with the things He has done for them already--giving them reason to trust Him. The only thing really asked of the followers of Christianity is to seek God. Having faith in Him happens when He has proven Himself faithful.
Found something interesting a while a ago that may apply here. http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/funda.htm I dont believe that an entirely logical or entirely intuitive approach is best. An entirely logical approach is devoid of possibility and inspiration. An entirely intuitive or faith-full approach and whats to prevent you from stepping in front of a bus? I think all humans have a spiritual / intuitive side that needs to be dealt with and incorporated for them to be healthy and complete. Everybody needs to come to terms with this for themselves and you dont have to sacrifice your rationality to do it. I like this qoute: You yourself have to be the master and the pupil. The moment you acknowledge another as a master and yourself as a pupil, you are denying truth. There is no master, no pupil, in the search for truth. -Krishnamurti's Talks Benares-India 1949 (Verbatim Report) p.37
dan, As usually occurs when the term faith is discussed. I agree unless its specific variation is carefully defined, as in ‘religious faith’ for example. Which I will explain in a moment. That is an oversimplification and one I think you have chosen because it suits your theistic position. This variation is just one of many that can be found in any good quality dictionary. But even then there is no consistency in definitions. If one does not have a reason for an action then such a decision would, by your assertion, be unreasonable. I think your assertion is not supported by reality. Most people I know do have a reason for their actions and when they do not take an action it is usually because they saw no reason to take any action. People just don’t run their lives doing things for no reason. And in the first example you are demonstrating that some form of evidence or proof is involved in this form of faith. Other examples would include a faith in one’s doctor because you know he is either well qualified or has come highly recommended, either way you have some reason or evidence to have faith in such people. But choosing to trust someone because that is your nature often results in gullibility and one who is easily duped. Yes we agree. And this is where we part company and where the boundary between atheism and theism clash violently. While the evidence criteria for determining a sturdy chair, or a doctor’s abilities, or a friend’s record, are easy to determine, i.e. they are factual, the same cannot be said for the existence of a god. All the examples we have listed here of evidence include some form of physical proof or observation. No such thing can be claimed for a god since such things are allegedly invisible and immaterial and hence defy all attempts to prove through scientifically acceptable standards. In this sense we must clearly distinguish between conventional faith where proofs and evidence are often used as in every day life and are based on factual evidence, and between this qualitatively and very different form of faith that I describe here as religious faith that cannot be tested through physical facts. Here I think your attempt to use everyday faith as if it is also valid for religions fails completely. And that I understand. The problem is that you have not used a system of proof that is independently and universally accepted, such as scientific proof that has shown its worth countless times, i.e. we have proof that scientific proofs are realistic. What you have done is to prove to yourself based on your personal criteria. Your claim to proof is of no value to anyone other than yourself. And I understand that you have every right to find that perfectly acceptable. I suspect we could both agree that the sun exists, we agree on the same criteria, but your alleged proof of a god is of no value to me, or others like me, since we disagree on the criteria for such a proof. Also, without independent verifiable physical evidence how do you know that your firmly held belief is any different from a perfect delusion? I think here the term ‘reason’ is not well defined. In the case of rational thought then reason is something logically determined which in turn depends on facts again. I think here I am questioning the quality of what you would call a reason. One reason for believing in a god and an afterlife is that it makes me feel good and reduces my fear of death etc. But if a god does not exist then such a reason has no value. If the reasons for believing are to have any value then they should be based on truths. And that brings us to how to determine truth. From my perspective truth rests on factual evidence. My perception is that your criterion does not depend on any factual evidence; again the clash between theism and atheism. You said above – So are these solid answers based on your personal criteria or are they good enough to stand up to independent critical analysis. I strongly suspect they do not have any real substance, and I firmly doubt you could quote anything that could withstand your claim of SOLID. However, I doubt you will obtain true independent critical analysis from anyone here, apart from James perhaps. Take care Cris
Tyler, Exactly, another example would be how can one theist damn another theist to hell or claim that the other is wrong when they both fall back on the same concept, Faith? Cris, Faith doesn't answer any of my questions. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how and why it answer thiest's questions. I can sit here and argue all day and bascially prove that they are being completely illogic by the very definition of it but for some reason in their eyes can't compete with their Faith hence the Post Subject. Just seems twisted to me specially when I see Faith argueing against Faith.
Varying perspective here You ever wonder if people kept their faith on those before them? That they trust what the scriptures state? You believe that the truth has already been seen, but just it has not been presented to you directly and you have not experienced such yet. Faith can't be argued against, it is a conviction. Ever thought that faith was not meant to answer questions? But rather it is a conviction and trust that the question has already been answered - but just not with you? Say my mother did see my grandfather's ghost, and I have faith in her. Because of such a conviction, I believe in her, and thus leads me to believe in God. That is what faith is mostly about - trust. Do you trust someone that claims to see visions of God? What if it were your closest atheistic friend/relative? Would you have faith in them? Hope you open your mind a little, thanks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Chosen, I think you are missing my point. Basically my question is how can one theist argue their Faith against another theist's Faith? How can one argue their perception of "God" against another's perception? This really doesn't have anything to do with the subject. By the way I don't consider myself an athiest or a thiest.
Ok, well I can give you my explaination but I maybe off the topic or maybe not. I do like to let every one know that I look at an athiest with respect, since he/she "questions" they question the facts they questions the faith. They can think and they are constantly thinking and thats what I believe in to "Raising a Question" And ask "why". Now let me say this, accoding to Islam, first muslims don't feel Mohammad (pbuh) in them like in Christian faith we see that on TV or in churches. He was a last prophet and he brought a Holy book like Moses or Jesus. They were all Prophets. There always have been the same religion,one religion. Worship One and only one God. No shares, no sons, doughters or cousins. If you look at all three religion they all are trying to enforce the same thing even Jesus mention many times to worship their father above. Now humans changed the message as we can see many time in Bible. Now in OT same message is very clear aswell. One God, certain guide lines to spend life. Now comes Quran the last Holy book and yet again it tries to convey the same message. It mentions Jews and Christians as people of the Book. A muslim is not a muslim unless he or she will believe that there was a Jesus and Moses and other Prophets send down by God, and christianity and Judhaism were the same religions send by God with the same message. Later manipulated by humans. They fight, they aruge and they kill, Human nature I suppose. Even two brothers can fight and kill each other. Mom kills their children and kids kill their parents. Now faith and religion is a tool to justify their deeds. Even if it is against it. All of them are binded together by Faith but yet disagree on so many levels. How can they disagree and argue and fight and hate when they all have the same answer, Faith. Is it really faith that is the answer? I think it is important that what you put ur faith in. In this case they are bit different. Muslims believe in God of or Father or Jesus but christan don't beleive in muslim God. Muslims have to believe in Christianity and Judhaism to be muslim. Interesting isn't it?. I don't think you asked the right thing. They are all binded by faith? I don't know about that, then every one is binded by faith. They all have faith in one religion or other. Hiduism, Budhaism etc etc. They all can be part of them too. Christianity is no longer monotheists religion as we can see today. All that trinity and stuff. But islam is untouched so far from so called modification, you can point out many of so called errors but the truth is you can find any Quran any where and it will be the same and that is not the case with other 2 religions. Anyways that's not the point but the point is, I don't think that they are binded by the faith becuase they don't have the same faithhat. If I am making any sense to you?
Ofcoarse they are not binded together by same Faith. They are binded together by the concept of Faith. The idea of it. That's what makes them similar. I just find it hard to believe that one can argue their differences through Faith.
Hey sorry Yes, I did go a little awry on my post...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But the point I was trying to divulge was if faith is mostly about trust, how can one argue their trust over another's? You can't simple argue over convictions, people that do so should realize they will get a diminutive amount of accomplishment if not any at all. Since I trust my God, everything my God says must be right, therefore your God is wrong and mine, right. Same scenario the other theist may counter-state, there is basically nothing to gain, convictions are convictions, and are not meant to be debated over - that's why there are facts, reality, and truth. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And that is why, you keep them to yourself unless you seriously *just* want to express them and not to convince. Thanks.
Hey there, let me take a stab at this... ============================================== LIGHTBEING wrote: Here's a question. All the Christians, Jews and Muslims of the World believe in their "God" blindly through Faith. All equally the same. A Christian Loves his "God" just as much as the next Jew or Muslim love theirs. They all believe just as strongly in their own religion. They all worship just as much as the other. Which one/ones if any go to Heaven? ============================================== I believe in Jesus Christ as the way to Heaven. You will note that Muhammed never claimed to be God. Jesus did. Muhammed never performed miracles. Jesus did. In fact, Jesus is the only founder of a major religion that claimed to be God and rose from the dead. Result? Many believe he is the only way. ============================================== LIGHTBEING wrote: All of them are binded together by Faith but yet disagree on so many levels. How can they disagree and argue and fight and hate when they all have the same answer, Faith. ============================================== Christians are commanded to love our enemies. In other words, hatred of each other is not condoned. You will notice a glaring difference between Muslims and Christians. You dispute faith, but why is faith now considered bad? Do you not exercise "faith" in the Doctor when you go into surgery? What about air travel. It takes faith to let someone fly you 30,000 feet into the air (did you personally inspect the aircraft?). We use faith with our spouses too. It is faith based on logic. Not only that, bur scientists are some of the most "faithful" people known to man. Willing to believe in macro-evolution without empirical evidence of it, while simultaneously chiding Christians for doing the same thing. ============================================== LIGHTBEING wrote: If their Faith proceeds Logic in their mind what makes their Faith right for me and not someone else's Faith? How can Faith even be argueable? ============================================== Who said faith preceded logic? On the contrary, the Bible encourages us to be convinced. To be convinced, one must reason. To reason, one must use logic. After all this, comes faith. ============================================== LIGHTBEING wrote: Seems to me that truth determined by Faith is subjective therefore perception determines one's truth. How can one argue Faith? They disagree to agree? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :bugeye: :bugeye: ============================================== One argues faith using reason and logic. You'll drive across a concrete and steel suspension bridge. Why? Is it because you have *blind* faith? Or because you logically reason that it is safe due to safety standards required by law, professional craftsmanship, and other factors? *Blind* faith would be like driving across a suspension bridge made of butter. -Mike
Not according to this quote: Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. Seems to me that he was trying to tell this man that he wasn't "God" and that there is only one "God"...............that is ofcoarse unless you have another Bible quote to contradict this one Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm not trying to dispute Faith???? I never considered it bad either???? This is obviously not the same kind of Faith that this subject is referring to. You think it is reasonable to believe that "God" came down from heaven as a Human. You think it is reasonable that Jesus shed his blood for the entire human race to pay for our sins. You think it is reasonable that he rose from the tomb and ascended back to heaven? You have no evidence to back this up. You have a book that tells you to believe this through Faith. You don't need evidence to make a reasonable decision. Faith determines your conclusion. If you were convinced through reason and logic why would you need Faith? Why would it be one of the most important words in the religious vocabulary? No they don't. This doesn't apply to this thread. Again, I'm not trying to argue Faith. I never stated Faith was bad. This is not what the thread is about?
Ekim, No. If you have used reason and logic to reach a conclusion then you are not using faith or have any need of faith. Here you are effectively using reason. If you then call it faith then that is simply using the incorrect term. Well said. But you have used reason and not faith. If you use the term faith to describe this then such usage is simply not precise as typical of many human activities and word usage. Yes I agree. But true faith is identical to blind faith, there is no need to qualify faith with blind. The term faith is always stressed when referencing religious beliefs specifically because there is no support for more precise reason or logic to operate. Cris
Lightbeing, Trying to return to your original question. Without a factual basis for a claim and with the belief that such evidence is not required then all that is left are imaginative ideas. While such ideas often lead scientists to explore the universe and find evidence and perhaps eventually make superb discoveries, other ideas end nowhere and are indistinguishable from delusions or fantasies. Without facts an idea has no real value. Combine that with an erroneous belief that such fantasies do reflect truth then we can see why we have a large number of conflicting and inconsistent claims. If we also realize that human imagination spawns an almost limitless supply of fantasies and fictions (just look at the large fiction section in any library or book store) then it is not too difficult to see how some people without a firm grasp on reality will tend to confuse fiction with reality. The conflicts we see between religions are simply fights between rival fantasies. And there is little point trying to argue with a fantasy, or more precisely there is little value arguing with someone who is prepared to believe a fantasy as if it were true. Cris
I agree but still my original question has not been answered. This post was mainly directed at theist but for some reason they can't answer the question. Maybe they don't understand it themselves. How can Faith be argueable?
I love this technique. The atheist asks a question. The theist answers. Then the atheist says "You still haven't answered my question". So the theist tries again. To which the atheist asks "Can't any theist answer my question?" Give me a break. What do you want a slide presentation? Powerpoint? You (an atheist) asked about faith I (a theist) answered you. So don't give me this "for some reason they can't answer the question" rot. I answered your simplistic question. Shall I answer it again? So you can claim I still didn't answer it? Rather than type it all up again just click on this link: http://www.sciforums.com/t9715/s/showthread.php?s=&postid=143025#post143025 That will take you to my reply to your question about faith. Just because you don't like the answer, don't claim a theist didn't answer. Just say you disagree and move on. -Mike
