Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Irrespective of the etymology of the term, Jan, it now means what it means. Deal with it and move on. It is a side issue to this entire debate, one in which you are still trying to dance around any actual issue.
This is the crux. The OP is about faith and the concept of God is not away from it. As soon as I, as theist, say that God exists, then you as an atheist would ask for objective evidence, and most likely you will be able to counter the best possible argument in favor of existence of God. The discussion will come out of the domain of faith. Pl note for a theist existence of God is not at all a consideration. And there are no gradings, except possibly fanatic fundamentalists, we have theists and atheists, no hard or soft theist. I want to ask a question to all those who claim to be atheist....faith based. God bless all but let us suppose someone young is terminally sick and medical science has given up hopes, and a respectable friendly well wisher suggests visit to xyz shrine or temple or church or mosque etc and the patient will be cured. Will the atheist not do this ? Will he remain adamant ?
I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't presume to make that decision for someone else, nor would I encourage it. But I personally find the notion offensive that God couldn't heal the person wherever they are, and having that power, hasn't done so already. Faith healing is also BS.
So the question is why I am a theist and why you are an atheist I really don't know, I really don't know when and how I became theist, if at all there is any such step called becoming a theist. Its probably my upbringing, childhood exposure etc but one thing is sure I was never called upon to choose and neither did I make any thoughtful choice. So why and how are you an atheist ? Any atheist can jut in.
You did not answer the question about the patient. It is known that atheist may find many related aspects as BS, but will you take that patient to church etc ? Say you don't and the patient dies, will you not think even once that, oh I should have.
Never decided to be an atheist. I was raised in a Christian home, my family are still Christians. In my mid 20s I embarked on serious bible study, and after that I realized I didn't believe it anymore. The more I learned about it the less plausible it all seemed.
So you did an objective analysis. You sought evidence and plausibility for what you read. The problem is that a theist is very much capable of doing the same thing and coming to the same conclusion, but then it no longer remains a question of faith.
Well, can you really compare ? Once I claim the truth, then I am prepared to substantiate that. But thats not required with faith. Prove your faith is no argument against.
If that's their dying wish, sure I would take them to church. If they didn't express their desire to go to a church or shrine, then no, I would never second guess a decision not to, since it's total nonsense. No fatal disease was ever cured by a visit to some holy place. Reports of miracles appeal to the gullible. Follow up on them specifically, and you will see that there's nothing there.
To a person of faith, ''truth'' is how they view their faith, even if that truth is considered subjective to outsiders.
I know the OP is about faith, and not all faith need be faith in God. Secondly, the issue of existence was purely raised in relation to defining what a theist is, and what an atheist is. Nothing more. That it has sidetracked this thread for a while is simply due to differences of opinion in that regard. Whether or not an atheist would ask for evidence of God's existsence or not would depend upon the context of the thread. If it is a thread where such is to be taken for granted, or assumed up front, then no one would ask. But this is a thread about faith, and in order for some to understand it they have to understand what it is you have faith in, and why. And since all theism, at its core, is a belief in the existence of God, with faith/belief IN God deriving from that (whether this latter aspect is primary in the mind of the theist or not, I would say that the issue of existence is rather important to the understanding. It is the hurdle over which atheists can not jump. I quite agree. Theism and atheism are digital positions: theists believe that God exists. Atheists have no such belief. But there are subsets of atheists and subsets of theists: the atheist who goes further than non-belief and actually believes that God does not exist; the theist who believes in the existence of God but otherwise the issue has no bearing on their lives, no belief IN God etc. But these are additions to the core notions/definitions of theism and atheism. Why do you think the atheist would not do this? Have you never done something you could see little point in just to please someone else? Married people do this all the time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As such, I would leave it up to the young person to decide and then honour their wishes as best I could without placing that person in harms way. Since I see no harm in going to a church, mosque, shrine, then of course I would go if that is what the person wanted. Just because I personally see no benefit is really neither here nor there, and there is always the possibility of psychological benefit to the person, a placebo effect, even if such just eases their suffering (mental or otherwise) temporarily.
You accept that is what it means, and as such you have come to believe it, most probably because without it you have no justification for your atheism (without God). Your 'lack of evidence' claim will only accept the physical manifestation of God, as you simply argue against any and every type of reasoning about God. Knowing that a physical manifestation of God is not likely to manifest on the request of a theist, you justify you world view. This cannot be a side issue regarding this debate, because the atheist will affirm that religious faith is distinct from faith, then this becomes the standard. The atheist will sneak in 'religious faith' and 'theism' are the same thing. The atheist will then maintain that the faith of the theist is faith purely in the existence of God, knowing that the theist most probably cannot physically manifest God. The theistic faith therefore appears to be based on something that the theist cannot manifest, buffering the reason for the difference between theistic faith and faith in general. It is tantamount that the atheist include existence in the definition of 'theism', which is why you will always affirm that despite the reasoning from theists themselves. Faith is simply faith, whether it be faith in God, or faith in yourself. It is a fact that existence is not at all an issue with theism, only atheism. jan.
That is exactly the tactic. I'm quite sure you will not get a straight forward answer, but let's see. jan.
Another trick. Truth remains truth regardless of knowledge of it. What he has done here is assume that truth and faith are in the same category, and one must choose between them. If you take the bait by actually choosing, you have been trapped. Because now you accept that truth and faith two separate branches, and the faithful substitute faith for truth. The atheist has already established (sneaked in) the idea that 'faith' is belief in something without evidence (when it comes to theism), so when you choose faith over truth, you abandon truth for something that you have absolutely no evidence in, making you look stupid. When you realise the game, and wish to correct the atmosphere which was built up around you, they accuse you of back-peddaling. Advice; Don't fall for it. jan.
I accept that that is what it means because the vast majority of what I read on the matter, dictionaries as well, takes this to be the most fundamental aspect of what the position entails. My justification for holding the position I hold is irrespective of the label that you wish to attach to it. It just happens to be labelled "atheist". Heck, if the label is what you have issue with then feel free to actually argue against what the person's actual position is, not the label. Can you do that? My worldview is that everything within the universe appears to be material/physical or related thereto, and run through an ordered structure of fundamental laws. You show me one thing that does not fit within this worldview, that requires there to be something else, and you may be on to something. Otherwise you are simply moaning that we don't believe what you are saying and then blaming us for your inability to convince us. Whether or not theism is belief in the existence of God / belief that God exists, or belief IN God is indeed a side issue. As is the definition of atheism: neither change the actual things that people have faith in, believe in, or don't believe in. Only if you want to ignore what people say and instead argue against what you think their label means does it have relevance. I do so enjoy reading your straw men. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please indicate where in this thread anyone has equated religious faith with theism? Please indicate where in this thread anyone has said that the faith of the theist is faith purely in the existence of God. If all you intend to do is argue against yourself and not actually listen to what people say, feel free but exclude me from such nonsense as it is an utter wast of time. Ask a theist whether they believe God to exist or not, and 100% of them will say that they do. As a theist whether they believe IN God and not 100% will do so. The vast majority of dictionaries support the definition that theism is the belief that God exists. Again, deal with it. No, not all faith is simply faith - I.e. There are differences between faith supported by objective evidence that anyone can see, and faith that is purely subjective. It is an issue in as much as it is at the core of what the theist also believes, and it is the one and only belief that links all theists. If the theist doesn't actually think about the existence of God because to them it is a given, then so be it, no one is disputing it. So, can we get back on track, please? And are you going to respond to the issues I raised previously, which you have already been reminded of once? Or are you going to continue to ignore, and thus avoid any actual fruitful discussion?
Somewhere above you have spoken about "faith supported by objective evidence"..what is that ? There is no such thing, that is not faith, that is truth.
Translation: Don't fall for logic. It's a game theists can't play without undermining theism. Explanation: Without evidence, how do you know something is true? Religious faith is exactly belief without evidence. Without any physical manifestation of a deity and it's actions, there can be no difference between it existing and not existing. The statement "truth remains truth regardless of knowledge of it" is trivial and irrelevant. Without knowledge of what is likely to be true, we can't trust any statement that might be true or might be false. Faith is the desire for something to be true. "Not falling for it" means not accepting the principle that we should believe things shown as likely to be true, which is the basis of empirical science, a branch of philosophy.
