Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[Shadowy Man]

But nobody's demonstrated that the religious say that their faith is without evidence. That's the whole point of the thread.

Maybe not demonstrated but there is evidence. You just said that the atheists’ belief that faith is belief without evidence has no evidence but it does. For example, a Bible quote that says “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” is evidence for the belief that faith is belief without evidence. You may not consider it to be good or convincing evidence but it is still evidence.

But there is evidence mentioned in that passage. Did you misread it?

Perhaps. The logic could be flawed.

The "evidence of things not seen" is just another way of describing "things hoped for." So the passage can be abbreviated: "...faith is the substance of the evidence of things not seen."

It could also be parsed as “faith is the evidence of things unseen.”

IIn other words the visible faith of Christians is a manifestation (or an evidence) of the invisible things God is doing in their lives.

In any case, the passage is confusing. That's why Christian faith is often explained differently.

Sure, but an atheist can read it, as they have, as implying that faith is without evidence. That mean they have evidence to believe that faith is belief without evidence.

Again, it may not be good or convincing evidence but it is evidence and an atheist is using logic to infer a conclusion from the evidence.

I was willing to admit that a religious person may have evidence for their faith. I may disagree that it is good evidence and that their logic is flawed. You can admit that an atheist may think that faith is belief without evidence and that may be wrong
But you can’t say they don’t have any evidence for that belief.

 

[James Brown]

Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in My Garage"

Such "evidence" — no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it — is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion

 

[Unknown Soldier]

But nobody's demonstrated that the religious say that their faith is without evidence. That's the whole point of the thread.

Maybe not demonstrated but there is evidence. You just said that the atheists’ belief that faith is belief without evidence has no evidence but it does. For example, a Bible quote that says “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” is evidence for the belief that faith is belief without evidence. You may not consider it to be good or convincing evidence but it is still evidence.

But there is evidence mentioned in that passage. Did you misread it?

Perhaps. The logic could be flawed.

I discern no fallacies in that passage.

The "evidence of things not seen" is just another way of describing "things hoped for." So the passage can be abbreviated: "...faith is the substance of the evidence of things not seen."

It could also be parsed as “faith is the evidence of things unseen.”

It's not a good idea to omit the word "substance" because that word brings the idea of faith into the physical world.

IIn other words the visible faith of Christians is a manifestation (or an evidence) of the invisible things God is doing in their lives.

In any case, the passage is confusing. That's why Christian faith is often explained differently.

Sure, but an atheist can read it, as they have, as implying that faith is without evidence. That mean they have evidence to believe that faith is belief without evidence.

I don't see how that passage can be sensibly interpreted as implying that faith is without evidence. To me it says the opposite.

Again, it may not be good or convincing evidence but it is evidence and an atheist is using logic to infer a conclusion from the evidence.

Such an atheist would be committing a non sequitur fallacy because it obviously doesn't follow that if faith is evidence then there is no evidence faith is based on! Would you conclude that there is no truth to Jesus because Jesus is described as "the truth"?

I was willing to admit that a religious person may have evidence for their faith. I may disagree that it is good evidence and that their logic is flawed. You can admit that an atheist may think that faith is belief without evidence and that may be wrong
But you can’t say they don’t have any evidence for that belief.

It sure looks like there's no evidence that faith is belief without evidence. After several inquiries on my part, nobody here has come up with even one religious group that says that faith is belief without evidence.

 

[Shadowy Man]

But nobody's demonstrated that the religious say that their faith is without evidence. That's the whole point of the thread.

Maybe not demonstrated but there is evidence. You just said that the atheists’ belief that faith is belief without evidence has no evidence but it does. For example, a Bible quote that says “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” is evidence for the belief that faith is belief without evidence. You may not consider it to be good or convincing evidence but it is still evidence.

But there is evidence mentioned in that passage. Did you misread it?

Perhaps. The logic could be flawed.

I discern no fallacies in that passage.

I meant that I may have misread it and the logic of the conclusion based on reading it could be false.

The "evidence of things not seen" is just another way of describing "things hoped for." So the passage can be abbreviated: "...faith is the substance of the evidence of things not seen."

It could also be parsed as “faith is the evidence of things unseen.”

It's not a good idea to omit the word "substance" because that word brings the idea of faith into the physical world.

It depends on how one parses the sentence. It could be poor parsing.

IIn other words the visible faith of Christians is a manifestation (or an evidence) of the invisible things God is doing in their lives.

In any case, the passage is confusing. That's why Christian faith is often explained differently.

Sure, but an atheist can read it, as they have, as implying that faith is without evidence. That mean they have evidence to believe that faith is belief without evidence.

I don't see how that passage can be sensibly interpreted as implying that faith is without evidence. To me it says the opposite.

It may not be good logic or good evidence but it is still an interpretation based on evidence and logic. Right? You may not be convinced by it.

Again, it may not be good or convincing evidence but it is evidence and an atheist is using logic to infer a conclusion from the evidence.

Such an atheist would be committing a non sequitur fallacy because it obviously doesn't follow that if faith is evidence then there is no evidence faith is based on! Would you conclude that there is no truth to Jesus because Jesus is described as "the truth"?

Certainly logical fallacies exist. Atheists believe that religious believers make many of them when they apply their “logic” to their “evidence” and come to the conclusion of the their beliefs. But we would both agree that the existence of poor logic does not mean that evidence and logic aren’t being applied. I mean, that’s your claim when you say believers are using evidence and logic. So are some atheists. You just disagree with the results.

I was willing to admit that a religious person may have evidence for their faith. I may disagree that it is good evidence and that their logic is flawed. You can admit that an atheist may think that faith is belief without evidence and that may be wrong
But you can’t say they don’t have any evidence for that belief.

It sure looks like there's no evidence that faith is belief without evidence. After several inquiries on my part, nobody here has come up with even one religious group that says that faith is belief without evidence.

There is evidence. It just may not be convincing to you. Just like your claim that the religious use evidence and logic But atheists aren’t convinced by it.

 

[abaddon]

But there is evidence mentioned in that passage. Did you misread it?

Ugh. The mention of evidence doesn't mean there's evidence. You can't determine there's evidence just because someone says "I have evidence". Evidence is not spoken into existence.

It's not a good idea to omit the word "substance" because that word brings the idea of faith into the physical world.

This is another incomprehension of what a word means due to ignoring the context.

"Substance of things hoped for" does not mean there's 'tangible matter' which the hopes are made out of. It means the hoped-for things are made out of faith.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

It's dated English since it's from the KJV, but here's a simple paraphrase: "Faith is what comprises religious hopes, it's the proof they're true".

There is no reference to the physical world here at all. It's self-referential circularity.

 

[DBT]

But nobody's demonstrated that the religious say that their faith is without evidence. That's the whole point of the thread.

Maybe not demonstrated but there is evidence. You just said that the atheists’ belief that faith is belief without evidence has no evidence but it does. For example, a Bible quote that says “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” is evidence for the belief that faith is belief without evidence. You may not consider it to be good or convincing evidence but it is still evidence.

But there is evidence mentioned in that passage. Did you misread it?

Perhaps. The logic could be flawed.

I discern no fallacies in that passage.

The "evidence of things not seen" is just another way of describing "things hoped for." So the passage can be abbreviated: "...faith is the substance of the evidence of things not seen."

It could also be parsed as “faith is the evidence of things unseen.”

It's not a good idea to omit the word "substance" because that word brings the idea of faith into the physical world.

IIn other words the visible faith of Christians is a manifestation (or an evidence) of the invisible things God is doing in their lives.

In any case, the passage is confusing. That's why Christian faith is often explained differently.

Sure, but an atheist can read it, as they have, as implying that faith is without evidence. That mean they have evidence to believe that faith is belief without evidence.

I don't see how that passage can be sensibly interpreted as implying that faith is without evidence. To me it says the opposite.

Again, it may not be good or convincing evidence but it is evidence and an atheist is using logic to infer a conclusion from the evidence.

Such an atheist would be committing a non sequitur fallacy because it obviously doesn't follow that if faith is evidence then there is no evidence faith is based on! Would you conclude that there is no truth to Jesus because Jesus is described as "the truth"?

I was willing to admit that a religious person may have evidence for their faith. I may disagree that it is good evidence and that their logic is flawed. You can admit that an atheist may think that faith is belief without evidence and that may be wrong
But you can’t say they don’t have any evidence for that belief.

It sure looks like there's no evidence that faith is belief without evidence. After several inquiries on my part, nobody here has come up with even one religious group that says that faith is belief without evidence.

We are told that faith, not evidence, is the substance of things hoped for.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

But there is evidence mentioned in that passage. Did you misread it?

Ugh. The mention of evidence doesn't mean there's evidence.

That's correct, but the issue isn't if Christians have actual evidence but if they say they have actual evidence, and in particular if they say they have evidence to support their faith. From the OP I've argued that some atheists say that the religious say they have no evidence for their beliefs. This claim on the part of atheists is demonstrably false because religious sects like Roman Catholics, evangelical Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses do say they have evidence-based faith.

You can't determine there's evidence just because someone says "I have evidence". Evidence is not spoken into existence.

Look at what I formatted in bold above in what you quoted me saying. Where did I say there is evidence? I actually said there is evidence mentioned, not that there is evidence. Do you see the difference?

It's not a good idea to omit the word "substance" because that word brings the idea of faith into the physical world.

This is another incomprehension of what a word means due to ignoring the context.

I don't ignore context.

"Substance of things hoped for" does not mean there's 'tangible matter' which the hopes are made out of. It means the hoped-for things are made out of faith.

I interpret the "substance" as the visible way Christians live or should live according to their beliefs. Their actions are the substance mentioned. So yes, the substance mentioned is not matter but I suppose is energy and hence part of the physical world. Evidence need not be made out of atoms.

So bad, every time you hear a Christian say they act on their faith, that Christian is saying there's evidence their faith is based upon. You can't see some of God's inspiration, but you can see the result of God's inspiration in Christian activities, or so Christians say. Sure, Christians saying so can be a load of doggy doo, but they say so nevertheless.

I hope I've cleared up any confusion.

 

[abaddon]

I hope I've cleared up any confusion.

No you only repeated some of your confusions.

Ask the atheist who said "no evidence" why he says that instead of "bad evidence". That'd be to the point.

 

[steve_bank]

To summarize the OP theme to date.

Us atheists who tend to be scientific have a faith in science which is based on experimental evidence. The religious faith is based on claimed evidence. Therefore atheists get religion wrong, both science and religion are based on evidence, regardless of the nature of the evidence.

If someone ckaims Jesus speaks to him that is evidice. If a 2000 year old document of unknown authorship says Jesus walked on water and was resurrect from being dead, that is evidnce.

Therefore science and theology are equally credible. That has been a past theist argument on the forum.

All humans use the same faculties of logic and reasoning, that does not make all human reasoning equally credible. Counter argument to that for lack of a better word is silly. It would ignore the lomg histry of human civilization.

Our Seattle progressive city council has absolute faith thatin the name of empathy for criminals and drug users impairing police and alowing public drug use will make things better as it gets worse.

 

[DBT]

Faith doesn't need evidence, which why we are told ''faith is the substance of things hoped for."

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I hope I've cleared up any confusion.

No you only repeated some of your confusions.

Well, I sure tried to reason with you, but it appears to be impossible to do so. I must conclude that many atheists literally fear that many religious people do have the evidence they say they have. The solution to that fear is to insist that religious people have blind faith.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

To summarize the OP theme to date.

Us atheists who tend to be scientific have a faith in science which is based on experimental evidence. The religious faith is based on claimed evidence. Therefore atheists get religion wrong, both science and religion are based on evidence, regardless of the nature of the evidence.

If someone ckaims Jesus speaks to him that is evidice. If a 2000 year old document of unknown authorship says Jesus walked on water and was resurrect from being dead, that is evidnce.

Therefore science and theology are equally credible. That has been a past theist argument on the forum.

All humans use the same faculties of logic and reasoning, that does not make all human reasoning equally credible. Counter argument to that for lack of a better word is silly. It would ignore the lomg histry of human civilization.

Our Seattle progressive city council has absolute faith thatin the name of empathy for criminals and drug users impairing police and alowing public drug use will make things better as it gets worse.

Steve, your profile mentions that you have diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Does that explain why you can't understand what I post? Or are you just afraid of claimed evidence for religious beliefs?

 

[pood]

I hope I've cleared up any confusion.

No you only repeated some of your confusions.

Well, I sure tried to reason with you, but it appears to be impossible to do so. I must conclude that many atheists literally fear that many religious people do have the evidence they say they have. The solution to that fear is to insist that religious people have blind faith.

You should conclude that your arguments, such as they are, are unpersuasive.

 

[pood]

Steve, your profile mentions that you have diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Does that explain why you can't understand what I post? Or are you just afraid of claimed evidence for religious beliefs?

I think he understands better than you do what you post. But nice ad hom.

 

[bilby]

I must conclude that many atheists literally fear that many religious people do have the evidence they say they have.

Have you considered a career in stand-up?

 

[lostone]

I hope I've cleared up any confusion.

No you only repeated some of your confusions.

Well, I sure tried to reason with you, but it appears to be impossible to do so. I must conclude that many atheists literally fear that many religious people do have the evidence they say they have. The solution to that fear is to insist that religious people have blind faith.

Evidence of what? 20-30 or more different viewpoints? You fail to address the issue that religious people have so many different views about what it is that they believe.

 

[pood]

I hope I've cleared up any confusion.

No you only repeated some of your confusions.

Well, I sure tried to reason with you, but it appears to be impossible to do so. I must conclude that many atheists literally fear that many religious people do have the evidence they say they have. The solution to that fear is to insist that religious people have blind faith.

Evidence of what? 20-30 or more different viewpoints? You fail to address the issue that religious people have so many different views about what it is that they believe.

And when asked how he arrived at his conclusions, what sort of study he did, he dismissed the question as ”loaded.“ Yeah, I suppose any time anyone asks, “how did you arrive at your conclusions?” it’s a loaded question because it presupposes that you used evidence to arrive at them.

 

[steve_bank]

To summarize the OP theme to date.

Us atheists who tend to be scientific have a faith in science which is based on experimental evidence. The religious faith is based on claimed evidence. Therefore atheists get religion wrong, both science and religion are based on evidence, regardless of the nature of the evidence.

If someone ckaims Jesus speaks to him that is evidice. If a 2000 year old document of unknown authorship says Jesus walked on water and was resurrect from being dead, that is evidnce.

Therefore science and theology are equally credible. That has been a past theist argument on the forum.

All humans use the same faculties of logic and reasoning, that does not make all human reasoning equally credible. Counter argument to that for lack of a better word is silly. It would ignore the lomg histry of human civilization.

Our Seattle progressive city council has absolute faith thatin the name of empathy for criminals and drug users impairing police and alowing public drug use will make things better as it gets worse.

Steve, your profile mentions that you have diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Does that explain why you can't understand what I post? Or are you just afraid of claimed evidence for religious beliefs?

The last res rt of the incompetent when losing an argumnt, ad hom attack. Now I know I am getting through to you.

You are very Trump like. When losing an argument and being honest will destroy yuiur what yiu are claiming, personal attack.

I wrkerd in a corporate political competitive environment. You are not likely to throw anything at me I have not dealt with before.

When confrontations got personal I argued facts.

So, ca you be honest? Is science faith in exerimntal evdence as credible as theological conclusions?

The tale of The Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind. An emperor becomes convinced his new imaginary clothes hides his nakedness, yet all can see him as he is.

A netahphr for hiding behind transparent equivocation and waffling avoiding the truth?

 

[pood]

Classic ad hom. Pathetic.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The last res rt of the incompetent when losing an argumnt, ad hom attack. Now I know I am getting through to you.

You are very Trump like. When losing an argument and being honest will destroy yuiur what yiu are claiming, personal attack.

Yes. I see that the last resort of the incompetent is a personal attack.

But I'm not really interested in your level of competence. I've already seen it. I just want to know if you find the idea of religious people claiming they have evidence for their beliefs to be objectionable. I think it's a fair question.