Is Religious Faith just another Religious Myth

[ideologyhunter]

You guys have so much faith in your own hype.

Yeah, I guess that distinguishes us from the followers of the Great Religions of Man.

 

[remez]

Oh, dear.

Have I been providing evidence and reasoning?

Not when I made the comment 'Oh, dear.'' Prior to that you appeared to be denying the given definition of faith, a conviction held without the support of evidence.

Which is fundamentally the definition of faith given in the Gospels;

''Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen'' - Hebrews 11:1

parsed below.......

Not when I made the comment 'Oh, dear.'' Prior to that you appeared to be denying the given definition

NOT WHEN???????

ABSOLUTELY WHEN.....I provided several scientific evidences.....you just ignored them all to play your get out of reason card. All the while (for years) you have been ignoring all the evidence and reasoning I was providing so that you could so faithfully hold to your faith in faith as a defeater. Like wow already. Didn’t Dawkins say that faith was a belief in something against the evidence? Hence my comment to your persistent ignore of my evidence. …great example. Get it now?

Which is fundamentally the definition of faith given in the Gospels;

So you and some other atheists believe…. in this limited understanding of faith. Ignores the obvious distinction between faith “that” and faith “in” throughout the gospels. Ignorance is your weapon against the actual evidence I keep presenting. It’s your get out of reason card. DBT doesn't have to reason with remez because remez has “faith”.

''Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen'' - Hebrews 11:1

You just stepped in it. BIG TIME. First Hebrews is not a gospel. But more importantly…. What is assurance? What is CONVICTION?
Try this

Hebrews 11:1 King James Version (KJV)
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

EVIDENCE?

So at this point.... the real question is......

Have I challenged your faith in faith yet?
Serious question.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What a dodge…….

You took acceptation to some insignificant adjective (insulting) to avoid the reasoning. So simply drop it. It had absolutely no bearing on the reasoning I addressed.

Another dodge.
All arguments need to be semantically correct. So what?
Is the clever argument reasonable?

It's nothing different than a first cause argument that is self-contradictory and begs the question.

Simple assertion. Try something new and provide your reasoning as to why it begs the question? Or is self-contradictory? You won’t be able to.

If you don't agree for reasons of personal or religious truth that's okay with me.

I don’t agree because you are dodging your burden to present reason for your groundless assertions that you magically believe are true.
A few posts back (post 85) I gave you a way out after destroying your reasoning in post 83, because it seemed like you waved the white flag in post 84. Since you have continued on with the debate it has now become apparent that you dodged post 83. If you are going to continue then be fair and address post 83 rather than continuing to repeat your same bad reasoning.

So you chose not to deal with the gist of my post and instead wish to peddle some emotional twaddle?

Here's the relevant part of my last reply to which you did not respond.

Are you aware that science is a branch of philosophy? It is called Natural Philosophy. And there are different philosophical truths, science deals with objective truth as opposed to personal truth or political truth or religious truth of whatever other truth you want to discuss.

You had stated that truth should be determined based on philosophy so I thought you might have some thoughts here.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You guys have so much faith in your own hype.

Yeah, I guess that distinguishes us from the followers of the Great Religions of Man.

I haven't given up on remez. Anyone who claims absolute certainty only does so because they have doubts. If they weren't so conflicted they would be dealing in reasonable certainty. But dealing in reasonable certainty threatens their religious foundation so they avoid it.

 

[DBT]

Not when I made the comment 'Oh, dear.'' Prior to that you appeared to be denying the given definition of faith, a conviction held without the support of evidence.

Which is fundamentally the definition of faith given in the Gospels;

''Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen'' - Hebrews 11:1

parsed below.......

Not when I made the comment 'Oh, dear.'' Prior to that you appeared to be denying the given definition

NOT WHEN???????

ABSOLUTELY WHEN.....I provided several scientific evidences.....you just ignored them all to play your get out of reason card. All the while (for years) you have been ignoring all the evidence and reasoning I was providing so that you could so faithfully hold to your faith in faith as a defeater. Like wow already. Didn’t Dawkins say that faith was a belief in something against the evidence? Hence my comment to your persistent ignore of my evidence. …great example. Get it now?

Which is fundamentally the definition of faith given in the Gospels;

So you and some other atheists believe…. in this limited understanding of faith. Ignores the obvious distinction between faith “that” and faith “in” throughout the gospels. Ignorance is your weapon against the actual evidence I keep presenting. It’s your get out of reason card. DBT doesn't have to reason with remez because remez has “faith”.

''Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen'' - Hebrews 11:18

You just stepped in it. BIG TIME. First Hebrews is not a gospel. But more importantly…. What is assurance? What is CONVICTION?
Try this

Hebrews 11:1 King James Version (KJV)
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

EVIDENCE?

So at this point.... the real question is......

Have I challenged your faith in faith yet?
Serious question.

The question makes no sense. I have no faith in faith. I'm not sure why you'd think I do. You haven't explained.

Nor does your 'scientific evidences' support your faith.

Plus I didn't mean to say that Hebrews 11:1 is in the gospels, I meant the NT as a whole. I should have noticed.

The point was that Hebrews 11:1 tells us that faith is its own justification, it's own 'evidence.' In other words, a belief held without the support of evidence.

 

[remez]

So you chose not to deal with the gist of my post and instead wish to peddle some emotional twaddle?

Here's the relevant part of my last reply to which you did not respond.

Are you aware that science is a branch of philosophy? It is called Natural Philosophy. And there are different philosophical truths, science deals with objective truth as opposed to personal truth or political truth or religious truth of whatever other truth you want to discuss.

You had stated that truth should be determined based on philosophy so I thought you might have some thoughts here.

I didn’t quote it but I addressed it in my reference to post 83. Because to me you are STILL attempting to reason that only atheists, because of science (assumed science is only for atheists) have OBJECTIVE truth. And religious folks are only subjective/magical because they reason further than science. I definitely addressed this with you earlier. In your prior post to me it was the part you ignored because you became distracted with my insignificant adjective “insulting”. That is what I was referring to there.

As you admitted above science is a subset of philosophy. Philosophy has the greater scope of power to justify belief. Science is one the very best ways to justify belief. But it is not the only way and science isn’t owned solely by atheistic reasoning. We each use science to support our beliefs.
So
If I didn’t just address what you were looking for there AGAIN by repeating myself for a third time…..then be specific as to what you want.
Also please give caution……
Your use of the word truth is too vague. You could possibly be equivocating by inferring absolute truth/knowledge sometimes and justified true belief (which is not absolute certain knowledge) at other times. Again epistemology.

So NOW post 83…..Are you going to rescue your assertion that the law of conservation supports a past eternal universe or not? Do you (being scientifically literate) still maintain that you have more science supporting a past eternal universe than the science I offered to support a past finite universe? Are you going dodge that again? At least I’m attempting to address your concerns. Be Fair.

 

[remez]

You guys have so much faith in your own hype.

Yeah, I guess that distinguishes us from the followers of the Great Religions of Man.

I haven't given up on remez. Anyone who claims absolute certainty only does so because they have doubts. If they weren't so conflicted they would be dealing in reasonable certainty. But dealing in reasonable certainty threatens their religious foundation so they avoid it.

T.G.G. Moogly……..I addressed this with you in post 83 as well. I clearly and repeatedly told you I’m not claiming absolute belief.
Also…..
I have asked to repeatedly to point out where I was conflicted. The only conflicts I see you have with me is that you have a blind faith that I’m asserting absolute certainty. And that you infer that my reasoning is subjective/magic because all of my reasoning is not purely scientific, which it does not have to be.

Again you going to rescue your reasoning in post 83? Or once again dodge it by falsely asserting that it was emotion on my part. You are great at assertions, but you can’t back them up. You never even try. Perhaps that is your silent way to concede. Now that is bait.

 

[remez]

.....I provided several scientific evidences.....you just ignored them all to play your get out of reason card. All the while (for years) you have been ignoring all the evidence and reasoning I was providing so that you could so faithfully hold to your faith in faith as a defeater. Like wow already. Didn’t Dawkins say that faith was a belief in something against the evidence? Hence my comment to your persistent ignore of my evidence. …great example. Get it now?
……
….
Have I challenged your faith in faith yet?

The question makes no sense. I have no faith in faith. I'm not sure why you'd think I do. You haven't explained.

I’ll try again…..in short I am the evidence that opposes your belief about faith.
Here……
Using your definition revved up to Dawkins……faith is not only belief w/o evidence and reasoning, but belief against evidence and reasoning.
Good? That makes it even harder for me because it is even stronger.
So…..
I’m a theist. One you would consider a man of faith.
However…….
I have for years provided loads and evidence and reasoning for my belief that God exists.
Thus……….
I am direct evidence against your belief on faith. Yet even in the face of that evidence (me) you still believe that your reasoning on faith is correct.
Therefore…..
YOU are the one believing against the evidence (me)…..which is according to you is faith.
So again……

Have I challenged your faith in faith yet?

Further……….

Nor does your 'scientific evidences' support your faith.

BIG SLIP there, be careful, because that is not open for further reasoning according to your reasoning.
Because…….
According to you I can have no evidences and reasons to begin with because I have faith. The moment you begin to challenge any evidences or reasons I present for my belief, you would affirming that I have reasons and evidence for my belief, which logically contradicts your reasoning on faith. It's really that obvious.
Again…
It’s your get out of reason card.

So where does that leave you and I? Well you have your get out of reason card so there is nothing more really to reason. Unless you revise your reasoning on faith. Should you do that we could then we discuss if my evidence and reasoning is reasonable.

 

[steve_bank]

No hand-waving on the line of scrimmage. You’ve been flagged.

I did more than reject your premise. I countered it. Thus you now have the burden to defend your insulting assertion………………

……against my evidence for a past finite universe. Specifically where was my evidence ignorant or self-deceitful? I provided several scientific supports. Let’s examine what you brought.

I'm a scientifically literate and rational organism that comes to conclusions based on my genetic inheritance and environmental interactions.

We’ll see.
I certainly claim the same, despite your apparent blind faith that theism is anti-scientific.
So……
Now let’s examine what we each provided for our perspective positions.
For your past eternal universe you offer……..

If you know anything about the universe you would know that all matter/energy is conserved. That's not an assertion, that is basic science. The way you think about the universe having a beginning is the same as an ice cube in my freezer having a beginning as water. If it pleases you to get all semantically happy then you can say that your universe began at the big bang just like I can say that my ice cube began when I put water in the freezer. You should brush up on your science.

Very weak but your insults add a nice touch. Offering something that weak and then insulting my scientific prowess is priceless.

Here is where your weak evidence and reasoning fails…..

The first law of thermodynamics is a law of nature, and therefore is a physical law. Physical laws only apply within the arena of the space-time continuum. They can’t apply to the origin of the arena itself. The physical law of conservation logically can’t govern before the beginning of the physical universe or the causal conditions that would bring the physical universe into being, or apply outside the arena of the physical space-time continuum. The physical law of conservation only applies once the physical space-time continuum is in place and exists.

Seriously you’re scientifically literate …So ask yourself……

Why don’t the cosmologists regard the first law as violation of the SBBM?
Serious question.

They are now writing books about a beginning universe. Their efforts to explain it naturally have failed miserably, but their efforts DO acknowledge a past finite universe. The truth with your so called evidence for a past eternal universe is that you bought into some atheistic dogma. That you self-deluded yourself into believing. Just like you asserted that “religious faithers” do in your OP.

So now ……

Let’s examine what you had to say about the evidence and reasoning…….

For example, based upon the available evidence, I reason that the universe (the space time continuum to include all time, space and matter, not Uncle Karl’s pantheistic everything there is, or was or ever shall be.) began to exist. Evidenced by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, the galaxy seeds, relativity, the BGV theorem, etc. So how is that an “uninformed decision?” Seriously it requires more blind faith (belief w/o or against the evidence) to reason that a past eternal universe is remotely plausible. Thus the theistic implications (decisions) of a past finite universe are not “uninformed.” Good luck arguing against the reasoning for a beginning universe.

…..I provided.

?
??
???
What?
Nothing?


You provided absolutely nothing.

But your dogma still piled higher……………….

Ah, the old KLM and beginnings argument. That's been dynamited so many times but I agree with you that if someone told me about how a santa wasn't real and I was a typical four-year-old I'd have plenty of things to bring up in my argument for santa. Look at all those presents! Look at all the kids who testify that they know santa is real! Look at all the parents saying the same thing! Look at all the stories about santa! Look at how the cookies I leave for him get eaten! Look at how those carrots get eaten that I leave for his flying reindeer! Look at all the evidence for my santa!

….and higher. Atheists continually delude themselves that their dreams of a dynamited KCA are real. Some actually have a blind faith that the law of conservation has done the job. No matter what reason is given to them they still have their blind faith that the KCA is dead and buried.
Further……
You claim you’re scientific. Yet your defense is supported by cookies, presents and reindeer. Against my 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, GTR, the BGV theorem, etc. Wake up already.

So at this point, my evidence remains unchallenged and yours has been sacked. Care to try again?
next...........

I'm a consistent fellow who practices certainty in many aspects of my life, same as you. Absolute certainty must have some kind of religious meaning to you. It never comes up in my life. So maybe you mean reasonable certainty. Is that what you mean?

Absolute certainty is only found in mathematics and logic. I can go with your “reasonable certainty” for now. All belief should have sufficient reason. Meaning it is more plausible than the alternatives and beyond a reasonable doubt.
So this…………….

See how being reasonable is different than talking about absolutism? Because I'm a reasonable person and not an absolutist like yourself …..

….is another self-delusion. Yet you seem so ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of yourself.

Sorry if I ignored your question for so long. I've had you on ignore like forever, I think from our first interaction whenever that was, seems like years ago.

It was years ago. You forgot my MO was “tone for tone.” Well thanks for trying. You can put me back on ignore and go rejoin your atheistic cuddle huddle.

WTF? Over...

If nothing else you are prolific.

 

[DBT]

I’ll try again…..in short I am the evidence that opposes your belief about faith.
Here……
Using your definition revved up to Dawkins……faith is not only belief w/o evidence and reasoning, but belief against evidence and reasoning.
Good? That makes it even harder for me because it is even stronger.
So…..
I’m a theist. One you would consider a man of faith.
However…….
I have for years provided loads and evidence and reasoning for my belief that God exists.
Thus……….
I am direct evidence against your belief on faith. Yet even in the face of that evidence (me) you still believe that your reasoning on faith is correct.
Therefore…..
YOU are the one believing against the evidence (me)…..which is according to you is faith.
So again……
Have I challenged your faith in faith yet?

You haven't challenged anything. Your premises are flawed. I don't have 'a belief on faith' - I use the standard definition of faith as related to religion....a definition that is supported in the bible: Hebrews 11:1
.

BIG SLIP there, be careful, because that is not open for further reasoning according to your reasoning.

A minor slip, a trivial slip made in an off the cuff remark. A slip that you seized on and clung to as a means of defense.....even after I acknowledged making the slip and explaining what I meant. Clinging to it even though it is completely irrelevant to the point: the given definition of faith. It wouldn't matter where the quote was located, OT, NT, Gospels, Paul's letters, it is the definition of faith that was the point.

Because…….
According to you I can have no evidences and reasons to begin with because I have faith. The moment you begin to challenge any evidences or reasons I present for my belief, you would affirming that I have reasons and evidence for my belief, which logically contradicts your reasoning on faith. It's really that obvious.
Again…
It’s your get out of reason card.

So where does that leave you and I? Well you have your get out of reason card so there is nothing more really to reason. Unless you revise your reasoning on faith. Should you do that we could then we discuss if my evidence and reasoning is reasonable.

Reason is only as good as the premises upon which it is founded. If your reasoning fine but your premises flawed or unfounded, your conclusion is not necessarily true even if it follows from your premises.

 

[Lion IRC]

You haven't challenged anything. Your premises are flawed. I don't have 'a belief on faith' - I use the standard definition of faith as related to religion....a definition that is supported in the bible: Hebrews 11:1...

Hebrews 11:1 states the bleeding obvious - that we can have faith/trust that an all powerful God can do what He says He will do.

 

[skepticalbip]

WTF? Over...

If nothing else you are prolific.

But Lumpy is still the king on this website of following the old adage, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

Of course Duane Gish is still the world champ with his infamous Gish Gallop.

 

[DBT]

You haven't challenged anything. Your premises are flawed. I don't have 'a belief on faith' - I use the standard definition of faith as related to religion....a definition that is supported in the bible: Hebrews 11:1...

Hebrews 11:1 states the bleeding obvious - that we can have faith/trust that an all powerful God can do what He says He will do.

Hebrews 11:1 tells us the nature of faith as it was believed to be. It can apply to any number of things.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Hebrews 11:1 states the bleeding obvious - that we can have faith/trust that an all powerful God can do what He says He will do.

What are you waiting for? Get your friends together & pray Covid 19 out of existence. Isn't that part of the glorious dispensation?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You haven't challenged anything. Your premises are flawed. I don't have 'a belief on faith' - I use the standard definition of faith as related to religion....a definition that is supported in the bible: Hebrews 11:1...

Hebrews 11:1 states the bleeding obvious - that we can have faith/trust that an all powerful God can do what He says He will do.

Hebrews 11:1 tells us the nature of faith as it was believed to be. It can apply to any number of things.

It sure can because it can be translated to fit whatever dish the reader is serving that day. There's a reason the early christian church murdered people.

 

[steve_bank]

I’ll try again…..in short I am the evidence that opposes your belief about faith.
Here……
Using your definition revved up to Dawkins……faith is not only belief w/o evidence and reasoning, but belief against evidence and reasoning.
Good? That makes it even harder for me because it is even stronger.
So…..
I’m a theist. One you would consider a man of faith.
However…….
I have for years provided loads and evidence and reasoning for my belief that God exists.
Thus……….
I am direct evidence against your belief on faith. Yet even in the face of that evidence (me) you still believe that your reasoning on faith is correct.
Therefore…..
YOU are the one believing against the evidence (me)…..which is according to you is faith.
So again……

Have I challenged your faith in faith yet?

Further……….

Nor does your 'scientific evidences' support your faith.

BIG SLIP there, be careful, because that is not open for further reasoning according to your reasoning.
Because…….
According to you I can have no evidences and reasons to begin with because I have faith. The moment you begin to challenge any evidences or reasons I present for my belief, you would affirming that I have reasons and evidence for my belief, which logically contradicts your reasoning on faith. It's really that obvious.
Again…
It’s your get out of reason card.

So where does that leave you and I? Well you have your get out of reason card so there is nothing more really to reason. Unless you revise your reasoning on faith. Should you do that we could then we discuss if my evidence and reasoning is reasonable.

Reason and logic alone are not suffient, even for science.

Ancient Zog watched the skies and conclude the universe revolves around the Earth. In the day a perfectly logical and reasoned conclusion.

For ancient cultures trying to understand reality without science concluding there is a creator was a perfectly reasoned and logical conclusion.

For ancient cultures trying to understand reality without science concluding all life was winked into existence by a creator was a perfectly reasoned and logical conclusion..

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I’ll try again…..in short I am the evidence that opposes your belief about faith.
Here……
Using your definition revved up to Dawkins……faith is not only belief w/o evidence and reasoning, but belief against evidence and reasoning.
Good? That makes it even harder for me because it is even stronger.
So…..
I’m a theist. One you would consider a man of faith.
However…….
I have for years provided loads and evidence and reasoning for my belief that God exists.
Thus……….
I am direct evidence against your belief on faith. Yet even in the face of that evidence (me) you still believe that your reasoning on faith is correct.
Therefore…..
YOU are the one believing against the evidence (me)…..which is according to you is faith.
So again……

Further……….

BIG SLIP there, be careful, because that is not open for further reasoning according to your reasoning.
Because…….
According to you I can have no evidences and reasons to begin with because I have faith. The moment you begin to challenge any evidences or reasons I present for my belief, you would affirming that I have reasons and evidence for my belief, which logically contradicts your reasoning on faith. It's really that obvious.
Again…
It’s your get out of reason card.

So where does that leave you and I? Well you have your get out of reason card so there is nothing more really to reason. Unless you revise your reasoning on faith. Should you do that we could then we discuss if my evidence and reasoning is reasonable.

Reason and logic alone are not suffient, even for science.

Ancient Zog watched the skies and conclude the universe revolves around the Earth. In the day a perfectly logical and reasoned conclusion.

For ancient cultures trying to understand reality without science concluding there is a creator was a perfectly reasoned and logical conclusion.

For ancient cultures trying to understand reality without science concluding all life was winked into existence by a creator was a perfectly reasoned and logical conclusion..

Let's step back from the religious stage so we can get a really, really good look at what is happening on that stage, take in the entire perspective of human behavior.

The religious people on that stage are not just acting out their religions. If you're a good observer you will see that the overwhelming preponderance of their behavior is about getting on with survival. They're thanking their gods for their food, which takes a few moments, before which they worked an eight hour day, went shopping, prepared a meal, went through the necessary act of eating, cleaned up the kitchen and did a myriad of other rational survival directed things to accomplish their meal. On balance, the religious part isn't even worth mentioning. And that's the key to understanding religion.

Religion is just a fancy trinket. People who spent too much time doing good-luck trinkets and not undertaking mundane survival behavior aren't around anymore. Natural selection has weeded them out. The occasional kook that comes along and thinks he can sit and pray food onto the table doesn't pass on genes, and never did, so they're gone. What has survived are the ones who put religion second, not in word but in deed, in reality.

That's why religion is still around like it is. It isn't about having faith, it's about getting on with survival while keeping a shiny trinket or two in your pocket because you think it brings you good juju.

 

[steve_bank]

They are not just acting out. They are living a reality of gods and demons, the supernatural.

To then it is real.

 

[remez]

You haven't challenged anything. Your premises are flawed. I don't have 'a belief on faith' - I use the standard definition of faith as related to religion....

Operative word …USE. “I USE” meaning I reason.
Thus….
You USE/REASON that which you believe in. So how can you, account for me a theist with reasoning and evidence for what he believes? Am I not a man of faith in your eyes? Do I not present/defend reason and evidence for what I believe? How does that jive with your MISUSE of the word faith?

A minor slip, a trivial slip made in an off the cuff remark. … It wouldn't matter where the quote was located, OT, NT, Gospels, Paul's letters, it is the definition of faith that was the point.

Absolutely none of my comment regarding your slip had anything to do with where Hebrews was in the Bible. It had to do with you finally beginning to address the evidence and reasoning I provided, which you reasoned I could not have in the first place. See the slip? If I have no evidence and reasoning then why are you asserting that my evidence and reasoning are flawed?

(Side pt….not trick…not a gotcha….did you think is was Paul who wrote it. I do…..but I’m not absolutely sure.)

Reason is only as good as the premises upon which it is founded. If your reasoning fine but your premises flawed or unfounded, your conclusion is not necessarily true even if it follows from your premises.

Of course reasoning is to be examined that way. Simply stating the obvious does not make your case that my reasoning is flawed. So why should I believe you when you simply assert that mine is flawed? You have not presented any reasoning as to why the premises are flawed…..nothing…..you just assert they are. That alone does not render the argument flawed.

The argument is sound and valid until you can show that the premises are wrong by something other than assertion or that conclusion does not follow from the premises….that it commits some formal or informal fallacy. Your assertions are hollow. Tell me which premise is wrong and WHY. Name the fallacy and explain WHY it applies. If the KCA is dead then this should be easy for you.

T.G.G. Moogly tried and failed. skepticalbip tried and failed. abaddon like you won't even try, you just assert that it is wrong. So yes Steve I'm having fun

 

[skepticalbip]

They are not just acting out. They are living a reality of gods and demons, the supernatural.

To then it is real.

Yes, to them it is real but to them real means "I really, really believe it is so" rather than the objective meaning of "real" used by the rest of the world.