Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[Unknown Soldier]

Which is: atheists do not get the idea of faith wrong.

I'm done. You're out. Play games with the other kids.

 

[DBT]

Which is: atheists do not get the idea of faith wrong.

I'm done. You're out. Play games with the other kids.

Sour Grapes. You just ignore or dismiss valid criticisms of faith regardless of what is said. Whether you respond or not is of no concern to me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We're taking the leap of faith that God doesn't exist. We don't have more evidence for this than theists have to work with.

Only insofar as everyone is also taking the leap of faith that slood doesn't exist. You don't even know what slood is? That's OK, nobody else does either, including me.

We have the same evidence for the non-existence of God that we have for the non-existence of slood - literally ALL of the evidence for everything is evidence for the non-existence of both God and slood.

Literally every attempt to define what God is (or what gods are) has led to them being either demonstrably non-existent, or to the definition being demonstrably useless.

That's a whole big mountain of hard evidence that atheism is the appropriate position to take.

Here's a more mundane example of the leap of faith in action. When you get married you do so taking a faith that she won't, at some point, go nuts and ruin your life. Or take the kids your raised, steal them away in the night, move to Syria and raise them as little ISIS warriors. We have no guarantees in life.

I like Freud's theory of Death drive to explain this. Death is unavoidable. If you life your life avoiding anything and everything bad you minimise bad stuff happening to you. But you're not going to have a life. It'll be a long boring and pointless wait for an inevitable death. To feel alive we have to take risks and leaps of faith. It's what makes life worth living. At some point you're going to have to take your limited information you have available, accept it's limitation and just go for it. And just hope for the best. We all need to do this. You're not going to win at the game of life. No matter what you do you will lose. Death will get you.

Death drive - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DrZoidberg]

But he fully acknowledges that any leap of faith is as good as any other. Yes, this is true for atheists as well. We're taking the leap of faith that God doesn't exist.

That strikes me as silly. At least call it an informed, calculated, reasoned, evidenced and rational leap of faith.

How are you making the calculation and deduction of what choice is the best to take? Perhaps you have access to some sort of Meaning Of Life document I could read? The idea that you can figure it all out and make the best choice for life is the delusion. None of us has any idea what leap of faith is the best to take. None. Any choice is as good as any other. I don't think religion is stupid.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Book of Job is also very enlightening on this topic.

God puts Job through a bunch of trials, to test his faith. At the end he says that none of what he's been through makes any sense. At which point God appears and what does he say to justify his treatment of Job? God says that he created the world, killed the Leviathan and is super powerful. Job isn't. In the story God doesn't bother to justify shit. Meaning, it's not for normal people to understand what God is about. Faith isn't about understanding. It's not a rational decision. Faith is belief no matter the evidence. That's the message of the Book of Job.

Bible Gateway passage: Job 41 - King James Version

Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[DrZoidberg]

Soldier confuses form and content.

Faith is a form or category. Color is a form or category. Red is a particular kind of color. Religious beliefs are a particular kind form of faith.

Religigion does not define what faith means. Religion defines what particular things you must take on faith to be part of the religion.

So this is what philosophers do, nice work if you can get it.

Soldier, if you ignore us who are you goung to find to talk to?

You can't hide behind claming valid questions and crtitcisms are off topic'.

Your topi is that atheists get faith wrong. Us atheists have laid out the issues with your claims.

1. Grow and evolve your views.
2. Acknowledge there are issues with your positions.
3. Put us on ignore and post you views without seeing responses.
4. Stop posting.

Whatever you do I will not lose any sleep over it. Your schtik on other threads of yiurs is make a claim and deflect resposes by calling everybody stupid.

I just think it's funny that the atheists are better at close reading of the Bible than the theist is

 

[Learner]

The Book of Job is also very enlightening on this topic.

God puts Job through a bunch of trials, to test his faith. At the end he says that none of what he's been through makes any sense. At which point God appears and what does he say to justify his treatment of Job? God says that he created the world, killed the Leviathan and is super powerful. Job isn't. In the story God doesn't bother to justify shit. Meaning, it's not for normal people to understand what God is about.

Meaning and justification. Yes it does seem like it's not for [All] normal people, depending on the individual.

For Christians, Jesus justifies and validates the Old Testament and the Prophets. We are to assume as the simplest of believers from a simple basic assessment of the theology concept... Jesus would know and understand better than anyone what meanings mean. It doesn't matter if theists don't understand every detail to the scriptures although... the progress to understanding is increasing everyday at least.

Faith isn't about understanding. It's not a rational decision. Faith is belief no matter the evidence. That's the message of the Book of Job.

Bible Gateway passage: Job 41 - King James Version

Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou...

www.biblegateway.com

Most atheists seem to understand what Jesus teaches. In conversations past, atheist would point out to Christians about them 'not doing the things Jesus commands and so on.
Perhaps the 'little grey cells' can find the long overdue relief, when realising that trying to understand Job, is as you say: 'not for [all] normal people'.

 

[steve_bank]

Since when does an all powerful god need to justify his,hers, or its actions?

What is the piont of being god if you can't do what you hell you want when you want?

 

[steve_bank]

Which is: atheists do not get the idea of faith wrong.

I'm done. You're out. Play games with the other kids.

Uhhh...if you can't stand the heat don't go in the kitchen?

In a while crocodile.


This is related to the queation of faith and evidence. There were two eole as I rcal on differt threads who argued there is no such thing as objectve evidence. Perhaps you wud like to weigh in?

Objective/Subjective

Hi there! Can you give me your general thoughts on the difference between objective and subjective? You don't have to get too detailed, or much in depth. Just give me your thoughts. Stray if you like - be as discursive as you please. But you don't have to. I thought this article might serve...

iidb.org

 

[Learner]

Since when does an all powerful god need to justify his,hers, or its actions?

Since when humans brought up the debate for God's actions, arguing between themselves. A human need.

What is the piont of being god if you can't do what you hell you want when you want?

God can do what He wants, it's just we that concern ourselves with the mentioned above...'justification and meaning' and so on. A human perspective point.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Unknown soldier, if atheists get faith wrong, then what's Genesis 22 about? Isn't the entire point of that story to push for the value of taking a leap of faith? The whole point of that story is that Abraham knows better. He knows he shouldn't kill his son. But he trusts in God, ie the voices in his head.

Nowhere did I say that atheists get faith wrong. What atheists do is deliberately use a different meaning of the word faith than what the religious do to misrepresent what the religious say about faith. Anybody can understand what I'm saying, and if you continue to twist my words, then I'll ignore it.

I say it's the religionists who get the definition wrong. The more common usage by most people of lots of religious beliefs (and no beliefs) have more in common than the specific version of the word used by those you are talking about here.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Atheists tend to see the idea of faith as weak, irrational, and the product of religion only while many of the religious think faith is quite sensible, universal and strong. I think that on this issue I must side with the religious. Faith doesn't need to be "blind," lacking in logic and evidence but can just as easily be supported be supported by sound thinking. Faith is essentially the trust or confidence we place in a conclusion. As such, it is not necessarily religious. So, for example consider a climatologist who has studied the melting ice in Antarctica. She gathers a lot of data regarding the reduction of ice there and compares it to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere over the past decades. Based on the evidence available to her she concludes that yes, rising levels of atmospheric CO2 is causing the ice to melt in Antarctica. The confidence she places in that conclusion is her faith.

So we all have a certain level of faith, and there's nothing wrong with that. Having logic and evidence isn't enough. At some point we need to put our brains in gear and judge if it's enough to trust our ability to see the truth. That's faith, and it's unfortunate that many atheists have made it "the new f-word."

It appears that my thread has been derailed by the refusal of the respondents to address the issue of atheists misrepresenting the word "faith" as it is commonly used and understood by the religious. I think this behavior results from the lack of the ability on the part of many atheists to formulate sound arguments critiquing theism. It is much easier to just dismiss religious belief as an irrational tenacity to believe in the supernatural for no good reasons and with no supporting evidence. Moreover, it is obvious that none of the atheists here wish to admit that they are using a strawman argument when they say that the religious have faith that is bereft of reason and evidence, a demonstrable falsehood.

As for me I will continue to pursue my own critiques of theism by using logic and facts. There are tons of good reasons to doubt religious claims that don't involve fallacies and outright lies. Yes, learning these critiques involves effort and time, but in the end I want arguments I can be proud of!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But he fully acknowledges that any leap of faith is as good as any other. Yes, this is true for atheists as well. We're taking the leap of faith that God doesn't exist.

That strikes me as silly. At least call it an informed, calculated, reasoned, evidenced and rational leap of faith.

How are you making the calculation and deduction of what choice is the best to take? Perhaps you have access to some sort of Meaning Of Life document I could read? The idea that you can figure it all out and make the best choice for life is the delusion. None of us has any idea what leap of faith is the best to take. None. Any choice is as good as any other. I don't think religion is stupid.

That's even sillier. There isn't any meaning of life but we all still make choices. Some of those choices are based on good, repeatable, evidence. That there are invisible creatures with magic powers interested in my sex organs that I can learn about by reading ancient books isn't one of them.

 

[steve_bank]

Since when does an all powerful god need to justify his,hers, or its actions?

Since when humans brought up the debate for God's actions, arguing between themselves. A human need.

What is the piont of being god if you can't do what you hell you want when you want?

God can do what He wants, it's just we that concern ourselves with the mentioned above...'justification and meaning' and so on. A human perspective point.

The Abrahamic god and the Greek gods as are all gods are human created reflections of humans. The Hebrew god was misogynistic, brutal, and vengeful. A reflection of an ancient tribal cultral norms.

Your capitalization of He reflects the male nature of ancient Judaism and the Christianity that followed it. Christian males kneel to the ultamate alpha male, the bible god. The true male believer draws peronal power from that imagined relationship.

Does god have a penis?

That Genesis says god created man in the image of god is a dead give away.

 

[steve_bank]

Atheists tend to see the idea of faith as weak, irrational, and the product of religion only while many of the religious think faith is quite sensible, universal and strong. I think that on this issue I must side with the religious. Faith doesn't need to be "blind," lacking in logic and evidence but can just as easily be supported be supported by sound thinking. Faith is essentially the trust or confidence we place in a conclusion. As such, it is not necessarily religious. So, for example consider a climatologist who has studied the melting ice in Antarctica. She gathers a lot of data regarding the reduction of ice there and compares it to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere over the past decades. Based on the evidence available to her she concludes that yes, rising levels of atmospheric CO2 is causing the ice to melt in Antarctica. The confidence she places in that conclusion is her faith.

So we all have a certain level of faith, and there's nothing wrong with that. Having logic and evidence isn't enough. At some point we need to put our brains in gear and judge if it's enough to trust our ability to see the truth. That's faith, and it's unfortunate that many atheists have made it "the new f-word."

It appears that my thread has been derailed by the refusal of the respondents to address the issue of atheists misrepresenting the word "faith" as it is commonly used and understood by the religious. I think this behavior results from the lack of the ability on the part of many atheists to formulate sound arguments critiquing theism. It is much easier to just dismiss religious belief as an irrational tenacity to believe in the supernatural for no good reasons and with no supporting evidence. Moreover, it is obvious that none of the atheists here wish to admit that they are using a strawman argument when they say that the religious have faith that is bereft of reason and evidence, a demonstrable falsehood.

As for me I will continue to pursue my own critiques of theism by using logic and facts. There are tons of good reasons to doubt religious claims that don't involve fallacies and outright lies. Yes, learning these critiques involves effort and time, but in the end I want arguments I can be proud of!

Pride cometh before a fall!!

There are tons of reasons to question your assertions.

Logic?

Put your hypothesis in a clear form.

P1. Atheists say this...
2. Theists say this...
P3. Faith means this ...
C Atheists therefore are wrong

The major part you are 'logically' missing is a definition of faith. You claim the artcles of faith are a definition of what faith means and I think you are wrong. Faith is a gneral concet of which relgion is a specific case.

Care to refute this? You are the master of logic, yes?

 

[DBT]

Atheists tend to see the idea of faith as weak, irrational, and the product of religion only while many of the religious think faith is quite sensible, universal and strong. I think that on this issue I must side with the religious. Faith doesn't need to be "blind," lacking in logic and evidence but can just as easily be supported be supported by sound thinking. Faith is essentially the trust or confidence we place in a conclusion. As such, it is not necessarily religious. So, for example consider a climatologist who has studied the melting ice in Antarctica. She gathers a lot of data regarding the reduction of ice there and compares it to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere over the past decades. Based on the evidence available to her she concludes that yes, rising levels of atmospheric CO2 is causing the ice to melt in Antarctica. The confidence she places in that conclusion is her faith.

So we all have a certain level of faith, and there's nothing wrong with that. Having logic and evidence isn't enough. At some point we need to put our brains in gear and judge if it's enough to trust our ability to see the truth. That's faith, and it's unfortunate that many atheists have made it "the new f-word."

It appears that my thread has been derailed by the refusal of the respondents to address the issue of atheists misrepresenting the word "faith" as it is commonly used and understood by the religious. I think this behavior results from the lack of the ability on the part of many atheists to formulate sound arguments critiquing theism. It is much easier to just dismiss religious belief as an irrational tenacity to believe in the supernatural for no good reasons and with no supporting evidence. Moreover, it is obvious that none of the atheists here wish to admit that they are using a strawman argument when they say that the religious have faith that is bereft of reason and evidence, a demonstrable falsehood.

As for me I will continue to pursue my own critiques of theism by using logic and facts. There are tons of good reasons to doubt religious claims that don't involve fallacies and outright lies. Yes, learning these critiques involves effort and time, but in the end I want arguments I can be proud of!

Your premise has been addressed numerous times by several posters. You don't appear to be willing to consider what has been pointed out, that words are defined by the references and context in which they are used.

That there are instances where things are being believed without the support of evidence, religion, ideology, politics, and it is this condition that defines faith as a belief held without the support of evidence.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But he fully acknowledges that any leap of faith is as good as any other. Yes, this is true for atheists as well. We're taking the leap of faith that God doesn't exist.

That strikes me as silly. At least call it an informed, calculated, reasoned, evidenced and rational leap of faith.

How are you making the calculation and deduction of what choice is the best to take? Perhaps you have access to some sort of Meaning Of Life document I could read? The idea that you can figure it all out and make the best choice for life is the delusion. None of us has any idea what leap of faith is the best to take. None. Any choice is as good as any other. I don't think religion is stupid.

That's even sillier. There isn't any meaning of life but we all still make choices. Some of those choices are based on good, repeatable, evidence. That there are invisible creatures with magic powers interested in my sex organs that I can learn about by reading ancient books isn't one of them.

In logic there's a maxim, "garbage in, garbage out". If all your propositions are stuff you just pulled out of your ass, then how reliable are your conclusions?

I don't agree with Sam Harris that we can use science to to discover meaning of lives.

I believe religions are a product of evolution. We seem to have evolved to create over-arching meta-natratives in order for us to find a place.

I'm an atheist. But then again I've always been cool with not knowing stuff. It was long ago I had FOMO about things. I'm not neurotic, anxious or depressed. A lot of people struggle with these sorts of things. It's because of people like this religion exists IMHO. And I don't think it's a weakness or failing by these people. People with behaviours like this have evolved because they are useful for humanity and they help our species survive. I don't want to get rid of religion. I think it serves a valuable function for humanity.

I think everyone is deluded. We have all created an absolute bullshit over-arching meta-narrative just so we get to have a place in the big picture of things. Yes, me to. And I have to believe it or it won't motivate us. Me to. I know I believe in a delusion, but still believe. Because that's just how our brain works. I don't think I am in any way superior with those who believe in an invisible God who watches us masturbate.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Moreover, it is obvious that none of the atheists here wish to admit that they are using a strawman argument when they say that the religious have faith that is bereft of reason and evidence, a demonstrable falsehood.

I will admit that some god believers believe using reason and evidence. I just believe that it is fallacious reasoning based on faulty, biased evidence. Is that ok?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I believe religions are a product of evolution. We seem to have evolved to create over-arching meta-natratives in order for us to find a place.

There isn't anything about human behavior that isn't a product of evolution so I think that's a pretty safe bet. At its most basic it would be hard to argue that religion isn't anything more than ritual, mental rituals and overt physical rituals. Rituals have calming effects for most of us even if it's sitting at the bar for happy hour with friends every Friday afternoon. The rituals bring connectedness.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Moreover, it is obvious that none of the atheists here wish to admit that they are using a strawman argument when they say that the religious have faith that is bereft of reason and evidence, a demonstrable falsehood.

I will admit that some god believers believe using reason and evidence. I just believe that it is fallacious reasoning based on faulty, biased evidence. Is that ok?

It's not OK within the context of this discussion because it isn't relevant to the fact that many atheists lie about what the religious mean by "faith."

Suppose you tell me that you're gay, and we both know perfectly well that by "gay" you mean you're happy. I then run off telling everybody that you told me that you're a homosexual. You confront me for obviously misrepresenting what you said, and I respond by going off on tangents insisting that "gay" must mean homosexual. It's the only "right" definition of that word.

Is that ok?