Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[pood]

Soldier's refusal to say yes or no as to wheher science theories and religious beliefs like creationism are equally valid conclusions is equivocation.

That's not what equivocation is according to the standard definition in the discipline of logic. From Schaum's Outline of Logic, Second Edition, Page 206:

Ambiguity generates fallacies when the meaning of an expression shifts during the course of an argument, causing a misleading appearance of validity.

So please correct your misunderstanding of equivocation and stop libeling me.

It’s funny how you suddenly become do scrupulous about dictionary definitions with respect to “equivocation,” but far less so when it comes to ”faith.”

Also, “libel“ is another word you apparenlty do not know the meaning of.

 

[steve_bank]

Learmer

s I have always said I see no difference in general between Christians and everybody else, Christians think they are unique in mysticall beliefs and their truth.

There are shades of theistic Christians, but all theistic Christians believe in the Abrahamic god, Jesus, and the resurrection. Atheists have no special common belief or ideology.

There are all sorts of mystical tradis that have always existed, all were suppressed by the RCC.

There is always individual context. Someone might say I don't believe in god usually meaning the bible god, but I believe there is something. That could be an ill defined spirit or guiding force with no specific definition as Christians with no definition of god.

It is logical with our brains and imagination that humans will wonder if there is something else or more to reality than what we see. Perennial questions, why am I here and what is my purpose.

Theosophy is a good starting point. A modern synthetic blend.

Theosophy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christians, Jews, and Muslims think they are exclusively right.

 

[steve_bank]

Soldier's refusal to say yes or no as to wheher science theories and religious beliefs like creationism are equally valid conclusions is equivocation.

That's not what equivocation is according to the standard definition in the discipline of logic. From Schaum's Outline of Logic, Second Edition, Page 206:

Ambiguity generates fallacies when the meaning of an expression shifts during the course of an argument, causing a misleading appearance of validity.

So please correct your misunderstanding of equivocation and stop libeling me.

Yo are equivocating again by arguing definitions. Can you elaborte on irony?

As others have posted, meaning is defined by how people use the term.

We all know, except maybe you, what equivocation means. It means avoiding a direct response or a statement they can be held to. Politicians do it all the time when questioned by resportrs.

Are science theories and reilgious theories like creationism equaly credible? Stop equivocating and answer.

Another similar term.

Meaning of waffling in English
to talk or write a lot without giving any useful information or any clear answers: If you don't know the answer, it's no good just waffling (on) for pages and pages. SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases. Ways of talking. -tongued.Jul 19, 2023

Soldier is chronically waffling.

 

[James Brown]

Michael Shermer asked about belief.

To give people an opportunity to express why they believe in God and why they think other people believe in God, we asked them to detail their thoughts in two open-ended questions. Respondents were most likely to offer intellectually-based reasons for why they believe, associated with the design of the universe or their own daily experiences with God. These reasons slid down the list, however, when respondents were asked why they thought other people believe in God. Instead, the two most common reasons given for why other people believe in God were “comfort” and “raised to believe.”

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Soldier's refusal to say yes or no as to wheher science theories and religious beliefs like creationism are equally valid conclusions is equivocation.

That's not what equivocation is according to the standard definition in the discipline of logic. From Schaum's Outline of Logic, Second Edition, Page 206:

Ambiguity generates fallacies when the meaning of an expression shifts during the course of an argument, causing a misleading appearance of validity.

So please correct your misunderstanding of equivocation and stop libeling me.

It’s funny how you suddenly become do scrupulous about dictionary definitions with respect to “equivocation,”

Pood, I referenced a logic text and not a dictionary. I also was careful to document my source using the qualifying words "according to." That way I leave room for other definitions knowing that all definitions are arbitrary and vary with the "definer." I should point out that SB was referring to equivocation as it is used in logical argumentation, and as always he was wrong. I was good enough to correct him.

...but far less so when it comes to ”faith.”

That's wrong too. I did look up and post how the word faith has been traditionally understood and posted links to the source. I also did the same for how various religions understand faith. Of course, all that evidence was ignored by those atheists here who wish to believe without evidence that faith is belief without evidence.

Also, “libel“ is another word you apparenlty do not know the meaning of.

Well, thank you for that example! Now everybody who reads this post should have a clear idea of what "libel" means.

 

[pood]

That's wrong too. I did look up and post how the word faith has been traditionally understood and posted links to the source.

Yes, you yourself at one point posted the biblical quote about faith from Hebrews. So, to the extent that Christians actually believe in the bible, your whole argument about how Christians justify their beliefs is. bullshit, because the bible specifically says that faith is the evidence — whereas for everyone else, evidence is the evidence.

Now, as it happens, a lot of Christians don’t know jack shit about the bible. It’s frequently been pointed out that in debates between theists and atheists, the atheists often know more about the bible than theists do.

This is why I ventured my own guess — and I admit it’s a guess, since I’ve neither done nor read any studies on this — that in real reality, most theists believe what they believe because they were raised to believe it. They don’t care about the nuances of faith, reason, evidence, etc. Religion is just a part of them like eye color, though unlike eye color it’s not genetically inherited. It’s memetically inherited.

That‘s why I asked you what studies you did to arrive at your claims in this thread. You dismissed it as a “loaded question,” which shows you don’t know the meaning of the term any more than the meaning of “libel.”

 

[Shadowy Man]

. Of course, all that evidence was ignored by those atheists here who wish to believe without evidence that faith is belief without evidence.

You may not think it is good or convincing evidence that faith is belief without evidence but there is and it has been presented in this thread multiple times.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That's wrong too. I did look up and post how the word faith has been traditionally understood and posted links to the source.

Yes, you yourself at one point posted the biblical quote about faith from Hebrews.

You have a really bad habit of saying what I supposedly said. A direct quotation would carry much more weight. That's assuming I really posted what you say I did, of course.

So, to the extent that Christians actually believe in the bible, your whole argument about how Christians justify their beliefs is. bullshit, because the bible specifically says that faith is the evidence — whereas for everyone else, evidence is the evidence.

Did you ever stop to think that not all religious people use that passage to define "faith"? The ones who do probably fight over what it means.

And the use of foul language is childish.

Now, as it happens, a lot of Christians don’t know jack shit about the bible. It’s frequently been pointed out that in debates between theists and atheists, the atheists often know more about the bible than theists do.

Some atheists do know the Bible better than some Christians do.

This is why I ventured my own guess — and I admit it’s a guess, since I’ve neither done nor read any studies on this — that in real reality, most theists believe what they believe because they were raised to believe it. They don’t care about the nuances of faith, reason, evidence, etc. Religion is just a part of them like eye color, though unlike eye color it’s not genetically inherited. It’s memetically inherited.

Yes, some people cling with great tenacity to what they want to believe, and they're not all religious.

That‘s why I asked you what studies you did to arrive at your claims in this thread. You dismissed it as a “loaded question,” which shows you don’t know the meaning of the term any more than the meaning of “libel.”

Your question obviously presumes that a person needs to do "scientific studies" to know what they do. And you asked that question for the purpose of making me look bad. It's a game I don't play.

But there's no need to lose sleep worrying that there is a God and that the religious have the evidence to prove it. Just look at the tripe the atheists here have posted on this thread, and you'll know that no God would create people like that.

 

[pood]

This is the problem with soldier’s equivocation about the word “faith.” Faith, in the biblical sense, is belief without evidence — or, more precisely, the faith is supposed to BE the evidence, which is not how non-theists, and especially scientists, understand the word “evidence.” Unknown Soldier would be better off arguing that theists claim to have evidence and arguments for their beliefs, without invoking and equivocating on the word “faith“ at all, because that’s true. Some theists present arguments like the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument, and adduce supposed evidence like cosmological fine-tuning, alleged design in biology, etc. But none of that is faith. Those are attempts to show that religion is NOT faith-based, but evidence-based.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Of course, all that evidence was ignored by those atheists here who wish to believe without evidence that faith is belief without evidence.

You may not think it is good or convincing evidence that faith is belief without evidence but there is and it has been presented in this thread multiple times.

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

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This is the problem with soldier’s equivocation about the word “faith.” Faith, in the biblical sense, is belief without evidence — or, more precisely, the faith is supposed to BE the evidence, which is not how non-theists, and especially scientists, understand the word “evidence.” Unknown Soldier would be better off arguing that theists claim to have evidence and arguments for their beliefs, without invoking and equivocating on the word “faith“ at all, because that’s true. Some theists present arguments like the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument, and adduce supposed evidence like cosmological fine-tuning, alleged design in biology, etc. But none of that is faith. Those are attempts to show that religion is NOT faith-based, but evidence-based.

Your error here is your presumption that religion is either faith based or evidence based. Faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive as any thinking person knows. Religion can be and most often is faith based, that faith based on reason.

 

[pood]

That's wrong too. I did look up and post how the word faith has been traditionally understood and posted links to the source.

Yes, you yourself at one point posted the biblical quote about faith from Hebrews.

You have a really bad habit of saying what I supposedly said. A direct quotation would carry much more weight. That's assuming I really posted what you say I did, of course.

I have a bad habit of dloing what now? You, yourself, quoted Hebrews on faith. Did you forget that you did that?

So, to the extent that Christians actually believe in the bible, your whole argument about how Christians justify their beliefs is. bullshit, because the bible specifically says that faith is the evidence — whereas for everyone else, evidence is the evidence.

Did you ever stop to think that not all religious people use that passage to define "faith"? The ones who do probably fight over what it means.

Of course not all of them do. But many of them in fact do. So now what? That’s why I asked you whether you did some sort of study to determine just how religious people justify their beliefs. You dismissed it as a loaded question. But the question is entirely apposite. You claimed to know how theists (All? Most? Many? Some? Who knows, right?) justify their beliefs. I asked you how you justify your claim. No answer. So you don’t actually know. You’re just geussing. My guess — admittedly is a guess -- is that most religioius people say they beliieve what they do because they were raised to believe it, and it provides them comfort. It’s got nothing to do with either faith or evidence. Agree? Disagree?

And the use of foul language is childish.

Oh, please, give us a break. You’ve seriously got your knickers in a knot over the word bullshit? Don’t BS me. This is just performative on your part, and it’s deeplty childish.

Now, as it happens, a lot of Christians don’t know jack shit about the bible. It’s frequently been pointed out that in debates between theists and atheists, the atheists often know more about the bible than theists do.

Some atheists do know the Bible better than some Christians do.

Right.

This is why I ventured my own guess — and I admit it’s a guess, since I’ve neither done nor read any studies on this — that in real reality, most theists believe what they believe because they were raised to believe it. They don’t care about the nuances of faith, reason, evidence, etc. Religion is just a part of them like eye color, though unlike eye color it’s not genetically inherited. It’s memetically inherited.

Yes, some people cling with great tenacity to what they want to believe, and they're not all religious.

Of course. Who denied that?

That‘s why I asked you what studies you did to arrive at your claims in this thread. You dismissed it as a “loaded question,” which shows you don’t know the meaning of the term any more than the meaning of “libel.”

Your question obviously presumes that a person needs to do "scientific studies" to know what they do. And you asked that question for the purpose of making me look bad. It's a game I don't play.

So, you just pulled your claim out of your ass, then? (Sorry, “anus.”)

But there's no need to lose sleep worrying that there is a God and that the religious have the evidence to prove it. Just look at the tripe the atheists here have posted on this thread, and you'll know that no God would create people like that.

So childish.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Of course, all that evidence was ignored by those atheists here who wish to believe without evidence that faith is belief without evidence.

You may not think it is good or convincing evidence that faith is belief without evidence but there is and it has been presented in this thread multiple times.

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.

 

[steve_bank]

Soldier

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

Do you have cignitve issues?

It has been said reetedly yes theists claim they are based in evidence, it is the nature of the evidnce thatis the issue. Do you understand?

 

[DBT]

To claim that belief based on evidence is equivalent to belief held without the support of evidence is to equivocate.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Soldier

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

Do you have cignitve issues?

It has been said reetedly yes theists claim they are based in evidence, it is the nature of the evidnce thatis the issue. Do you understand?

Which is why children stop believing in Santa. They discover that the old "evidence" they had as children really sucks compared to the better evidence they learned later. Soldier knows this and understands this. He's just trying to give his childish, religious mysticism credibility by equating it with adult scientific rigor. It's a common ploy among mystics.

 

[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? 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." In 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.

 

[abaddon]

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

Which counts as "no [credible] evidence" to scientific skeptics.

You really do need to discuss what evidence means, not what faith means. Because if a belief benefits a person and that is evidence for the value of the belief (or the truth of the belief?) ... and that doesn't count as evidence to skeptics... then it's what counts as evidence that must be discussed.

It goes to your basic point in this thread, that theists do really have evidence. It goes to that point MUCH better than repeatedly insisting that the word "evidence" is in the definition of "faith" (and therefore their evidence exists because it's defined to exist... which is a very lame argument).

That the word "evidence" emits from their mouths doesn't matter. What things the word "evidence" names in the world matters.

 

[steve_bank]

I'd ask Soldier if he considers what is proffered as religious evidence is credible evidence.

Things written 2500 years ago or so by unknown authors.

I expect as usual he will waffle.

Young earth creationism was initially based on a time line derived from the bible, today theist try and place it on a pseudo scientific basis.

Back in the early 90s out of curiosity I plugged the biblical time lines into Microsoft Project. All the Genesis genealogy and life spans. I forget the number I came up with, but that is what theists offer for evidence.

All Christian faith is based on the premise the bible is true and is inspired by god. Biblical literalist believe on fath the bible is all literally true. From listening to Netanyahu speak over time he appers to be a Jewish biblical literalist. Jews have a right to displace Palestinians because god gave the land to them, evidence is the bible.

Soldier keeps repeating Christians say they have evidence. And in his logic because Cristans offer evdnce regardless of what the evidence is faith is based on evidence. And that science is EQUALLY faith based.

I wonder if Soldoer would fly in a plane designed and built by Christins who said god told them what materials to use and the dimnsions of parts and airplane. .

Faith is based on assumed evidence which can not be proven. That is faith.

 

[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? 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." In 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.

Hebrews 11:1 tells us that faith is its own assurance of truth, its own justification for belief, that all you need is faith. It is not about objective evidence or open inquiry, but to have faith, to believe in God through faith.