Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[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.

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.

If it makes you feel any better, I haven't done any studies on what people say about their religious faith .

 

[lostone]

Is Hinduism also based on evidence?

Why Hinduism Is Science-proof - Times of India

Home News: God is often a witness in court proceedings the world over. This is especially so when statements are made under oath with a hand on a holy book.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

I know that religious people disagree. Is that why you deny that they say their faith rests on evidence? The possibility and even the actuality of religious evidence doesn't bother me. What is true is true whether I like it or not.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

Maybe "mystical evidence" is most to the point.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

On the forum I have never said religious beliefs are objectionable. In fact I agree there are positive aspects to religion. Under the priciples of freedom of thought, speech, and assocition people have a general right to believe and speak to what they please.

What I object to is your inistance that there is an equivalence of validity between region and science because they both claim to be based in evidence. A ridiculous argument.

I also object to the religius who often harmfully insist on forcing beliefs on others because of their faith based reasong and logic. God wants gays suppressed because it i in the bible.

Here in Wa and otherstates there are Native Americans who as kids were forcibly taken from parents to Chrisian boarding schools and indoctrinated into Christianity. There are people alive today who went through it in the 50s-70s.

As I said before to you this is not idle philosophical debate. There are serious social consequences to the 'evidence' based faith by many Christians today. So called evidnce which justifies harmful actions.

You are arguing from ignorance of relgion and hisory and ignoring consequences of your conclusions.

Yes, you are not interested in reasoing at the level of others on the thread.That would require work and effort on your part to raise your game.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

I know that religious people disagree. Is that why you deny that they say their faith rests on evidence? The possibility and even the actuality of religious evidence doesn't bother me. What is true is true whether I like it or not.

Deneial that reilgius make claims to evince? Ridiculous. We all know religious claim evidice, it is the nature of the evidence.

In the past there have been lengthy threads on the science forum over religious claims for evidence for young Earth creationism vs evolution, archeology, geology and cosmology.

Do you understand?

If not, there are supplements said to increase blood flow to the brain and clear up brain fog.

 

[DBT]

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.

It's not hard. The bible itself tells you that faith doesn't need evidence, that ''faith is the substance of things hoped for" and the assurance of 'things unseen.'

 

[James Brown]

Sounds like this thread is not about the proper definition of 'faith' but of 'evidence."

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

Ask ten astronomers when the sun will rise tomorrow, and you'll get one answer. Ask ten physicists the atomic weight of a hydrogen atom, and you'll get one answer. Ask ten biologists what species is man, and you'll get one answer. And the reason they all agree is not because they have faith in their convictions.

Ask ten religious people what God really wants people to do, and you'll get at least ten answers. Maybe fifteen or twenty. If religious people have reliable solid evidence for what they believe, then one would expect they would agree on the basics.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I know that religious people disagree. Is that why you deny that they say their faith rests on evidence? The possibility and even the actuality of religious evidence doesn't bother me. What is true is true whether I like it or not.

You seem to consider something in a quantum state of uncertainty as "evidence". I might be sitting over a body buried in the ground 1500 years ago. I'm never going to know. Is believing that the building I'm is overtop a buried body from 1500 years ago now built on "evidence"? If I believe that Schrodinger's cat actually exists, because of the thought experiment, is that thought experiment evidence?

Our inability to explain the origin of the universe isn't evidence of a god. It is just evidence of our inability to explain something.

 

[lostone]

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.

I know that religious people disagree. Is that why you deny that they say their faith rests on evidence? The possibility and even the actuality of religious evidence doesn't bother me. What is true is true whether I like it or not.

James Brown answered that for you very clearly -

Sounds like this thread is not about the proper definition of 'faith' but of 'evidence."

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

Ask ten astronomers when the sun will rise tomorrow, and you'll get one answer. Ask ten physicists the atomic weight of a hydrogen atom, and you'll get one answer. Ask ten biologists what species is man, and you'll get one answer. And the reason they all agree is not because they have faith in their convictions.

Ask ten religious people what God really wants people to do, and you'll get at least ten answers. Maybe fifteen or twenty. If religious people have reliable solid evidence for what they believe, then one would expect they would agree on the basics.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Jesus, is this thread still going? Is it going to hit 1,000 posts and then keep on? I keep resolving to stay away, and Zeus knows, the crickets are getting very, very restless.
OK -- the OP says that we shallow atheists never concede that believers appeal to reason (actually, in long stretches, the OP attempts to conflate the scientific method with the use of faith -- horseshit.)
Well, anyone who reads Christian apologetics, for one, knows what the believers have done on the reason/evidence front. They've gone full-bore into circular reasoning and special pleading. Read the bottom feeders like Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel (lots of us atheists do) and you're entertained by the sheer dysfunction of their 'enquiries', which were all decided in advance. Advance a bit farther into respectability with, say, C.S. Lewis, and you have theist positions which are equally flimsy (his famous 'man who identifies as a poached egg' is typical.) Read Thomas Aquinas with supposedly ironclad proofs of God, and they've all been successfully addressed by skeptics.
Again, again, and again: good evidence, properly observed, and logical analysis do not lead to cacophony. The Great Religions of Man are a cacophony.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Sounds like this thread is not about the proper definition of 'faith' but of 'evidence."

That's what everybody else wants to debate. I believe their argument is that religious people are too stupid and crazy to have good evidence for what they believe, so their evidence is no evidence.

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

Ask ten astronomers when the sun will rise tomorrow, and you'll get one answer.

Uh--the time of sunrise depends on your location. You know--the earth is a big ball that turns on its axis, and the light from the sun starts to shine on the earth at different times.

Ask ten physicists the atomic weight of a hydrogen atom, and you'll get one answer. Ask ten biologists what species is man, and you'll get one answer.

Ask eleven scientists what energy is, and they'll tell you they don't know. And don't get me started about their disagreements in cosmology.

And the reason they all agree is not because they have faith in their convictions.

I see you're another faith denier.

Ask ten religious people what God really wants people to do, and you'll get at least ten answers. Maybe fifteen or twenty. If religious people have reliable solid evidence for what they believe, then one would expect they would agree on the basics.

I just don't know who's saying the religious have good evidence for what they believe. It looks like you guys are having visions.

Anyway, I think I understand now why so few people are atheists--they've read what the atheists on this thread are posting. That part you posted about astronomers giving one time for sunrise--if seen as atheism--would make anybody a theist.

 

[DBT]

You say that atheists get the idea of faith wrong, yet the bible supports the atheist with its definition of faith.

 

[lostone]

Sounds like this thread is not about the proper definition of 'faith' but of 'evidence."

That's what everybody else wants to debate. I believe their argument is that religious people are too stupid and crazy to have good evidence for what they believe, so their evidence is no evidence.

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

Ask ten astronomers when the sun will rise tomorrow, and you'll get one answer.

Uh--the time of sunrise depends on your location. You know--the earth is a big ball that turns on its axis, and the light from the sun starts to shine on the earth at different times.

Ask ten physicists the atomic weight of a hydrogen atom, and you'll get one answer. Ask ten biologists what species is man, and you'll get one answer.

Ask eleven scientists what energy is, and they'll tell you they don't know. And don't get me started about their disagreements in cosmology.

And the reason they all agree is not because they have faith in their convictions.

I see you're another faith denier.

Ask ten religious people what God really wants people to do, and you'll get at least ten answers. Maybe fifteen or twenty. If religious people have reliable solid evidence for what they believe, then one would expect they would agree on the basics.

I just don't know who's saying the religious have good evidence for what they believe. It looks like you guys are having visions.

Anyway, I think I understand now why so few people are atheists--they've read what the atheists on this thread are posting. That part you posted about astronomers giving one time for sunrise--if seen as atheism--would make anybody a theist.

You deliberately misconstrue and twist what people are telling you. We are saying that ten religionists in the same place at the same time will give you ten different interpretations of identical facts. But you know that. One suspects you are being deliberately obtuse. Your feeble examples all fall flat.

 

[steve_bank]

their argument is that religious people are too stupid and crazy to have good evidence for what they believe, so their evidence is no evidence.

My view on the forum has been religious are no more or less crazy, stupid, illogical, and gullible than any other individuals or groups.

Soldier, please don't start debating science. You will embarrass yourself.

Within science quantitatively energy is defined in Sysrtems International the international standard for units of measure.

As you claim to be a mathematician. Energy is the capacity to do work. Work = Force * Distance. Focre = Mass * * Acceleration.
W = ʃE·dl where W is work in Neton meters, E energy in Joules, dl incremntal disntce in meters. Being the math exert you are you can solve for energy E.

or E = mc^2. Or energy stored in capacitor E = .5cv^2. Or kinetic ergy .5mv^2;

It ca seem lie smoke and mirros but it is not. Energy is a defintion as are seconds, meters, and kilograms.

What energy 'is' is a philosophical question not a scientifc one. Energy is quantitatively well defined with the units of Joules. You can resurrect the question on a thread I had on philosophy.

You are arguing like a theist. Relgion and science are the same.

 

[pood]

Sounds like this thread is not about the proper definition of 'faith' but of 'evidence."

That's what everybody else wants to debate. I believe their argument is that religious people are too stupid and crazy to have good evidence for what they believe, so their evidence is no evidence.

No, your argument is that the faith of a religious person is equivalent to the ”faith” of a climate scientist in her conclusions. That was your very first example. People here have wasted a lot. of time tryng to show you why this isn’t true, unless one equivocates on the meaning of the word ”faith.” It’s got nothing to do with religioius people allegedly being stupid and crazy. Some are. So are plenty of nontheists. Your characterization of the arguments being presented to you here is a massive pile of straw.

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

Ask ten astronomers when the sun will rise tomorrow, and you'll get one answer.

Uh--the time of sunrise depends on your location. You know--the earth is a big ball that turns on its axis, and the light from the sun starts to shine on the earth at different times.

Your deliberate obtuseness is quite telling, and I’m sure no one here needs lectures by you on the earth being a ”big ball.” I’m sure you know perfectly well that James Brown was referring to LOCAL sunrise. If one wishes to know multiple local sunrises, one simply does the math and adjusts the times accordingly. You must know what he meant. Wny do you play this little game? Do you think it’s doing you any good?

Ask ten physicists the atomic weight of a hydrogen atom, and you'll get one answer. Ask ten biologists what species is man, and you'll get one answer.

Ask eleven scientists what energy is, and they'll tell you they don't know. And don't get me started about their disagreements in cosmology.

Ha ha, you really believe this? That scioentists don’t know what energy is? Here’s what I think: You don’t know what energy is, and. are projecting your ignorance onto people who do know what it is.

And the reason they all agree is not because they have faith in their convictions.

I see you're another faith denier.

And here you go yet again equivocating on the meaning of the word “faith,” no matter how many times people have explained this to you. Maybe you need an explanation made with crude, simple pictures, like the briefings aides had to give to Donald Trumjp?

Ask ten religious people what God really wants people to do, and you'll get at least ten answers. Maybe fifteen or twenty. If religious people have reliable solid evidence for what they believe, then one would expect they would agree on the basics.

I just don't know who's saying the religious have good evidence for what they believe. It looks like you guys are having visions.

Good evidence is beside the point to your own argument.

Anyway, I think I understand now why so few people are atheists--they've read what the atheists on this thread are posting. That part you posted about astronomers giving one time for sunrise--if seen as atheism--would make anybody a theist.

Please stop. It‘s sickening.

 

[bilby]

I believe their argument is...

Perhaps you should stop concentrating on your beliefs, and find out for sure what their argument is by, for example, paying attention to what they say?

Evidence is, generally, a better guide to reality than belief.

 

[bilby]

Ask eleven scientists what energy is, and they'll tell you they don't know.

No they won't.

They'll tell you that energy is the ability to do work. Force, multiplied by distance.

Because that's what it is.

You might as well assert that scientists don't know what velocity is. Of course they do. You might not, but then, you aren't anywhere close to being as knowledgeable as you believe yourself to be, as you have so ably and repeatedly demonstrated.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You deliberately misconstrue and twist what people are telling you.

Nah--I just point out how stupid it is.

We are saying that ten religionists in the same place at the same time will give you ten different interpretations of identical facts.

And where are the reasons and evidence you base this faith on? Let's take ten Christians from various sects and ask them some questions and guess their answers:

1. How many Gods exist? All ten answer one.
2. Did God create the world? All ten answer yes.
3. Is Jesus the Son of God? All ten answer yes.
4. What book or set of books reveals the story of God, His prophecies, and His salvation through Christ? All ten answer that the Bible is.
5. Will Christ return to judge all people and put an end to sin? All ten answer yes.
6. Do those who are saved through Christ live eternally? All ten answer yes.
7. Where was Jesus born? All ten answer that He was born in Bethlehem.

Do you disagree that ten Christians would answer these questions the way I suppose they did?

But you know that. One suspects you are being deliberately obtuse. Your feeble examples all fall flat.

Let me say what I know, please.

 

[bilby]

Uh--the time of sunrise depends on your location.

Uh--when someone asks what time the sun will rise tomorrow, they generally aren't asking a complete moron, and so they reasonably assume that their interlocutor will understand that "at our current location" is implied, and need not be explicitly stated.