Why so friggin' confident?

It seems that you, I and the author of the OP all agree that belief in things for which there is no objective evidence is irrational.How this can be convincingly claimed by somebody who has absolute faith in the existence of non-material, non-detectable entities is somewhat questionable.....? But possibly outside the realm of this thread.........But certainly with regard to this debate it seems that you and the non-theists are at one with regard to the idea that those who proclaim themselves to have religious faith of the more conventional kind are irrational and objectively baseless in their position.No?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Rahvin barks:Ok. Ill assume you are rude as well as ignorant. Do me a favor would you please stop using the logic: We all know what they are and what thier meanings are, but it is very silly to keep repeating them, "Moving the gaol post", its corny Rahvin. So you agree that the word belief is as good as the word for faith. If not give me another word besides faith to describe faith. Common sense, supportable belief and supportable faith have everything to do with the veracity of claims. You claim or believe that evolution took place millions of years ago, yet you have no way of demonstrating this except from the available material evidence. You did not see this happen and it could very well be the case that the Gap theory, would explain much of what evolution attempts to expalin. Atleas it is as plausible an explanation. Nothing that has been provided to this point would indicate hat the universe is anything but contigent, which would indicate it came from a source that is not finite in nature or essence.If indeed you think you can please provide the belief supported by absolute proof that the universe is a product of itself, or ithat it has always existed. Or do you just have faith that it has always existed, and that it is not a product of that which is not finite. Please provide the material evidence that would also cause us to have more than faith about evolution. Or is your BELIEF irrational because you cannot demonstrate it beyond doubt? Wouldnt you call this faith? Since you cannot distinquish between definitions that are clearly faulty and reality, Ill ask the question again. What OTHER word would you use to describe faith other than faith? Come on Rahvin, you fancy yourself an intellectual, give it a try. I think you missed the point. There is either supported belief or faith or unsubstnatiated belief or faith correct. So tell me what evidence would there be that suggests even remotely that faires or Santa Claus exists? Although I might add that your obvious mental weakness in this area my come in handy for the kids around the house at Christmas time. Feeling the pressure, eh. Come on Rahvin give it a try. Give me another word for faith out of the dictionary. Again, reality dictates what the definition of something is or is not. People, dictionaries and the people that worte them can be wrong. Did you fellas not change or add to the simple meaing of the word Science. It use to mean the acquisition of knowledge, until you fellas came aling with the so-called scientific method.D Bertot

Bertot writes:Mod writes:Bertot writes:Mod writes:Thanks for the responses to these qestions. As you understand we are talking about faith and what one believes and why and how they believe it, it seems necessary to ask these preliminary questions. Next couple if you dont mind. Do you believe you have valid reasons for NOT believing in God, if so maybe you could provide a couple of short one liners. Remember I am not asking you to state, that there is no valid reasons, but state a couple of specifics please. Second one, do you believe (know for a fact) that the theory of evolution is true, or do you just have faith (in the sense you fellas use it) that all the available information says it did. Third one, is it possible to believe in something for which you do not have absolute proof? Thanks for answering these questions in advance The answer is yes, but we will see how to proceed once you answer the next set of questions, thanks.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

No. Actually definition N0.1 would be more accurate. Notice the words "trustworthiness" and "confidence". How in the world do you have confidence and trustworthiness unless there is a REASON to do so.So it seems even the dictionary is in agreement with Hebrews 11:1. Now faith is the substance of things hpoed for and the evidence (confidence and trustworthiness) of things not seen.So I was correct in my estimation about the opening post being misleading and inaccurate. Wow I think we have done this so many times now, havent weD Bertot

Straggler writes:No he is mistaken about the concept faith. The exacat same way you do for evolution. Please provide the informationa and evidence that would take you out of the arena of faith, atleast the way you guys use it. Since the above statement is categorically false the answer is no.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Thanks, RAZD.

I could argue that Yahweh, as presented, has many problems such as a changing character which reflects the culture that writes about him. That he commands things I would deem to be atrocities and has the gall to claim moral superiority. That he seems to be an amalgamation of various deities that the evidence would indicate were worshipped in the middle east before he was but with a few new twists. That he is the kind of deity that wants us to believe in him, but didn't reveal himself to us until hundreds of thousands of years into our existence, and then only to comparatively small number of people. I might suggest that free will and prophecy have a certain tension that is difficult to resolve. That the existence of evil becomes increasingly difficult to resolve as the Bible story goes on and more and more boasts about the awesomeness of Yahweh are built up. Finally I could say that there has been so much written by Yahweh, that did not make it into the canon, that I couldn't even be sure of what I was meant to be believing in.Well, you asked for a couple of specifics so there are a few. However whether we can call them valid reasons to positively reject Yahweh is another issue (each on its own certainly isn't, though as the reasons pile up it is valid to suggest that there are plenty of reasons to doubt and that in totality this in itself might become a valid reason to disbelieve). I simply don't believe in the existence of any entity unless someone gives me a reason to do so, usually in the form of evidence which is so compelling that to withhold provisional assent would be perverse, to paraphrase Gould. I know you said that was not what you wanted, but that is the only valid reason that I find necessary to not believe. Hmm, unusual question. I hold the belief that the theory of evolution is an incomplete but shall we say broadly correct explanatory framework that describes how evolution occurs. I don't know that it is correct 'for a fact'. I do accept that life has changed dramatically on earth over the last few billion years as a fact. The part after the or statement is not one that I understand.I don't have faith in the sense that I described the religious people using it earlier that the information says it did. I have read a good deal of the available information for myself, conducted some experiments on my own time and spoken with scientists/good friends who have conducted more in depth experiments and tests of the theory. This would stand in contrast to believing that Mary is a virgin as a matter of faith. I certainly have, so at least in my case it is. The evidence would suggest that the vast majority of the world likewise is capable of believing things for which they do not have absolute proof. I look forward to you answering my questions after I have answered all of yours. I trust all of these counter questions will be of relevance to the topic.

You mean your religious faith is the same type of faith as when someone says something like, "I have faith in you, my boy, you'll go far!"Definitions 2 and 4 exist solely for the context of religion. If religion didn't exist, definitions 2 and 4 wouldn't exist, either. If there's no one participating in this thread who is using a religious definition of faith then I think discussion here is done. Well, that's quite a reversal!First you can't be persuaded not to talk about evidence, like your epic Message 142, an incredible 8476 words long.Then when it's suggested you propose a thread to talk about evidence, you say it's been done to death.Which, if you go back to the first few messages of dialog between me and the originator, is exactly the reason I gave for not wanting this thread to be about evidence, see Message 4: Can I interpret your comment about too many evidence threads as indicating that you now not only understand that this thread is not about evidence, but also the reason why?--Percy

Faith and beilef in the Lord Jesus Christ of the Bible works that way.The Lord draws those that come to Him by the Word He have given to us in pages of the Bible. The followers of the way of Jesus present the word He has spoken, and then trust that He will speak these words to sinners who are willing to repent.Blessings

Yes, I believe very strongly in the ability of sinners to be deceived, living in a delusion. When one rejects the the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul has this to say: For those who enter into God's salvation, Paul has this to say: Blessings

Modulous and Percy sorry Ihavent responded yet, I am looking forwrd to responding this evening, I have been busy all day. Sorry and thanks fo ryou patience.D Bertot

sEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Does this mean you recognize that you can be wrong or that you are not a sinner? Can you supply any evidence of your infallibility? Do you think you can stop talking in mystical pablum? It doesn't matter much what Paul had to say. The Bible has no particular value as a source of evidence unless the subject is what the Bible has to say.The current subject is faith, how can one be so certain. So far I've discovered that true faith, not the wishy-washy, pragmatic kind I rely upon, must be certain because it is too weak to admit doubt. I'd rather not have to assume your answer to the question"Can you make lists of statements similar to my own and then accept that you may be wrong in which one is more closely akin to reality?", so do you think you can give a grown up answer?I ask again, should I have follow sea gull Jesus? And if not, how do you know? He was a true believer. And all he had to do was take his own word for it.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Modulous writes:I really appreciate these response to the question I asked. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear on my question. What I meant to say, if I I did not express it directly was, Is there any material or physical reason that would disallow the existence of God. Anything in he physical make up of things that would make it immpossilbe or irrational. In the reverse I indicated that all that is in the physical world does indicate that God does exists, from the fact that things are here and that they are finite in thier makeup,and everything in between.In your responses and by your own admissions, it is obvious to me that I could use the book and reason to, ofcourse, answer each one of these objections to the prolems that you present in the connection with the God of the Bible, as I have done in other threads.My question was concerning the existence of God in general in connectio with the physical or material, but thanks for these Biblical examples nonetheless. Now we are starting to narrow down and define exacally what evidence is to the support of belief. Given the above statement by yourself, it would follow that belief in God, a supreme being that is eternal in character and nature is both rational and reasonable due to the nature of physical things. In other words my belief or faith (not in the religious sense) is supported by reasonable, logical and rational evidence, correct? Again, in other words there is compelling evidence that he does exist.So in this context it is reasonable to believe by the dictionary definition 1. my belief is supported by good evidence, whether one agrees with it or not.Also, initially, in response to your first question about the virgin birth, it would not be unreasonalbe to believe(based on material, physical reasons) that if God does exists, he could alter or intervine in the material that he created, to bring about what you describe as a miracle, correct?. In other words this is as reasonable a BELIEF as you have in evolution, by the following admission:Modulous writes:If my REASONS for holding such beliefs are still not valid and not evidence thus far, how could you hold a BELIEF that something is incomplete (by this I assume you mean conclusive evidence) and at the same time BROADLY CORRECT and consider it a valid example of evidence and BELIEF?Secondly, how do you "accept", that life has changed dramatically over millions of years? By accept do you mean Believe based on incomplete or complete evidence. In other words you might be correct about the method on how this took place, or you could be incorrect. But if I am not mistaken, you do believe that evolution was that method, correct. Also, if I am not mistaken, you belief this based on what you would call compelling evidence. So there is no more confusion after this, why dont we drop the religioous definition of faith, because I think I have clearly established that there is only substantiated faith or belief or not. Theres, mine, your or whoever, is simply belief one way or another.Secondly, in this connection, and based on what you have said would indicate that your belief system is no different than anyone elses, based on you own words.Thirdly it would not stand in contrast to the type of evidence for believing that Mary was a virgin, when she was carrying her child. I know in your mind you want it to be different, but there are simply to many other explanations besides that of evolution to explain the existence of things, as I have indicated.Here are your own words again: Modulous writes:.Nor do I understand how a God could create matter from nothing, if indeed he did, or how he could impregnat a women with the miraculous, but there is certainly enough evidence to suggest he exist, correct?Here we have in your instance and mine, the only possible way to believe anything that we did not see occur. By using the available evidence to come to a conclusion that is viable and reasonable. Call it faith, call it belief,call it late for dinner, its either reasonable or it is not. The flying Spagetti monster is not. I hope I have satisfied your curiosity about wehther the counter questions were relevant or not.D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Percy writes:Nope,I mean it according to the words of the definition itself. Confidence and trustworthiness in a person, place or thing. There is plenty of evidence to provide confidence and trustworthiness that God exists.Also, if you were standing in front of someone would not there be atleast some indication (evidence)that they might go far? As Oppossed to standing in front of a three time loser in the slammer and making the same statement. Why would it not be ok in any thread to point out a fallacy, in this instance that there is some special category of faith or belief that applies to religion, there simply is not.I have asked someone,anyone to give me another word for faith, that does not involve the idea of unsubstantiated belief or unsubstantialted belief and to this point I have been offered none.Im sorry if the dictionary and the people that wrote it are in error in this instance. One simply believes something on evidence or they do not, religion is no different. Wow did you count each one of these words, or do you have a computer program that does that? Ofcourse I can understand that point, but I guess its the ole, "someone responded to me therefore I have got to respond back to them", thingy. Its like a snowball down the hill, I suppose.I simply meant that I might not be up for a marathon thread again, due to the fact that these things consume a great deal of thime and effort. But thanks for letting continue to particapate anyway.The BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.