|
On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect.
I'd say that Atheism can require faith.
If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist.
I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly.
You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith.
A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists.
|
AWESOME, CAN I BE CHRISTIAN IF I DON'T BELIEVE IN MORAL ABSOLUTES IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER? CAUSE YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST MAH TAKE ON TEH BIBLE LOLZ.
Good post though, it's absolutely mindboggling that anyone can honestly subscribe to this idiocy. And one thing on heaven and hell. Let's say you live a virtuous life blah blah blah etc and you go to heaven, you're really not going to feel remotely bad for a countless number people down south burning in eternal torment for all eternity? That won't rouse the smallest bit of compassion or guilt in you? Not all of these people even sinned in copious amounts, some of them just never had exposure to Christianity. No, even if I believed anything written in the bible was true, I still wouldn't worship.
Further, given parallels to every single mythological figure ever, I don't believe jesus ever existed. Most records of his existence have a nice and convenient 200 year gap as well.
If you believe Jesus even existed, I hate you and want you to die a slow death. WRAaaaaAATTTHH!
|
On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. I'd say that Atheism can require faith. If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist. I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith. A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists.
I've lived my whole life in the Western world. I've obviously been exposed to Christianity. I've considered the existence of the various interpretations of the Christian God and... I simply see no reason to believe at all. How is that in any way based on faith?
|
On January 30 2008 06:31 Folca wrote:
Christian's View of why you go to hell
-You dont believe Christ
-You dont spread his word
Its simple as that
Theres nothing else that judges you from heaven or hell
(yes, obviously i have christian faith, but im slowly diminishing) :-/
Ohhh yeah, one thing even a retard can observe about humanity and religion is that people are 349058390.5x more likely to fight for beliefs than uphold them. The more extreme the belief, the more likely.
On January 30 2008 06:53 Chill wrote:
Given that Every. Single. One. of your posts at TeamLiquid is about Christianity, would it not make more sense to find another community to post in?
They're good posts though, so stop whining, noob!
|
On January 30 2008 07:30 L wrote: Yes it does. Agnosticism doesn't.
Agnosticism is the belief that the truth value of the existence of god(s) is unknowable. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).
So... no, atheism doesn't require faith and agnosticism is irrelevant to that fact.
|
8748 Posts
On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly.
You're making an error here. Faith isn't required for axioms.
|
On January 30 2008 07:53 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. I'd say that Atheism can require faith. If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist. I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith. A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists. I've lived my whole life in the Western world. I've obviously been exposed to Christianity. I've considered the existence of the various interpretations of the Christian God and... I simply see no reason to believe at all. How is that in any way based on faith?
My point was simply this:
You consider the possibility of something and decide, based on any number of reasons, that that something was impossible.
In order to make such a judgment, you needed reasons. At some point in your reasoning you would have had to make an assumption - although it might be something very inane and seemingly straightforward, such as the assumption that the rules of Aristotelian logic can be applied to all situations. And at some level, you would have to have faith that your assumption was correct.
(But this kind of faith is a very ordinary kind of faith - like having faith that the sun will rise the next morning because it always has and you have no reason to believe that it won't. Belief in a God, or anything beyond the ordinary workings of the world is a much more extraordinary kind of faith. And it certainly would seem that atheism does not require such an extraordinary sort of faith - at least until the sun stops rising in the morning.)
|
On January 30 2008 07:58 NonY[rC] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You're making an error here. Faith isn't required for axioms.
I was just using the first definition of faith from google - Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. I guess I should have specified.
For some other definitions, faith is not required for axioms.
|
On January 30 2008 08:07 LiAlH4 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:53 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. I'd say that Atheism can require faith. If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist. I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith. A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists. I've lived my whole life in the Western world. I've obviously been exposed to Christianity. I've considered the existence of the various interpretations of the Christian God and... I simply see no reason to believe at all. How is that in any way based on faith? My point was simply this: You consider the possibility of something and decide, based on any number of reasons, that that something was impossible.In order to make such a judgment, you needed reasons. At some point in your reasoning you would have had to make an assumption - although it might be something very inane and seemingly straightforward, such as the assumption that the rules of Aristotelian logic can be applied to all situations. And at some level, you would have to have faith that your assumption was correct. (But this kind of faith is a very ordinary kind of faith - like having faith that the sun will rise the next morning because it always has and you have no reason to believe that it won't. Belief in a God, or anything beyond the ordinary workings of the world is a much more extraordinary kind of faith. And it certainly would seem that atheism does not require such an extraordinary sort of faith - at least until the sun stops rising in the morning.)
No, I simply see no reason to believe.
|
Chiming in randomally on the issue of faith
Soren Kierkegaard brings up interesting thoughts on the issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Søren_Kierkegaard#Thought
Other random thoughts:
At some level since we cannot do absolute everything for ourselves (as far as research observation and experience) we must choose to trust one source of authority over another.
I think atheism is appealing since you can, in theory, test the sources of authority personally.
|
On January 30 2008 08:12 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 08:07 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:53 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. I'd say that Atheism can require faith. If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist. I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith. A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists. I've lived my whole life in the Western world. I've obviously been exposed to Christianity. I've considered the existence of the various interpretations of the Christian God and... I simply see no reason to believe at all. How is that in any way based on faith? My point was simply this: You consider the possibility of something and decide, based on any number of reasons, that that something was impossible.In order to make such a judgment, you needed reasons. At some point in your reasoning you would have had to make an assumption - although it might be something very inane and seemingly straightforward, such as the assumption that the rules of Aristotelian logic can be applied to all situations. And at some level, you would have to have faith that your assumption was correct. (But this kind of faith is a very ordinary kind of faith - like having faith that the sun will rise the next morning because it always has and you have no reason to believe that it won't. Belief in a God, or anything beyond the ordinary workings of the world is a much more extraordinary kind of faith. And it certainly would seem that atheism does not require such an extraordinary sort of faith - at least until the sun stops rising in the morning.) No, I simply see no reason to believe.
Heh, you're right.
But I wonder if one could also say... I believe because I simply see no reason not to believe.
In which case, one would not require faith to believe in God either.
|
On January 30 2008 08:07 LiAlH4 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:53 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. I'd say that Atheism can require faith. If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist. I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith. A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists. I've lived my whole life in the Western world. I've obviously been exposed to Christianity. I've considered the existence of the various interpretations of the Christian God and... I simply see no reason to believe at all. How is that in any way based on faith? My point was simply this: You consider the possibility of something and decide, based on any number of reasons, that that something was impossible. In order to make such a judgment, you needed reasons. At some point in your reasoning you would have had to make an assumption - although it might be something very inane and seemingly straightforward, such as the assumption that the rules of Aristotelian logic can be applied to all situations. And at some level, you would have to have faith that your assumption was correct. (But this kind of faith is a very ordinary kind of faith - like having faith that the sun will rise the next morning because it always has and you have no reason to believe that it won't. Belief in a God, or anything beyond the ordinary workings of the world is a much more extraordinary kind of faith. And it certainly would seem that atheism does not require such an extraordinary sort of faith - at least until the sun stops rising in the morning.)
faith is belief in the absence of evidence, there is no evidence for god so there is no reason to believe that there could be such thing as the creator of the universe.
you don't need to disprove leprechauns to know they aren't real 
|
On January 30 2008 08:31 LiAlH4 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 08:12 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 08:07 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:53 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. I'd say that Atheism can require faith. If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist. I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith. A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists. I've lived my whole life in the Western world. I've obviously been exposed to Christianity. I've considered the existence of the various interpretations of the Christian God and... I simply see no reason to believe at all. How is that in any way based on faith? My point was simply this: You consider the possibility of something and decide, based on any number of reasons, that that something was impossible.In order to make such a judgment, you needed reasons. At some point in your reasoning you would have had to make an assumption - although it might be something very inane and seemingly straightforward, such as the assumption that the rules of Aristotelian logic can be applied to all situations. And at some level, you would have to have faith that your assumption was correct. (But this kind of faith is a very ordinary kind of faith - like having faith that the sun will rise the next morning because it always has and you have no reason to believe that it won't. Belief in a God, or anything beyond the ordinary workings of the world is a much more extraordinary kind of faith. And it certainly would seem that atheism does not require such an extraordinary sort of faith - at least until the sun stops rising in the morning.) No, I simply see no reason to believe. Heh, you're right. But I wonder if one could also say... I believe because I simply see no reason not to believe.In which case, one would not require faith to believe in God either.
No, the default position is disbelief. If I claimed that there was a tiny invisible leprechaun that sits on my left shoulder and makes all my decisions for me, would you initially believe it without testing it in any way?
|
On January 30 2008 09:00 Rev0lution wrote:faith is belief in the absence of evidence, there is no evidence for god so there is no reason to believe that there could be such thing as the creator of the universe. you don't need to disprove leprechauns to know they aren't real
Precisely. Faith is belief without evidence. If you have evidence then it isn't faith in the religious sense.
Also, to the blog owner: Bravo.
|
There is no god. <--- Good Link.
Or else if there is a god, it is not the god that we as people envision.
For the record. I'm not Atheist, I'm Agnostic.
|
United Arab Emirates5090 Posts
omg i dont get why people put so much effort into trying to prove that religion doesnt exist.
if they already believe it, then there is just no point of returning. they are 120% consumed by the poison and even if you pulled them so hard that you tore their limbs off and they are hanging by their tendons and ligaments they would still be holding onto their faith by their teeth.
just realize that religion is so powerful because it's much easier to take the blue pill than the red pill and hope that these maniacs dont mass too much power that they can fully take over the government and the law.
edit: what im trying to say is that it really is futile to argue with someone who is already living a life where it is fueled by blind, illogical belief in something extremely miraculous. to try to get them to realize they are wrong would be like saying to a man who's been bringing home the bacon for 40 yrs working as the guy in an assembly line who screws bolts onto cars that the next day there would be a machine doing his job. he would be uneducated, unwanted and too old to learn new things and his whole world would implode. how can you possible be able to convince someone of something like that?
for the past years i've been constantly trying to push this anti-religion thing and the only thing i've gotten is that my friends who are religious or slightly religious get pissed off at me. shit they're not going to church every sunday and they're not waiting till marriage to fuck but damn they say that they believe in god and all that jazz. other friends believe in karma, astrology and all that scooby doo. come to realize that humans have evolved to a level in intelligence where the weak minded absolutely need to fill their heads with something that is larger than themselves, even if it is pure undiluted maggot shit, and there is nothing you can do about it but sit back and spectate and let the mayhem run its course.
|
Dude; no one cares what you think about christianity. Really; I'm christian and i don't care what you're saying nor am I going to argue with you because it will be pointless. There's like 100000 different ways we can argue about this. But i'm just letting you know.
Edit: BTW do you really think those things are really the 7 deadly sins now? This is a new era were it's harder being a christian then ever before.
|
I'm only here for the arguments, ma'am
|
On January 30 2008 12:13 -WGT-Stars- wrote:
Dude; no one cares what you think about christianity. Really; I'm christian and i don't care what you're saying nor am I going to argue with you because it will be pointless. There's like 100000 different ways we can argue about this. But i'm just letting you know.
Edit: BTW do you really think those things are really the 7 deadly sins now? This is a new era were it's harder being a christian then ever before.
wow worst response ever...you win
wasn't aware the definition of sin has changed over the years.
|
On January 30 2008 12:34 suresh0t wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 12:13 -WGT-Stars- wrote:
Dude; no one cares what you think about christianity. Really; I'm christian and i don't care what you're saying nor am I going to argue with you because it will be pointless. There's like 100000 different ways we can argue about this. But i'm just letting you know.
Edit: BTW do you really think those things are really the 7 deadly sins now? This is a new era were it's harder being a christian then ever before. wow worst response ever...you win wasn't aware the definition of sin has changed over the years.
You didn't get the memo? There are 40 deadly sins now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
