Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-06-2013, 01:48 PM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(10-06-2013 10:49 PM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 04:32 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I hold no beliefs about chairs being able to hold me. I assume either it will, or based on my judgment it won't. There isn't a need for belief in that. .

Your assuming my disbelief, if you will, is based on something other than evidence. I dismiss the bible as being proof of any diety's existence.

I also find your usage of the term "you atheists" to be rather insulting. Like when my grandma used to yell at the neighborhood kids. "You kids get off my lawn" and later, "you college students with your books and education...."

I won't get into her racial slurs, since those mostly began with "those..."

When you liken atheism to a religion it's like saying bald is a hair color.

When you go to sit on a chair, like it or not, you are exercising your faith in that chair. Yes, you might sit down based upon your past experience, but that still is faith or belief being strengthened by past experience. Faith is simply belief or trust in something. And our belief or trust or faith is bolstered or not based upon a number of factors, past experience being one of them. Other things that either increase our level of faith in something or not is historical evidence, archaeological evidence, and so on. The only reason you and I believe that George Washington existed is because of historical evidence. Your choosing to not believe in the Bible as historically accurate is your choice but that doesn't make it any less reliable. Your choosing to not exercise faith in Jesus Christ doesn't hurt him or make him not true. You have chosen a belief system that has no room for God or Jesus Christ, but it is a belief system, nonetheless. I would encourage you to check out the historical accuracy of the Bible and be open to the facts presented therein. And keep in mind, Jesus doesn't want you to believe in Him so he can then take all of the fun out of your life. He is not a cosmic kill joy. Jesus wants to become a part of your life to give you so much more meaning and fulfillment than you could ever have on your own. He's not your enemy. He wants to become your friend. tb

Oh wow...

Ok...I've not yet had enough coffee but this should be fun.

As it's already been explained...Faith or belief do not require any evidence to support it.

Based on evidence Jesus did not exist in the way he was portrayed in the bible. Period.

You are right, he's not the enemy...Where did I state he was? It's like saying a unicorn is my enemy.

Here's the thing you don't grasp. I can't hate or dislike something I don't think existed. Likewise I cannot believe in something without evidence to support it.

For example: I do not believe evolution is true based on the evidence. I know evolution is true based on the evidence.

I know jesus didn't exist the way he was portrayed in the bible. I cannot say that he never existed because there isn't enough evidence either way to support that. So if you "believe" he did exist and he is your friend...that is your "belief" and you probably have "faith" it's true. Based solely on your "belief" you dismiss all the growing evidence that he (jesus) didn't really do much of anything and isn't the son of dog. That is your belief and your faith. I don't "believe" in atheism. I am simply an atheist.

For me faith and belief aren't the issues.

And when I sit on chair I'm not exercising any type of faith or belief. I don't have a belief system built around chair sitting. Just as I do not have a "belief" system built around atheism. I belong to a group of mothers of teens. It also doesn't mean I have a belief system built around motherhood. If I belonged to a movie or music forum it shouldn't mean I have a belief system built around music or films...

Shoo fly


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
12-06-2013, 07:13 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
Subscribing to the school of philosophy that teaches belief is the basis of knowledge indicates that "no belief" is, in itself, a nonsense statement. Due to the educational process, often this school of thought is ingrained without consciousness awareness. In such a context the "belief of the atheist" can be summed thusly:

I believe your theism is bullshit.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
12-06-2013, 08:17 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(11-06-2013 05:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 10:30 PM)tblanch777 Wrote:  Faith is not believing in something without evidence. It's exactly the opposite. It's believing in something because of the evidence, whether the evidence is from prior experience, historical evidence, archaeological evidence, and so on. And yes, not smoking for instance is a habit and a good one at that. All habits are not bad ones. Not eating fatty foods is another good habit. Some other ones are: not getting drunk, not spending too much money, not putting your feet too close to a lawn mower, etc. etc.... Do I need to go on. So yes, choosing not to believe in something is a belief in and of itself. Atheism is a belief system. I'm not sure why atheists get so upset when they are called out on this. Why wouldn't, you, as an atheist want to admit that your belief system is that there is no God? If you are so proud and certain that atheism is true and correct, why not come out and say that is your belief system? Why try to play all of these verbal gymnastics trying to say that you have no belief when it comes to spiritual things and eternal things. It's obvious that you have a belief, a religion, and a world-view. It's just that your religion is one without God. It's not too late, though. You can change your belief system at anytime. Don't let other atheists talk you out of the greatest decision you couldl ever make in your life. tb

That is some serious mumbo-jumbo. You don't get to redefine words for your convenience.

The definition of faith is belief in the absence of evidence. And lacking a belief is not a belief system. I lack belief in dragons and unicorns - does that constitute a belief system? No.

You are conflating atheism with actual belief systems such as naturalism or secular humanism. Some atheists subscribe to one or both of these, but some don't..

You are preaching up the wrong tree here.

Your above definition of faith is off and untrue. Your definition would be correct if you added the word "blind" to it. Yes, blind faith is belief in the absence of evidence, but not just faith by itself. When you ask someone why they believe what they believe and they tell you "just because", yes, that is blind faith. But, when they give you evidence of why they believe in what they believe in, that is simply faith backed up by fact or evidence. Now, you can decide for yourself whether the evidence they have relied upon is trustworthy or not, but you can't rightfully say they don't have faith. Logic has not given you the option to do this. I believe there is no good, clear evidence to back up the theory of evolution. But, for me to say that you have blind faith in the theory of evolution would not be fair of me. You have some information that you believe is correct to back up your faith or belief in evolution. Even though I believe your belief system is incorrect, it's still your belief system. So, both you and I have a belief system and have a set of data we say backs up our belief system. So, faith is not necessarily blind faith. Those two things are different. By the way, our two belief systems can't both be right at the same time. Either one has to be right or they both have to be wrong. I obviously believe my belief system in the person of Jesus Christ is correct, but that's a subject for another time. Thanks, tb
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 08:19 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 08:17 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(11-06-2013 05:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is some serious mumbo-jumbo. You don't get to redefine words for your convenience.

The definition of faith is belief in the absence of evidence. And lacking a belief is not a belief system. I lack belief in dragons and unicorns - does that constitute a belief system? No.

You are conflating atheism with actual belief systems such as naturalism or secular humanism. Some atheists subscribe to one or both of these, but some don't..

You are preaching up the wrong tree here.

Your above definition of faith is off and untrue. Your definition would be correct if you added the word "blind" to it. Yes, blind faith is belief in the absence of evidence, but not just faith by itself. When you ask someone why they believe what they believe and they tell you "just because", yes, that is blind faith. But, when they give you evidence of why they believe in what they believe in, that is simply faith backed up by fact or evidence. Now, you can decide for yourself whether the evidence they have relied upon is trustworthy or not, but you can't rightfully say they don't have faith. Logic has not given you the option to do this. I believe there is no good, clear evidence to back up the theory of evolution. But, for me to say that you have blind faith in the theory of evolution would not be fair of me. You have some information that you believe is correct to back up your faith or belief in evolution. Even though I believe your belief system is incorrect, it's still your belief system. So, both you and I have a belief system and have a set of data we say backs up our belief system. So, faith is not necessarily blind faith. Those two things are different. By the way, our two belief systems can't both be right at the same time. Either one has to be right or they both have to be wrong. I obviously believe my belief system in the person of Jesus Christ is correct, but that's a subject for another time. Thanks, tb

If you have evidence, there is no belief needed. With evidence, you know.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
12-06-2013, 08:28 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 08:17 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(11-06-2013 05:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is some serious mumbo-jumbo. You don't get to redefine words for your convenience.

The definition of faith is belief in the absence of evidence. And lacking a belief is not a belief system. I lack belief in dragons and unicorns - does that constitute a belief system? No.

You are conflating atheism with actual belief systems such as naturalism or secular humanism. Some atheists subscribe to one or both of these, but some don't..

You are preaching up the wrong tree here.

Your above definition of faith is off and untrue. Your definition would be correct if you added the word "blind" to it. Yes, blind faith is belief in the absence of evidence, but not just faith by itself. When you ask someone why they believe what they believe and they tell you "just because", yes, that is blind faith. But, when they give you evidence of why they believe in what they believe in, that is simply faith backed up by fact or evidence. Now, you can decide for yourself whether the evidence they have relied upon is trustworthy or not, but you can't rightfully say they don't have faith. Logic has not given you the option to do this. I believe there is no good, clear evidence to back up the theory of evolution. But, for me to say that you have blind faith in the theory of evolution would not be fair of me. You have some information that you believe is correct to back up your faith or belief in evolution. Even though I believe your belief system is incorrect, it's still your belief system. So, both you and I have a belief system and have a set of data we say backs up our belief system. So, faith is not necessarily blind faith. Those two things are different. By the way, our two belief systems can't both be right at the same time. Either one has to be right or they both have to be wrong. I obviously believe my belief system in the person of Jesus Christ is correct, but that's a subject for another time. Thanks, tb

faith /fāTH/ Noun
  1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
  2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.


Your belief that there is no good, clear evidence of evolution shows ignorance of the massive evidence for evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 08:31 AM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2013 08:39 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 08:17 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(11-06-2013 05:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is some serious mumbo-jumbo. You don't get to redefine words for your convenience.

The definition of faith is belief in the absence of evidence. And lacking a belief is not a belief system. I lack belief in dragons and unicorns - does that constitute a belief system? No.

You are conflating atheism with actual belief systems such as naturalism or secular humanism. Some atheists subscribe to one or both of these, but some don't..

You are preaching up the wrong tree here.

Your above definition of faith is off and untrue. Your definition would be correct if you added the word "blind" to it. Yes, blind faith is belief in the absence of evidence, but not just faith by itself. When you ask someone why they believe what they believe and they tell you "just because", yes, that is blind faith. But, when they give you evidence of why they believe in what they believe in, that is simply faith backed up by fact or evidence. Now, you can decide for yourself whether the evidence they have relied upon is trustworthy or not, but you can't rightfully say they don't have faith. Logic has not given you the option to do this. I believe there is no good, clear evidence to back up the theory of evolution. But, for me to say that you have blind faith in the theory of evolution would not be fair of me. You have some information that you believe is correct to back up your faith or belief in evolution. Even though I believe your belief system is incorrect, it's still your belief system. So, both you and I have a belief system and have a set of data we say backs up our belief system. So, faith is not necessarily blind faith. Those two things are different. By the way, our two belief systems can't both be right at the same time. Either one has to be right or they both have to be wrong. I obviously believe my belief system in the person of Jesus Christ is correct, but that's a subject for another time. Thanks, tb

No he doesn't have to add the word "blind". If you have evidence then it is no longer faith. Maybe you can answer this for me, why do theists like you insist on giving words new meaning?

Definition of FAITH
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Frusty

You are just another in the long line of theists who come here and think that by redefining words you can make your case. It is a blatant distortion of semantics and it only weakens your argument. Let's agree to conform to actual definitions of words so a meaningful discussion can take place. If you keep insisting on language manipulation then no one will ever take you seriously.

PS Adding a descriptive adjective does NOT change the meaning of the word being described; paralyzing fear, unbounded love etc. The words paralyzing and unbounded and blind DO NOT give the noun a NEW meaning.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Full Circle's post
12-06-2013, 08:42 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(11-06-2013 01:48 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 10:49 PM)tblanch777 Wrote:  When you go to sit on a chair, like it or not, you are exercising your faith in that chair. Yes, you might sit down based upon your past experience, but that still is faith or belief being strengthened by past experience. Faith is simply belief or trust in something. And our belief or trust or faith is bolstered or not based upon a number of factors, past experience being one of them. Other things that either increase our level of faith in something or not is historical evidence, archaeological evidence, and so on. The only reason you and I believe that George Washington existed is because of historical evidence. Your choosing to not believe in the Bible as historically accurate is your choice but that doesn't make it any less reliable. Your choosing to not exercise faith in Jesus Christ doesn't hurt him or make him not true. You have chosen a belief system that has no room for God or Jesus Christ, but it is a belief system, nonetheless. I would encourage you to check out the historical accuracy of the Bible and be open to the facts presented therein. And keep in mind, Jesus doesn't want you to believe in Him so he can then take all of the fun out of your life. He is not a cosmic kill joy. Jesus wants to become a part of your life to give you so much more meaning and fulfillment than you could ever have on your own. He's not your enemy. He wants to become your friend. tb

Oh wow...

Ok...I've not yet had enough coffee but this should be fun.

As it's already been explained...Faith or belief do not require any evidence to support it.

Based on evidence Jesus did not exist in the way he was portrayed in the bible. Period.

You are right, he's not the enemy...Where did I state he was? It's like saying a unicorn is my enemy.

Here's the thing you don't grasp. I can't hate or dislike something I don't think existed. Likewise I cannot believe in something without evidence to support it.

For example: I do not believe evolution is true based on the evidence. I know evolution is true based on the evidence.

I know jesus didn't exist the way he was portrayed in the bible. I cannot say that he never existed because there isn't enough evidence either way to support that. So if you "believe" he did exist and he is your friend...that is your "belief" and you probably have "faith" it's true. Based solely on your "belief" you dismiss all the growing evidence that he (jesus) didn't really do much of anything and isn't the son of dog. That is your belief and your faith. I don't "believe" in atheism. I am simply an atheist.

For me faith and belief aren't the issues.

And when I sit on chair I'm not exercising any type of faith or belief. I don't have a belief system built around chair sitting. Just as I do not have a "belief" system built around atheism. I belong to a group of mothers of teens. It also doesn't mean I have a belief system built around motherhood. If I belonged to a movie or music forum it shouldn't mean I have a belief system built around music or films...

Shoo fly

Yes, faith or belief does require evidence, or else we would call it "blind faith" or "blind belief". The difference may seem subtle, but actually it's quite significant. And you're quite mistaken about the evidence for Jesus Christ and saying that he might not have existed or you're not quite sure if he existed. Most historians, even secular ones, admit that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Most will also admit that he was a good person and good teacher. Where people often disagree is in the claims that he made about himself. Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh and proved it in many different ways. He proved it by the miracles he performed, the sinless life that he lived, and ultimately by rising from the dead. You can choose to accept or reject this evidence, but to say Jesus might have never existed isn't one of your options based upon historical evidence. And to say you are just an atheist and don't have to believe in atheism is trying to take the easy way out. That's like me trying to say that I don't have to believe in Christianity, I'm just a Christian. Like it or not, every day is filled with choices and belief systems we align ourselves with or not. And something as life and death as "God or no God" is definitely something that takes a belief system one way or another. Atheists many times try to paint themselves as neutral when it comes to God, but that would be the job of the agnostic. Once you cross over to atheism, you are putting yourself into the camp of "belief in no God". And the proof is in the pudding as atheists get so upset when someone says they have a belief in something. If it didn't bother them so much, they would be more like the agnostic and say "I don't know" or "I'm not sure". But the definition of an atheist is one that says "I'm sure" and it's definitely not God. I hope your mind changes, though, and you move more into the camp of the agnostic and eventually into the camp of the Christian. Thanks, tb
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 08:45 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
If I'm moving into the Christian camp, it is to set it on fire. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
12-06-2013, 08:46 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 08:17 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  I believe there is no good, clear evidence to back up the theory of evolution. But, for me to say that you have blind faith in the theory of evolution would not be fair of me. You have some information that you believe is correct to back up your faith or belief in evolution.

All right, tb. What you don't know could fill quarries. But let's take this point by point. Let me know where you diagree.

(10-06-2013 10:33 AM)cjlr Wrote:  1. There are observable differences between individuals of any given species.
2. Offspring differ from their parents, because they carry a mix of their parents' hereditary traits.
3. Some individuals are more likely to reproduce, based on the traits they exhibit.
4. The effect of 1-3 is: traits are propagated through a population.

That's evolution. That's it. Do you define evolution differently? Then you're wrong.

Of course, you already do accept it implicitly if you've ever eaten a domesticated plant or animal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 09:01 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 08:31 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 08:17 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  Your above definition of faith is off and untrue. Your definition would be correct if you added the word "blind" to it. Yes, blind faith is belief in the absence of evidence, but not just faith by itself. When you ask someone why they believe what they believe and they tell you "just because", yes, that is blind faith. But, when they give you evidence of why they believe in what they believe in, that is simply faith backed up by fact or evidence. Now, you can decide for yourself whether the evidence they have relied upon is trustworthy or not, but you can't rightfully say they don't have faith. Logic has not given you the option to do this. I believe there is no good, clear evidence to back up the theory of evolution. But, for me to say that you have blind faith in the theory of evolution would not be fair of me. You have some information that you believe is correct to back up your faith or belief in evolution. Even though I believe your belief system is incorrect, it's still your belief system. So, both you and I have a belief system and have a set of data we say backs up our belief system. So, faith is not necessarily blind faith. Those two things are different. By the way, our two belief systems can't both be right at the same time. Either one has to be right or they both have to be wrong. I obviously believe my belief system in the person of Jesus Christ is correct, but that's a subject for another time. Thanks, tb

No he doesn't have to add the word "blind". If you have evidence then it is no longer faith. Maybe you can answer this for me, why do theists like you insist on giving words new meaning?

Definition of FAITH
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Frusty

You are just another in the long line of theists who come here and think that by redefining words you can make your case. It is a blatant distortion of semantics and it only weakens your argument. Let's agree to conform to actual definitions of words so a meaningful discussion can take place. If you keep insisting on language manipulation then no one will ever take you seriously.

PS Adding a descriptive adjective does NOT change the meaning of the word being described; paralyzing fear, unbounded love etc. The words paralyzing and unbounded and blind DO NOT give the noun a NEW meaning.

Faith and blind faith are two different things just like belief and blind belief. If I jump off of a tall building expecting to land safely on the ground, I'm exercising blind faith. If I examine everything before I jump and decide to not jump based upon the laws of gravity, then I'm exercising my faith or belief in gravity. My faith or belief or trust in something can either lead me to take a certain action or keep me from taking the action all together. If a person calls himself an atheist, and says he's an atheist just because, then he is exercising blind faith, belief, or trust. If he says I'm an atheist because I've examined the evidence and believe it points me to the fact of "no God", then he is exercising faith, belief, or trust. For an atheist to try and remain neutral in this is just not a logical option. If an atheist wants to remain neutral, he better start calling himself an agnostic. By the way, an atheist is under the same scrutiny as a theist, and has to succumb to the same burden of proof. So, if you want to start playing around with semantics you better be ready to talk about the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. Thanks, tb
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: