Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2013, 09:07 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:01 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 08:31 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  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

There you go, redefining words for your own convenience.

Atheist means without a belief in gods. No one is claiming proof that gods don't exist, merely that due to lack of evidence, that belief is not held.

There is no burden of proof on the atheist; the atheist makes no claim.

You are the one asserting a claim - that god exists - the burden of proof lies with you.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
12-06-2013, 09:08 AM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2013 09:15 AM by KidCharlemagne1962.)
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 08:42 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(11-06-2013 01:48 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  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

Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). No more, no less. There is nothing to "believe" in. For most atheists that is the end. Some, and this would include me, say that it is so unlikely that there is a magic pantheon of gods that they certainly do not exist.

To me your god is just as real as bigfoot, unicorns and leprechauns, I don't waste a whole lot of time contemplating them.

Where is your evidence for Jesus as protrayed in the Bible (other than in the Bible)? I believe there was some sort of deluded Rabbi he was based on along with mixing other "savioir" types these savages would have knowledge of. I highly doubt he existed as xians think he did (even when you take away all the magic powers stuff, let alone divinity). No manger, no census trek, no water into wine etc.

I don't get upset when someone says they have "belief" in something. I don't think making decisions without evidence is smart but if you keep your belief out of my way go ahead and believe. Of course you can't, you have to try and make others suffer at the whims of your holy book.

Of all the gods in history in all the civilizations why do you believe in yours? Probably because you were brought up that way. Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KidCharlemagne1962's post
12-06-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 08:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(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.

I'm not quite sure if you're just trying to be sarcastic here or are actually trying to make a point with your "1-4". No one's arguing that there aren't changes within species. Many people call this "micro-Evolution", but it's basically just changes and variations within a species. We all can observe changes within human beings. No two people are alike. This does nothing to prove macro-Evolution. When people argue about evolution they are generally talking about this, macro-Evolution. Basically, this is talking about changes between species. In other words, a certain species changing over time to become another species all together. That's where the evidence breaks down. There is no good evidence, nor has there ever been, to show a change from one species to another. That's where the argument of evolution takes place generally. tb
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 09:15 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:12 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 08:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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.


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.

I'm not quite sure if you're just trying to be sarcastic here or are actually trying to make a point with your "1-4". No one's arguing that there aren't changes within species. Many people call this "micro-Evolution", but it's basically just changes and variations within a species. We all can observe changes within human beings. No two people are alike. This does nothing to prove macro-Evolution. When people argue about evolution they are generally talking about this, macro-Evolution. Basically, this is talking about changes between species. In other words, a certain species changing over time to become another species all together. That's where the evidence breaks down. There is no good evidence, nor has there ever been, to show a change from one species to another. That's where the argument of evolution takes place generally. tb

You either are unaware of, or don't understand, the evidence.

Only creationists use the terms 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. There is just 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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
12-06-2013, 09:17 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:12 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 08:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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.


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.

I'm not quite sure if you're just trying to be sarcastic here or are actually trying to make a point with your "1-4". No one's arguing that there aren't changes within species. Many people call this "micro-Evolution", but it's basically just changes and variations within a species. We all can observe changes within human beings. No two people are alike. This does nothing to prove macro-Evolution. When people argue about evolution they are generally talking about this, macro-Evolution. Basically, this is talking about changes between species. In other words, a certain species changing over time to become another species all together. That's where the evidence breaks down. There is no good evidence, nor has there ever been, to show a change from one species to another. That's where the argument of evolution takes place generally. tb

Am I the only one getting a
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTWOC3kRCpVJsiab2CVzLQ...cQT-I9e4P2]

Kind vibe here?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Free Thought's post
12-06-2013, 09:24 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 09:01 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  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

There you go, redefining words for your own convenience.

Atheist means without a belief in gods. No one is claiming proof that gods don't exist, merely that due to lack of evidence, that belief is not held.

There is no burden of proof on the atheist; the atheist makes no claim.

You are the one asserting a claim - that god exists - the burden of proof lies with you.
That's where you're wrong. The burden of proof lies with both of us. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you're an agnostic, fine, go ahead and say you're not sure if there is a God or not. Then, you won't have any burden of proof. But, as an atheist, you are making a bold claim that there is no God. You are not on neutral ground as an atheist, just as I am not on neutral ground as a Christian. Some of the proof I have backing up Christianity is this: The ordered life that we see all around us in the midst of chaos. The chances of that happening by random chance as opposed to grand design is not that believable. The person of Jesus Christ has been historically accounted for. The places in the Bible have been archaeologically verified. Jesus miracles and rising from the dead have been historically recorded. Jesus own disciples under the threat of death believing in Jesus is great proof for me. No one would die for a lie knowing it to be a lie, but many have gone to their deaths for Christ knowing it to be the truth. I could go on, but this gives you a little taste of why I believe what I believe. Why do you believe what you believe? Thanks, tb
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 09:26 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:24 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 09:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  There you go, redefining words for your own convenience.

Atheist means without a belief in gods. No one is claiming proof that gods don't exist, merely that due to lack of evidence, that belief is not held.

There is no burden of proof on the atheist; the atheist makes no claim.

You are the one asserting a claim - that god exists - the burden of proof lies with you.
That's where you're wrong. The burden of proof lies with both of us. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you're an agnostic, fine, go ahead and say you're not sure if there is a God or not. Then, you won't have any burden of proof. But, as an atheist, you are making a bold claim that there is no God. You are not on neutral ground as an atheist, just as I am not on neutral ground as a Christian. Some of the proof I have backing up Christianity is this: The ordered life that we see all around us in the midst of chaos. The chances of that happening by random chance as opposed to grand design is not that believable. The person of Jesus Christ has been historically accounted for. The places in the Bible have been archaeologically verified. Jesus miracles and rising from the dead have been historically recorded. Jesus own disciples under the threat of death believing in Jesus is great proof for me. No one would die for a lie knowing it to be a lie, but many have gone to their deaths for Christ knowing it to be the truth. I could go on, but this gives you a little taste of why I believe what I believe. Why do you believe what you believe? Thanks, tb

Same reason as you: the beautiful and very efficient way nature works. This can only have developed over thousands and thousands of years.

Plus, of course, the nastiness and inconsistency of religions and descriptions of "god".

[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
12-06-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 09:12 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  I'm not quite sure if you're just trying to be sarcastic here or are actually trying to make a point with your "1-4". No one's arguing that there aren't changes within species. Many people call this "micro-Evolution", but it's basically just changes and variations within a species. We all can observe changes within human beings. No two people are alike. This does nothing to prove macro-Evolution. When people argue about evolution they are generally talking about this, macro-Evolution. Basically, this is talking about changes between species. In other words, a certain species changing over time to become another species all together. That's where the evidence breaks down. There is no good evidence, nor has there ever been, to show a change from one species to another. That's where the argument of evolution takes place generally. tb

You either are unaware of, or don't understand, the evidence.

Only creationists use the terms 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. There is just evolution.
You're trying to play around with semantics here. The only thing people are arguing about is change from one species to another. No one is arguing about changes within species. So, when people say that there is no evidence to back up evolution they are talking about changes from one species to another. Why do you go on believing this theory without any good evidence? What's your evidence that makes you believe in evolution, anyway? tb
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:24 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 09:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  There you go, redefining words for your own convenience.

Atheist means without a belief in gods. No one is claiming proof that gods don't exist, merely that due to lack of evidence, that belief is not held.

There is no burden of proof on the atheist; the atheist makes no claim.

You are the one asserting a claim - that god exists - the burden of proof lies with you.
That's where you're wrong. The burden of proof lies with both of us. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you're an agnostic, fine, go ahead and say you're not sure if there is a God or not. Then, you won't have any burden of proof. But, as an atheist, you are making a bold claim that there is no God. You are not on neutral ground as an atheist, just as I am not on neutral ground as a Christian. Some of the proof I have backing up Christianity is this: The ordered life that we see all around us in the midst of chaos. The chances of that happening by random chance as opposed to grand design is not that believable. The person of Jesus Christ has been historically accounted for. The places in the Bible have been archaeologically verified. Jesus miracles and rising from the dead have been historically recorded. Jesus own disciples under the threat of death believing in Jesus is great proof for me. No one would die for a lie knowing it to be a lie, but many have gone to their deaths for Christ knowing it to be the truth. I could go on, but this gives you a little taste of why I believe what I believe. Why do you believe what you believe? Thanks, tb

I am making no claim that no gods exist. I am stating that I do not hold a belief that gods exist because there is no evidence for their existence.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
12-06-2013, 09:34 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:26 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 09:24 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  That's where you're wrong. The burden of proof lies with both of us. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you're an agnostic, fine, go ahead and say you're not sure if there is a God or not. Then, you won't have any burden of proof. But, as an atheist, you are making a bold claim that there is no God. You are not on neutral ground as an atheist, just as I am not on neutral ground as a Christian. Some of the proof I have backing up Christianity is this: The ordered life that we see all around us in the midst of chaos. The chances of that happening by random chance as opposed to grand design is not that believable. The person of Jesus Christ has been historically accounted for. The places in the Bible have been archaeologically verified. Jesus miracles and rising from the dead have been historically recorded. Jesus own disciples under the threat of death believing in Jesus is great proof for me. No one would die for a lie knowing it to be a lie, but many have gone to their deaths for Christ knowing it to be the truth. I could go on, but this gives you a little taste of why I believe what I believe. Why do you believe what you believe? Thanks, tb

Same reason as you: the beautiful and very efficient way nature works. This can only have developed over thousands and thousands of years.

Plus, of course, the nastiness and inconsistency of religions and descriptions of "god".
The ordered universe that we see could obviously not have been birthed out of chaos. Random chance cannot produce order. A grand designer, God, however, can produce great things. This logic is irrefutable. Yes, religions have messed things up, but a relationship with God is different. While religion is man-made, a relationship with God is God made. God desires to have a relationship with you not based upon religion but based upon a love for you. Why don't you give him a chance and open up to him. tb
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: