Can people live without faith?

[FarWanderer]

Non-believers often cite faith as a poor justification for belief. However, believers often accuse non-believers of their own beliefs being faith based.

Are they right? Is a reliance on faith something inescapable for all of us? And if it is, what ought we put faith into and why?

[ttruscott]

...

Well, the Bible's definition of fiaht is rather vague and useless in te context of the OP's attempt to differenciate between religious faith and rational faith

Secular belief is based on knowledge, the proof of experience.

Faith is based on hope about things unproven or trust in a person who has yet to experientially prove they are trustworthy.

Bible translators are also interpreters and they tend to use faith and belief to be the same and in a strict Christian context, that works fine but since secular belief is the same word as religious belief but with an opposite meaning, things get difficult.

Peace, Ted

[Peter]

Religious faith is just organized hope. Religion is basically a hope club. Your life sucks so hard that you hope there is a god to make everything right eventually. It's also fun and reinforcing to go to the hope club and chant with the other hopefuls. Is there any doubt as to why religion is so popular in the third world where life is so difficult? If everyone on the planet was perfectly happy and healthy do you think there would be any religion? Nope.

So to the OP, everyone needs some hope. I hope the world will be a better place for everyone so we can stop arguing about which imaginary god can beat up the others. I just don't delude myself into thinking that some imaginary father figure will help with my hope.

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 9 by ttruscott]

Yes, I am fully aware that Christians religious tradition based definition of faith is quite different. That doesn't make it correct. You see, if your belief system had evidence, it wouldn't require faith, it would just be fact, and we would learn creationism in public school....but it doesn't. Your faith requires a belief in a transcendental reality...something else that lacks evidence, and no argument from personal experience isn't evidence.

Lets take a look at that shall we?

I have long been of the opinion that if you believe in something deeply enough, and seek it, you will find it whether it exists or not.

Since no writings exist authored by Jesus, we must contemplate on his alleged teachings based on the books written after his death (epistles). All of which the validity is subject to debate, since upon close analysis of the New Testament it is apparent at least half of it meets the very definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it. Let us look at a couple of alleged statements made by Jesus.

"Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive� (Bible, Matthew 21:22).

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you� (Bible, Matthew 7:7).

These statements do not jibe with me as it is obvious that when one considers that billions of desperate prayers uttered over time have gone unanswered. I would presume that the millions of Jews who were massacred made a few prayers on their own behalf or on the behalf of their children to no avail. Millions of brokenhearted parents have prayed over their sick and dying children but to no avail. This is usually the point I am told that as mere mortals we don’t understand God’s plan, or God works in mysterious ways. However, based on my life experience along with careful consideration of all empirical evidence to the contrary, I would surmise that his statements are unfounded in truth. I interpret truth as a standard based on reality (Albl 6).

I am not sure how one can form a reasonable faith, as a belief which is based on insufficient evidence, draws a conclusion of questionable value. This cannot point one to the path of truth based on reason and logic. One’s view on ultimate reality is highly subjective and gets into philosophical ideas that while interesting, are impossible to prove. Openness to transcendent reality requires belief in the supernatural.

Works cited:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

[Peter]

Duplicate

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 5 by dianaiad]

Open your eyes dear,

...
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

...

Now put your comprehension cap on...what would "firm belief in something for which there is no evidence" mean? = Belief in something without evidence.

...

HWGA, sigh...

Since when did no proof come to mean there is no evidence? Proof ≠ lack of evidence but an understanding of the evidence to decide a certain way.

Some people study evidence and then determine they don't think there is enough or it is not of the right quality for proof then say there was no evidence to study!

The Bible IS evidence and your denial it proves anything about GOD does not mean it is not evidence. The life of Christ IS evidence and your rejection of it as proof of spiritual reality does not mean it is not evidence. The anecdotal evidence of the experience of others IS evidence whether you accept it as credible or not, it is till evidence.

Peace, Ted

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 15 by ttruscott]

Proof.

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. The act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:
to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.

The bible is a book filled with pseudepigrapha, interpolations, parables and allegorical writings. Take all of that out and you barely have enough to make a pamphlet. So how does one establish it is evidence? Since all writings about Jesus were written by those who never knew him. Oral tradition/hearsay does not evidence make.

The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

2) Galatians - complete third hand heresay.

3) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

4) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.

5) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.


Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
- Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He� does mention “Christ� on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html)

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.


Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"


getting the picture yet?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 1 by FarWanderer]

Interesting point. First faith.

Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

<snip to end>

Thank you for illustrating my point, made in my previous post.

.....which, of course, you obviously did not read.

Faith does NOT mean 'the belief in something without evidence."

Not according to any reputable dictionary.

Given that you have the wrong definition, the rest of your post makes no logical sense.

When you go to bed at night, faith in waking up the next morning is based on what? It's based on the fact that the last 10,000 times or so you went to bed, you woke up the next morning. You can use the word "faith" to describe this perfectly reasonable extrapolation from extensive empirical data, if you want, but don't expect the "reasonableness" of the word "faith" in this context to bleed into the use of the word "faith" when used to describe belief in zombies, angels, leprechauns, etc.

"Faith" based on a reasonable assesment and extrapolation of tangible data: Good

Faith based on childhood indoctrination into a belief system devoid of any evidence whatsoever: Bad

Good, bad...it's still faith.

Oh, and thank you again for illustrating yet another point that I made; not only did you confirm my claim that non-believers redefine "faith" to suit themselves (and not according to any dictionary), but also my claim that those same non believers consider that any evidence/reason that they don't personally like doesn't actually exist.


The question is whether people live 'on faith.'

They do.

Whether or not the reasons for their faith are 'reasonable' is an entirely different subject. Personally, I don't give two hoots that you think that the evidence for my belief is 'devoid of any evidence whatever."

Your disbelief isn't my problem.

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 17 by dianaiad]

We simply use the definition for what it says...belief without evidence/proof.

You must make up a transcendental theory based on "wouldn't it be cool if there was a super genie that made everything" type posits while atheists prefer to live in the real world. Subjective philosophical ideas about first causals, pre-conditions to intelligibility, sentience, complexity of life, paschal's wager etc etc are all marveluous thought exercises, but in the end; subjective philosophy and having no bearing on the real tangible world around us.

We can't help that the bible is largely a disproven fictional document full of musings and allegorical writings, nor can we help that the very basis of christianity is on jesus, of which no one who wrote of him, actually knew him, so to base such an important thing as "faith" on someone who you have no idea what he allegedly said or did, because it is all hearsay...is the very definition of blind faith. Congrats.

[ttruscott]

Religious faith is just organized hope. Religion is basically a hope club.

...

A fairly accurate assessment missing only two things: the second phrase of the definition is "the conviction of things unseen." conviction being "a firmly held belief or opinion." And as that conviction grows, it becomes a more certain knowledge.

This is because we experience what cannot be proved, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The fact that conviction can rise in people without proof nor the Holy Spirit is not proof that there is no Holy Spirit, only that proof is lacking, not the perceived internal evidence.

Peace, Ted

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 19 by ttruscott]

"the second phrase of the definition is "the conviction of things unseen." conviction being "a firmly held belief or opinion." And as that conviction grows, it becomes a more certain certain knowledge."

Really think about what you just wrote...as that conviction in things unseen grows, it becomes more certain. This pretty much defines delusion.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.