All people live on faith

[JohnnyJersey]

All people live on faith. There is not a soul in the world who KNOWS everything about everything. People all live on faith to some extent or another. By and large, most (if not all) people temper their faith with reason; it is rare that people believe things on blind faith. Someone may not know how or why his car works, but he has faith that it does. He may have enough knowledge about the car to satisfy (or PROVE to) himself that the car is worthy of his putting faith into it to do what he expects it to do. He need not get an education in engineering and auto mechanics to reasonably believe that a car will work as he expects.

People - theists and atheists alike - do this on a daily basis, with (virtually? probably absolutely) everything in their lives. We truly, at the root of it, don't KNOW anything. We use the word "know" to describe those things in which we have the greatest faith.

It is irrational for atheists to presume that theists don't know about God due to a lack of "proof" or due to the fact that there is faith involved. Most of those very atheists claim to "know" a lot of things which they, in fact, only "know" because they put their faith in what they have learned from others. Someone who has not been to Australia cannot claim to KNOW that Australia exists EXCEPT by accepting as valid evidence the reports and tales of others.

Many an atheist has admitted to accepting something as "true" based on a certain amount of evidence. It is implicit in their use of "evidence" that they refer to that evidence which they accept as valid, where someone else may reject that very same "evidence". Yet, they will turn around and decry the "fanciful tales and stories" about "gods and imaginary [sic] beings" that theists and supernaturalists accept as real.

There is a definite disconnect on the part of the anti-faith crowd.

Can anyone reasonably deny that faith plays a huge role in every person's life?

[JohnnyJersey]

which is objective as they are Christians and have no reason to lie.

I can understand why so many anti-Christians and anti-religion/supernatural folks here want to avoid admitting that they believe anything by faith

You have a lot of faith in Holy Cross - and the irony is certainly not lost on me that you are putting faith in a Christian university despite being anti-Christian yourself.

Correct. You demonstrate very well what it means to know nothing with certainty.

As I explained, I am not anti-Christian. In fact, I am a Christian in that I try to live according to Jesus's philosophy. I just don't buy the self-promotional stories of the Christian religion, nor their supernatural dogma. Such personal attacks are simply petty, schoolyard, name calling and are not warranted.

Your information about Jesus and what He said comes from the Bible. If you trust that the Bible accurately represents what He said, then it is inconsistent to mistrust the rest of the Bible.

What you (and others who do the same, of which there are millions) are doing is identifying those things attributed to Jesus which match up with what you have decided to hold as a belief yourself, and accepting those things, and using this as a basis to call yourself a "Christian".

By that logic, I could say that I am a Buddhist, since I live by and agree with some Buddhist teachings. I could also say I'm a Jew, Muslim, Taoist, Atheist, Agnostic, and Pagan. But that would be dishonest, because the fact is that while I hold beliefs that align with some of the beliefs in those religions/ideologies, I also reject much of what they hold to as well.

In your case, you may indeed accept much of what Christ taught - many do - but if you reject much of what He taught as well, and you reject the source of His Words as you know them, then you really only have some shared beliefs with Christianity. To say you're a Christian is a dishonest representation of the fact that you share beliefs with Christianity but reject many as well.

And no one knows anything with certainty, but that certainly(IE tends in the direction of certainty)does not mean I know nothing. Implying that is another personal attack.

This is all word games. People do know things with certainty; the fact that their certainty doesn't make them right is a different matter. For example, when people get married, they typically KNOW, with CERTAINTY, that they can trust their spouses reciprocate their love. It is a rare person who marries someone whom he or she is not certain about. They can still be wrong, no matter how certain they are, but their certainty is still certainty.

And disagreeing with you is not "violence" toward you. Until you have corrected your statements above I have nothing further to say to you.

Grumpy

I never said it was.

And I don't see what I have to apologize for.

[sickles]

How shall we make it simplistic enough to support the everything is faith argument?

He is actually making it more complicated so it can work for him. What JJ believes, I think, and please JJ, correct me if I am wrong, is this:

He says, "faith" has "no proof", since the definition does not specifically exclude "evidence", that means some evidence is an element of faith.

Not that "some evidence is an element of faith" but rather "any amount of evidence can be an element of faith". It has to do with the fact that "faith" is defined as a "belief". Beliefs can be based on evidence or not. "Proof", on the other hand, relies on evidence; there must be evidence in "proof". Therefore, "faith" is a belief that is not proven but may or may not have evidence to support it, while a proven belief is one that has proof to support it.

[Where he is making it complicated is that he assumes that everything not specifically excluded in the definition can be included. By his way of thinking, if "stinky farts" are not specifically excluded, they can be an element of faith. Yes, it's a ridiculous idea.

But if he is talking about what is not specifically excluded in the definition, what he should realize is that he is right, 'evidence' must be specificially excluded, however it must be specifically excluded from "PROOF", not "Faith" in order for him to be able to include 'evidence' as an element of faith.

Am I right, or am I right?

You're wrong. "Stinky farts" are not an element of belief, but evidence can be and is often (or usually) an element in the formation of a belief.

as i already posted, faith cannot stand up to the skeptics challenge, while belief may be able to . facts can. simple as that.

[Grumpy]

Grumpy

Your information about Jesus and what He said comes from the Bible. If you trust that the Bible accurately represents what He said, then it is inconsistent to mistrust the rest of the Bible.

Much of my information about the Trojan War came from a source that makes wild claims about Achiles being invulnerable. I have other reasons for accepting the Trojan War actually happened, but none to accept the claims made about Achiles.

In the same way, accepting Jesus being an actual person does not in any way validate the claims he walked on water. His philosophy(basically, "do unto others...")stands on it's own strength and has value even if every other story in the Bible is pure fiction. Following the philosophy of Jesus is the definition of being a Christian. Believing all the superstitious nonsense(IE the inerrency of the Bible, Genesis, Noah, etc.)is not required(most Christians in the world don't)and is actually only required by certain sects of Christianity(Fundamentalists)and has more to do with religion than it has to do with Jesus.

What you (and others who do the same, of which there are millions) are doing is identifying those things attributed to Jesus which match up with what you have decided to hold as a belief yourself, and accepting those things, and using this as a basis to call yourself a "Christian".

Not everything attributed to Jesus in the Gospels can be deemed as truth. Read my previous post on the Jefferson Bible. Reread the Gospels with these two premises(Jesus was a normal human man and all supernatural claims made about him were added by superstitious men)and you will find that the philosophy Jesus taught still rings true.

By that logic, I could say that I am a Buddhist, since I live by and agree with some Buddhist teachings. I could also say I'm a Jew, Muslim, Taoist, Atheist, Agnostic, and Pagan. But that would be dishonest, because the fact is that while I hold beliefs that align with some of the beliefs in those religions/ideologies, I also reject much of what they hold to as well.

Yes, by that logic one can recognize truth in most religions, it is the various supernatural claims most of the conflict revolves around. Recognizing that all the supernatural claims are simply fictional elements of a tale that might have truth at it's beginnings leaves one free to accept the value(the philosophies)and reject the dross(superstitious nonsense)from all religious traditions.

And no one knows anything with certainty, but that certainly(IE tends in the direction of certainty)does not mean I know nothing. Implying that is another personal attack.

This is all word games. People do know things with certainty; the fact that their certainty doesn't make them right is a different matter. For example, when people get married, they typically KNOW, with CERTAINTY, that they can trust their spouses reciprocate their love. It is a rare person who marries someone whom he or she is not certain about. They can still be wrong, no matter how certain they are, but their certainty is still certainty.

One never can be certain. Did you miss this the first time...

"I. THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF
A. Is there proof in science?
1. In the sense that the word proof is used in mathematics and philosophy, nothing
is ever proven in science. There is always some uncertainty about the actual value of results
obtained from some experiment or their interpretation.
2. The more times an observation is repeated and the greater number of different
observations and theories that it ties into and agrees with, the more confident we are about how well
we actually understand something.
3. However, in the strictest sense, we never arrive at "proof"; we simply arrive at a
very high degree of probability that we understand something. Thus, it is important that you shift
your frame of reference from one of proof and certainty of knowledge and interpretation of facts to
one that is PROBABILISTIC in nature, where our confidence in whether or not we understand
something properly is not and never can be absolute. Thus, you are well advised to remove the word
"proof" from your vocabulary as far as science is concerned."

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/bi ... &Philo.pdf

The same applies to certainty. A LEVEL of certainty(<100%)is possible.

And disagreeing with you is not "violence" toward you. Until you have corrected your statements above I have nothing further to say to you.

Grumpy

I never said it was.

Evidently, the attack on Christians is not limited to the Tampa Bay area. In fact, the atheistic signs originated in the northeast and have since adorned highways in Texas, Arizona, Colorado, California, and countless other areas. Such signs read: Being a good person doesnt require God. Dont believe in God? Youre NOT alone!

So, thanks to what was pointed out to me by those several atheists, I seriously consider voicing disagreement that profanes religion to be violence, by definition.

In retaliation, the United Coalition of Reason has spent $100,000 to erect signs that read, Are you good without God? Millions are.

This message is violence, as it profanes Christian belief.

Want to try that last statement again? You had a whole thread claiming disagreement with your belief in god is "violence" against it.

And I don't see what I have to apologize for.

False Witness against your neighbor, calling him anti-Christian is...um...an anti-Christian thing to do. And, unlike disagreement with you, it IS verbal violence. And it is a lie to say that I know nothing no matter how certain you are.

Grumpy

[Lux]

Hi, JohnnyJersey.

Gandhi? Gandhi who said "Hitler is not a bad man" and who molested little children? That's a laugh. It's no wonder he didn't like Christians; Christians know Christ, and he didn't, despite his weak claim.

This is my first time reading of such things about Gandhi. What are your sources?

I was wondering the same thing.

JohnnyJersey, please post some sources for these claims about Gandhi, specially about him molesting children.

[JohnnyJersey]

as i already posted, faith cannot stand up to the skeptics challenge, while belief may be able to . facts can. simple as that.

Merely making a statement that amounts to "Just as I said, I'm right and you're wrong," doesn't prove anything. Again, you are throwing your opinion out there hoping it will "stick" as fact, but there is no reasoning in your assertion.

[Crazy Ivan]

Hi, JohnnyJersey.

Gandhi? Gandhi who said "Hitler is not a bad man" and who molested little children? That's a laugh. It's no wonder he didn't like Christians; Christians know Christ, and he didn't, despite his weak claim.

This is my first time reading of such things about Gandhi. What are your sources?

I was wondering the same thing.

JohnnyJersey, please post some sources for these claims about Gandhi, specially about him molesting children.

I can't find that exact quote, but in a position to influence Hitler, in letters for instance, what was he supposed to say? I'm curious to how JohnnyJersey would address the issue. I'm sure he's very diplomatic...

As for molestation... might have something to do with him marrying a 14-year-old. I don't know if he being 13 is relevant...

-edit: Found the quote... what Zz said...

[Zzyzx]

.
JohnnyJersey,

If you are having difficulty finding the Gandhi statement concerning Hitler being "not bad" to which you referred, for a few bucks I might tell you where to find it -- but it won't help your case because it differs from what you incorrectly state.

[Lux]

.
JohnnyJersey,

If you are having difficulty finding the Gandhi statement concerning Hitler being "not bad" to which you referred, for a few bucks I might tell you where to find it -- but it won't help your case because it differs from what you incorrectly state.

Any chance I can get it PMed for free? I don't think JohnnyJersey wishes to respond to my request anyway, which is a pity because I'm very interested in what evidence he might have for his claim that Gandhi molested children. I've been looking into it and I haven't found a single reliable source to back it up.

[Zzyzx]

.

If you are having difficulty finding the Gandhi statement concerning Hitler being "not bad" to which you referred, for a few bucks I might tell you where to find it -- but it won't help your case because it differs from what you incorrectly state.

Any chance I can get it PMed for free?

Of course -- on the way. I will send the information to anyone who requests it via PM and will post it in this thread in a day or two.

I don't think JohnnyJersey wishes to respond to my request anyway, which is a pity because I'm very interested in what evidence he might have for his claim that Gandhi molested children. I've been looking into it and I haven't found a single reliable source to back it up.

Claims are often not substantiated. The practice of "hit and run" (make a claim and refuse to substantiate) is a "debate" tactic that is not considered honorable.

[otseng]

Claims are often not substantiated. The practice of "hit and run" (make a claim and refuse to substantiate) is a "debate" tactic that is not considered honorable.

Moderator comment:

Though I have not ever heard of Gandhi molesting little children either, I think that calling it a "hit and run" and a dishonorable tactic is premature. Only several hours has elapsed to support such a claim.

We do have an official Moderator Claim Withdrawal Procedure. And in our official procedure, we give one week to back a claim. If no evidence can be presented in that timeframe, it will need to be withdrawn.