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]

Really?? That is where your logical fallacy of equivocation comes into place.

I can demonstrate what you call 'faith' in turning on a car key. It is testable and repeatable. It passes the 'show me' test. The belief in God does not pass the 'show me' test.

You're confusing proof with faith. I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about faith, which is a strong belief in those things not proven. For most people, their "proof" of things comes only by accepting evidence on faith.


If someone believes Australia exists despite never having been there, what are his reasons? How does he "prove" to himself that it exists? The evidence he considers would probably include:
- books say it exists
- pictures show it exists
- people say it exists
- people I trust have been there
- airlines have flights to there
- I don't know anyone who denies its existence

And, if I want to find out for myself, I can go there. Your point? I don't see that you have any.

The point is that you believe in places, on faith, even without going there. And, until you do go there, you really don't know for sure that you can go there, because in the meantime you are taking it on faith that it's not a big hoax and that if you tried to go there you'd actually go there.

Have you been to Australia?

Can you prove to me that there is a place you haven't been that is real without expecting me to have faith in something? The ONLY way you can prove it is to take me to that place. If I'm wrong, prove it; prove to me a place exists where neither of us have been without actually taking me there.

As far as I can see, your entire thread is nonsense.

You don't seem to be able to see very far past the things you want to focus on.

[BwhoUR]

This is an all-too-common tactic used by theists and other irrational folk, they take a vague term like "faith" or "belief" and expand it so that it includes almost everyone, then try to claim that because the expanded version of the term includes most people, that their own narrow version must also be true.

It doesn't work that way.

I don't have "faith" in the same sense that a theist does. I do not believe things for which there is no evidence or logical reasoning. That is why I don't use the term "faith" in reference to myself because it simply isn't the same thing as the blind, fanatical belief in things for which there is no good reason to think are actually real that theists embrace.

So no, "faith" in the way you mean it, plays no part whatsoever in my life.

Try again.

This is an all too common tactic used by ignorant, irrational atheists who lack education and command of the English language and rational debate. They make claims, they inject their personal opinions repeatedly in the hopes that if they throw enough crap some of it is bound to stick. Yet, in the whole process, they completely omit any rational proof or objective evidence for their opinion.

They start with the answer they want; i.e. they want to believe "faith" is something that is blind or nearly blind and does not involve evidence, and it is reserved for religious people. This is the pablum they are fed by their atheist leaders. Resulting from these irrational and false beliefs, there is a dissonance which they cannot reconcile, so they resort to sticking to what they believe, repeating it over and over, and using unbased attacks and accusations to distract from their own lack of reason.

You do have faith in the same way that a theist does. You base your faith on evidence that is to your personal satisfaction, no different from how any theists or other atheists do. You make the choice as to the boundaries of your own worldview. Upon these premises, in which you have faith, you then go and apply faith as you see fit to everything else in your life, in order to live. If you didn't, you'd hole up in a corner and cower because you'd have no way of trusting things to the point that you could function in everyday life.

So, yes, "faith" means what it is defined in the dictionary to mean, as I presented, and it plays a huge part in your life as in anyone else's life. Try again.

I disagree with this. In my experience, after many a discussion with religious people (father-in-law (preacher), mother-in-law, and a close friend of the family, etc.) the conversation ends with the bible being shown to not be very compelling evidence and faith is all that is left. That is not something I think Atheists "make up", it's the last argument (in my experience) christians offer when they are debated into a corner. It appears that some believe it is unarguable. I mean, you're bringing it up here as a basis for your beliefs, aren't you?

[Lux]

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 who are not mechanics trust their car will work because the car has succeeded in taking them from A to B for days, weeks, months, years, sometimes decades. This is not only observable evidence, but it can also be explained fully and rationally by experts. It is not FAITH that makes us trust our cars, but positive experience.
The other reason why "faith" does not apply here is that we are all fully aware of the fact that our cars will probably have some kind of problem at some point, and fail to transport us. Do people who have faith in religion acknowledge that their god/gods might fail them?

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.

To some extent, we all speculate on how things will probably go each day. This has many variants (routine, experience, faith, wishful thinking, etc). Just because we trust something will go a certain way doesn't mean we have FAITH in everything.

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.

Sure, all those pictures, satellite images, australian history books, the australians themselves, novels that mention Australia, people who have been to Australia, etc can hardly be considered proof. I believe Australia is there because I consider the proof for it extremely convincing. If there was little proof, or no proof whatsoever for the existence of Australia, I probably wouldn't believe it is there.

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.

I accept the evidence that all my mental abilities (including observation) lead me to consider most valid. This is not faith. If better evidence was presented to me for an alternative to, let's say, evolution, I would change my position on the matter.

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

I could say I have faith that someday my boss will stop being so cheap and buy a new fridge for the office.
As for the more important issues in life (I'll get over the fridge thing, there's a good take out place nearby) no, faith doesn't play a significant role in my life. As always, I do not claim to speak for every non-theist in the world.

[Zzyzx]

.

You're confusing proof with faith. I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about faith, which is a strong belief in those things not proven. For most people, their "proof" of things comes only by accepting evidence on faith.

Have you read the definition of faith supplied -- the correct definition in place of your misquoted / incomplete definition?

And, if I want to find out for myself, I can go there. Your point? I don't see that you have any.

Where can one go to see that god actually and literally exists?

The point is that you believe in places, on faith, even without going there. And, until you do go there, you really don't know for sure that you can go there, because in the meantime you are taking it on faith that it's not a big hoax and that if you tried to go there you'd actually go there.

Have you been to Australia?

There is abundant evidence from multiple sources to indicate that Australia exists.

If there was as much evidence that god exists, you wouldnt have to stretch or pervert meanings of words to excuse the absence of evidence -- and many non-believers would become believers if supplied with that solid evidence.

Can you prove to me that there is a place you haven't been that is real without expecting me to have faith in something?

Notice that no one is attempting to convince anyone that Australia exists. That is simply a diversion in the debate.

The ONLY way you can prove it is to take me to that place.

If your standards are that strict to accept the existence of Australia, why do you accept the existence of god based upon what people say (in books or in person)?

If I'm wrong, prove it; prove to me a place exists where neither of us have been without actually taking me there.

Again, no one is attempting to convince you that Australia exists. But you ARE trying to convince people that god exists (and are busily making excuses for why you have no evidence with which to convince them).

As far as I can see, your entire thread is nonsense.

You don't seem to be able to see very far past the things you want to focus on.

Perhaps you are the only one who sees any sense " and are proven wrong about the definition of the term faith.

[scourge99]

Really?? That is where your logical fallacy of equivocation comes into place.

I can demonstrate what you call 'faith' in turning on a car key. It is testable and repeatable. It passes the 'show me' test. The belief in God does not pass the 'show me' test.

You're confusing proof with faith. I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about faith, which is a strong belief in those things not proven. For most people, their "proof" of things comes only by accepting evidence on faith.


If someone believes Australia exists despite never having been there, what are his reasons? How does he "prove" to himself that it exists? The evidence he considers would probably include:
- books say it exists
- pictures show it exists
- people say it exists
- people I trust have been there
- airlines have flights to there
- I don't know anyone who denies its existence

And, if I want to find out for myself, I can go there. Your point? I don't see that you have any.

As far as I can see, your entire thread is nonsense.

I disagree. This thread is not nonsense. Johnney brings up the very good question of why some things are believed and some are rejected with or without evidence.

E.G., australia. I've never been. I can't be absolutely sure it exists. I have faith/trust/confidence that it exists for a variety of reasons:
1) its does not conflict and fits with my knowledge of reality. (E.G., I know continants exist from experience. I know the vastness of the earth from experience, etc).
2) There is significant sources of corroborating testimony that I trust that attest to its existence.
3) The belief is inconsequential.

Other claims such as bigfoot would fail the same examination that I put the Australia test through. The same goes for God claims.

What Johnney fails to do is distinguish the many details and differences inherant in each faith/confidence/trust belief. Such as I have done here. He glosses over the details by bundling it all into one word: faith. This is the equivocation (the use of ambiguous expressions in order to mislead or hedge) that so many have mentioned. A failure to differentiate between "faith" in the existence of Australia and faith in the existence of Bigfoot.
When the analysis of why one has "faith"in particular things is done, the equivocation is clear.

If johnney merely wished to claim that everyone has faith in some things then he would have been correct. Instead he equivocated faith in god with faith in car brakes. This is where he erred.

[Crazy Ivan]

JohnnyJersey doesn't realize he's actually belittling religious faith by equating it with something else, so "easily" obtainable, like "trust". The "value" of "faith", from the theist perspective, is precisely that there is absolutely no evidence to support it, no possible trustworthiness can be acquired from experience. It's a trait of this god, that appreciation of blind faith. It does NOT apply to everyone, or it's meaningless to the believer.

[Crazy Ivan]

E.G., australia. I've never been. I can't be absolutely sure it exists. I have faith/trust/confidence that it exists for a variety of reasons:

You make the same mistake. The whimsical equating of faith/trust/confidence, as if the words don't convey different meanings for everyone not deliberately trying to ambiguate the matter.

[bernee51]

As noted...it is a fallacy of equivocation.

I guess no thread is complete without these empty pat-on-the-back comments on the atheist side of things. "Fallacy of equivocation"??? Prove it.

I did exactly that a couple of days ago in this thread. Not my fault that you did either did not read it or understand it.

[Cephus]

The point is that you believe in places, on faith, even without going there. And, until you do go there, you really don't know for sure that you can go there, because in the meantime you are taking it on faith that it's not a big hoax and that if you tried to go there you'd actually go there.

Based on evidence that "there" actually exists, such as photographs, satellite imagery, etc. The fact is, I *CAN* go there if I want to, I just have to get on a plane and go. You cannot, under any circumstances, go to the places you believe exist and then come back and tell us if they are factually real.

Do you ever get tired of looking so foolish?

Have you been to Australia?

Not personally but I know plenty of people who have and also quite a few who were born and/or have lived there for a long time. I've also gotten souvenirs made in Australia and have owned several native Australian species as pets.

Have you ever been to heaven? What evidence do you have that it exists? Oh right, you've got nothing.

[scourge99]

E.G., australia. I've never been. I can't be absolutely sure it exists. I have faith/trust/confidence that it exists for a variety of reasons:

You make the same mistake. The whimsical equating of faith/trust/confidence, as if the words don't convey different meanings for everyone not deliberately trying to ambiguate the matter.

That would depend on what specific definition I'm using for those words. If I am merely using the definiton "confidence or trust in a person or thing" then I see no problem. The only question is what determines confidence or trust. This is what I explained in my post.