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]

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.

[otseng]

You're exactly like that guy from Xtreme Ministries, trying to disassociate "violence" from "cage fighting". You guys are hilarious...

-edit: John "The Saint" Renken...

You're exactly like that atheist who irrationally hates religion...Stalin.

Moderator intervention:

Comparing posters to other people would be considered a personal attack. And attacking a person back would never be appropriate on this forum.

[Goat]

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.

No, you didn't show how 'faith' plays a big part in my life at all.

As was pointed out, there is a difference between 'faith' as in 'earned trust' and faith as in the faith of religion.

Your repeating a logical fallacy over and over again doesn't make it any less of a fallacy

Turning a key on to make a car goes is not 'blind faith'. It is the trust caused by experience.

What i can do with the claim 'If I turn the key in my car, it starts' is I can show you.
It passes the 'show me' test. Sometimes, it might be wrong, but if I have gas, and I keep my car maintenance up, in all probability when I turn the key, the car will turn on.

When someone believes that the sun will rise the next day, and you want evidence, we can consult a chart, and make a prediction about the exact time the sun will start appearing above the horizon. If the weather is permitting, we can take pictures of the sun rising in the right part of the sky at that time... otherwise it just gets a bit lighter (heavy volcanic ash and other phenomena of nature not withstanding). It passes the 'show me' test.

Can you say the same thing about God? Can you show me?

[Crazy Ivan]

You're exactly like that atheist who irrationally hates religion...Stalin.

No, I didn't attend church school. Your religion messed him up.

[JohnnyJersey]

No, you didn't show how 'faith' plays a big part in my life at all.

As was pointed out, there is a difference between 'faith' as in 'earned trust' and faith as in the faith of religion.

See, here is the problem...

First, you say that I "didn't show how 'faith' plays a big part in [your] life at all."

OK, fine, that is your assertion. Now what is it upon which you base this? You go on to say:
"As was pointed out, there is a difference between 'faith' as in 'earned trust' and faith as in the faith of religion."

For one thing, it was "pointed out" in other people's opinions, not in any factual source. It was the opinion of several that "earned trust" is different when it is in God from when it is in other things. So, in pointing that out, no rational reason is given, it is just "pointed out" and expected to be accepted by virtue of having been "pointed out". That's irrational.

Furthermore, there is no difference between the "earned trust" of non-spiritual matters and the "earned trust" concerning spiritual matters. There is a difference in the types of evidence involved, but not in the faith involved.

Your repeating a logical fallacy over and over again doesn't make it any less of a fallacy

Here, again, you allege a "logical fallacy" on my part but you don't even name that "logical fallacy", much less back it up with evidence, and much, much less back it up with proof.

Turning a key on to make a car goes is not 'blind faith'. It is the trust caused by experience.

I'm not talking about "blind faith", I'm talking about "faith". Not all faith is blind, in fact the vast majority of faith is NOT blind. What's more, "blind faith" can be placed in non-spiritual things (as evidenced on this site where so many atheists blindly believe anything certain other atheists say, as evidenced by all the irrational back-patting and blind "yes"-ing of each other).

What i can do with the claim 'If I turn the key in my car, it starts' is I can show you.
It passes the 'show me' test. Sometimes, it might be wrong, but if I have gas, and I keep my car maintenance up, in all probability when I turn the key, the car will turn on.

It doesn't matter that you can show me; it only matters that you DO show me. If you're trying to convince me that your car starts when you turn the key, but the tell me your car is 1,000 miles away and you can't show me right now, then right now I can only believe your claim ON FAITH. Call it "earned trust", call it "confidence", call it "belief", call it whatever synonym for faith you want, it still is "faith".

When someone believes that the sun will rise the next day, and you want evidence, we can consult a chart, and make a prediction about the exact time the sun will start appearing above the horizon. If the weather is permitting, we can take pictures of the sun rising in the right part of the sky at that time... otherwise it just gets a bit lighter (heavy volcanic ash and other phenomena of nature not withstanding). It passes the 'show me' test.

How are pictures "evidence" unless I accept them on faith to begin with? I have seen pictures of Bigfoot, aliens, Washington D.C., Greek people, unicorns, George Washington, Jesus, Moses, Bill Gates, London, Cairo, the pyramids, etc. So all of them have evidence IF I accept them as evidence.

The only way you can prove to me the sun is rising on a certain morning is to show me the sunrise, live; OR, you can provide evidence to me and try to convince me to take it on some level of faith.

Can you say the same thing about God? Can you show me?

This thread is not about God. This thread is about how all people live on faith every day.

[JohnnyJersey]

You're exactly like that atheist who irrationally hates religion...Stalin.

No, I didn't attend church school. Your religion messed him up.

I'm glad you admit that Stalin, who turned out to be an atheist, turned out to be "messed up". I agree.

[Crazy Ivan]

I'm glad you admit that Stalin, who turned out to be an atheist, turned out to be "messed up". I agree.

I'm glad you agree his religious education had a hand in shaping his convictions. We'll be friends yet...

[Goat]

No, you didn't show how 'faith' plays a big part in my life at all.

As was pointed out, there is a difference between 'faith' as in 'earned trust' and faith as in the faith of religion.

See, here is the problem...

First, you say that I "didn't show how 'faith' plays a big part in [your] life at all."

OK, fine, that is your assertion. Now what is it upon which you base this? You go on to say:
"As was pointed out, there is a difference between 'faith' as in 'earned trust' and faith as in the faith of religion."

For one thing, it was "pointed out" in other people's opinions, not in any factual source. It was the opinion of several that "earned trust" is different when it is in God from when it is in other things. So, in pointing that out, no rational reason is given, it is just "pointed out" and expected to be accepted by virtue of having been "pointed out". That's irrational.

Furthermore, there is no difference between the "earned trust" of non-spiritual matters and the "earned trust" concerning spiritual matters. There is a difference in the types of evidence involved, but not in the faith involved.

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.

Evidence for a conclusion is a different 'faith' than making things up and insisting it is true. That is the whole difference. The equivocation is your demand that it is not different.

Your repeating a logical fallacy over and over again doesn't make it any less of a fallacy

Here, again, you allege a "logical fallacy" on my part but you don't even name that "logical fallacy", much less back it up with evidence, and much, much less back it up with proof.

Turning a key on to make a car goes is not 'blind faith'. It is the trust caused by experience.

I'm not talking about "blind faith", I'm talking about "faith". Not all faith is blind, in fact the vast majority of faith is NOT blind. What's more, "blind faith" can be placed in non-spiritual things (as evidenced on this site where so many atheists blindly believe anything certain other atheists say, as evidenced by all the irrational back-patting and blind "yes"-ing of each other).

What i can do with the claim 'If I turn the key in my car, it starts' is I can show you.
It passes the 'show me' test. Sometimes, it might be wrong, but if I have gas, and I keep my car maintenance up, in all probability when I turn the key, the car will turn on.

It doesn't matter that you can show me; it only matters that you DO show me. If you're trying to convince me that your car starts when you turn the key, but the tell me your car is 1,000 miles away and you can't show me right now, then right now I can only believe your claim ON FAITH. Call it "earned trust", call it "confidence", call it "belief", call it whatever synonym for faith you want, it still is "faith".

When someone believes that the sun will rise the next day, and you want evidence, we can consult a chart, and make a prediction about the exact time the sun will start appearing above the horizon. If the weather is permitting, we can take pictures of the sun rising in the right part of the sky at that time... otherwise it just gets a bit lighter (heavy volcanic ash and other phenomena of nature not withstanding). It passes the 'show me' test.

How are pictures "evidence" unless I accept them on faith to begin with? I have seen pictures of Bigfoot, aliens, Washington D.C., Greek people, unicorns, George Washington, Jesus, Moses, Bill Gates, London, Cairo, the pyramids, etc. So all of them have evidence IF I accept them as evidence.

The only way you can prove to me the sun is rising on a certain morning is to show me the sunrise, live; OR, you can provide evidence to me and try to convince me to take it on some level of faith.

Can you say the same thing about God? Can you show me?

This thread is not about God. This thread is about how all people live on faith every day.[/quote]

Perhaps not, but it is obvious that you are trying to say 'everyone works on faith , so faith in something with no evidence on it has the same level of faith that trust or experience has.

[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

...there may be other reasons, but these will suffice for now. So, why does someone accept the above evidence? Books are not always right, so why trust books? Pictures can be faked, why trust pictures? People lie all the time, why trust people? Even people we trust can lie, why trust everything they say? Airlines are strictly regulated by the government, who's to say the government is perpetuating the myth of Australia by forcing airlines to pretend to have flights to Australia? And just because nobody denies its existence doesn't mean it exists; nobody I have met denies the existence of green plants that form an image of an elephant at the base of a tree in Reykjavik, but it might be there.

I have to have a certain amount of faith in some or all of those evidences to ultimately believe Australia exists. I can rationalize it to the point that there is such a great chance that Australia does exist and I can compromise a little by admitting to myself that if I believe it exists but turn out to be wrong it wouldn't be a real problem, and THEN I can believe the existence of Australia. But I am taking it on faith, or at the very least my "proof" is based on evidences that I take on faith. I take it on faith that a picture of Sydney, Australia is real and not computer-generated or photoshopped, I take it on faith that people aren't lying to me, etc.

A perfect example is your claim to be able to prove to me by showing me that your car starts when you insert the key and turn it. Maybe you can and maybe you can't show me; until you do show me, why would I believe you? Faith. That's it. I would have to put faith in your credibility and at least some of your claims in order to believe that.

So far, you have not shown me anything; why should I believe that you can show me? Because you claim you can? So you expect me to put faith into your claim to be able to show me something.

Go ahead, prove to me that your car will start when you put the key in and turn it.

Evidence for a conclusion is a different 'faith' than making things up and insisting it is true. That is the whole difference. The equivocation is your demand that it is not different.

Yes, evidence is different from faith. I never said that they were the same. What I said was that faith is almost always based on evidence.

You have yet to show where I am "equivocating"; for you to show that, you'd have to provide evidence that I am equivocating. All you're doing is making the claim, you are not supporting it with conclusive evidence.

Turning a key on to make a car goes is not 'blind faith'. It is the trust caused by experience.

So far, you have yet to show me that turning your key makes your car go. If I am to believe it, it is on faith. Yes, that faith would have evidence to support it, but since I have yet to experience your key turning to make the car go I need to accept some claims on faith.

I'm not talking about "blind faith", I'm talking about "faith". Not all faith is blind, in fact the vast majority of faith is NOT blind. What's more, "blind faith" can be placed in non-spiritual things (as evidenced on this site where so many atheists blindly believe anything certain other atheists say, as evidenced by all the irrational back-patting and blind "yes"-ing of each other).

Perhaps not, but it is obvious that you are trying to say 'everyone works on faith , so faith in something with no evidence on it has the same level of faith that trust or experience has.

Again, I am not talking about "faith in something with no evidence." The fact of the matter is that everyone lives by faith. Where people differ is in what they put their faith in, and that difference is due to what each person accepts as "evidence", as it is ultimately arbitrary.

Yes, everyone works on faith. That is a fact. You have yet to show how it is wrong. Arguing that certain things don't constitute "evidence" is a different argument. This thread isn't about evidence, or proof; it is about faith.

[Goat]

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.