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?

[BwhoUR]

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.

Do you agree at least that Atheist's usually require more types of evidence to form their beliefs than you do with respect to religion? Agreeing with this fact more accurately describes the 'disconnect' between believers and non-believers.

[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.

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.

Johnny's goal is to validate religious "faith" by equating "faith" with "confidence" or "trust", which we know are based upon experience in any useful context. You trust people based on your experience with people, and so on... but these words can have broad definitions to accommodate a variety of contexts. We all know the applicable contexts here, but Johnny wants to keep things ambiguous, and cherry-picks definitions that accomplish that. He wants to have everyone have "faith", but he knows very well no one here will indulge the word as applicable to them, because we are keen on disambiguation. We trust and have confidence based on the evidence provided by our experience. Now, he's more than entitled to argue "faith" can have experience supporting it, but he's NOT entitled to pin "faith" on people that have explained ad nauseam how the term does NOT apply to them. It's a simple matter of courtesy that he's oblivious to. I'm inclined to define "idiot" in a certain way, and not give him the choice to identify with the word...

[Zzyzx]

.

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?

Here is an outstanding example of the "logic" used by a Fundamentalist / Literalist Christian in an attempt to promote or defend religion.

Thank you.

[Zzyzx]

.

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".

Can you cite or quote the "many an atheist" to whom you refer? What constitutes "many" as you use the term?

I agree that some accept as "evidence" what others reject. That is not specific to "Atheists". For example, Christians accept tales in an ancient text as evidence, but reject tales in other texts as ancient or more ancient as evidence, when neither can be substantiated as being anything more than legend, fable, imagination or fiction.

Those who have learned discernment, judgment and analytical thinking are likely to be less accepting of "evidence" from unproven sources than those who have not developed those skills.

One of the key questions analytical thinking people consider is "Can what is presented be substantiated as truthful and accurate?"

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.

I, for one, am more than willing to consider the truth and accuracy of tales told about "gods" -- given evidence that the tales are true. What do you have to offer to show that the tales are true?

[Jester]

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?

Here is an outstanding example of the "logic" used by a Fundamentalist / Literalist Christian in an attempt to promote or defend religion.

Thank you.

Perhaps it's simply because I'm a theist myself, but I don't find it a bad analogy. The idea that faith, in the religious sense, is blind and can't be attached to evidence is something I only ever hear out of atheists in debates. Perhaps there are theists who try to argue otherwise, but I think it is perfectly valid for particular theists to put forth the idea that their faith in God is not all that different from secular belief in everyday things.
My oft repeated example of the fact that there is no evidence for the physical universe is almost the same argument. To be certain, many atheists are personally unconvinced, but never manage to point out a flaw in the reasoning except by demanding the exclusive right to define religious faith.

[Crazy Ivan]

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?

Here is an outstanding example of the "logic" used by a Fundamentalist / Literalist Christian in an attempt to promote or defend religion.

Thank you.

Perhaps it's simply because I'm a theist myself, but I don't find it a bad analogy. The idea that faith, in the religious sense, is blind and can't be attached to evidence is something I only ever hear out of atheists in debates. Perhaps there are theists who try to argue otherwise, but I think it is perfectly valid for particular theists to put forth the idea that their faith in God is not all that different from secular belief in everyday things.
My oft repeated example of the fact that there is no evidence for the physical universe is almost the same argument. To be certain, many atheists are personally unconvinced, but never manage to point out a flaw in the reasoning except by demanding the exclusive right to define religious faith.

Analogies about "evidence" are only useful as long as there is "evidence" on both scenarios. I am yet to read about something I could consider "evidence" about a god, or about supporting "faith" in one. I'm always open to consideration...

[Jester]

Analogies about "evidence" are only useful as long as there is "evidence" on both scenarios. I am yet to read about something I could consider "evidence" about a god, or about supporting "faith" in one. I'm always open to consideration...

I am aware that most atheists on this site take the position that there is no evidence in support of God's existence. While I personally question the notion that this conclusion has been reached fairly or been properly defended, I am more apt to return to my "physical universe" argument, as it simplifies the issue.
It is an old truism that there is no evidence for the existence of the physical universe that doesn't rely on trusting one's senses. Trusting one's senses, however, means first assuming that your physical body exists and is sending you at least somewhat accurate information (hence, believing in the physical universe). As this would be circular reasoning, we are left with the fact that there is, in fact, nothing but blind faith that can lead people to conclude that the physical universe exists.
As such, I would conclude that everyone needs at least some faith in life.

[WinePusher]

.

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?

Here is an outstanding example of the "logic" used by a Fundamentalist / Literalist Christian in an attempt to promote or defend religion.

Thank you.

No, there is some truth to his analogy and it is wrong of you to write him off as a fundelmentalist just because you disagree with him.

Unless you have actually, physically been to Australia, the pure skeptic cannot believe that Australia exists.

I believe Australia exist, but I have never been there. I base my belief off the testimonies of others who claim to know Australia exists.

If you haven't been to Australia, is there any actual way to prove that Australia exists? What evidence is there to believe it?

1) Alot of people believe that Australia exists, alot of people also believe God exists

2) Learned teachers and scholars believe that Australia exist, Learned teachers and scholars also believe God exists

3) There are people who claim to have been to Australia and experienced the country, there are also people who claim to have experienced and met God

If your going to be skeptical of claims that do not have definite evidence, be a skeptic across the board.

[Zzyzx]

.

Perhaps it's simply because I'm a theist myself, but I don't find it a bad analogy.

I am disappointed that a person whose common sense I have respected would take the position that the position that airline flights to Australia are not indication that Australia exists because the government may be perpetrating the myth of Australia is not a bad analogy to Non-Theists questioning the existence of gods for which there is NO evidence (aside from tales in religious promotional material and "feelings" or opinions.

Would one also maintain the Bernee is part of the government sponsored myth because he claims to live in Australia?

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?

Are you serious, Jester, or are you just trying to defend a fellow religionist?

The idea that faith, in the religious sense, is blind and can't be attached to evidence is something I only ever hear out of atheists in debates.

What is the meaning of believe on faith alone from Christendom?

Do you claim that faith is based upon evidence and sound reasoning? Or is it an emotional decision based upon tales told and opinions " neither of which can be shown to be true and accurate?

Perhaps there are theists who try to argue otherwise, but I think it is perfectly valid for particular theists to put forth the idea that their faith in God is not all that different from secular belief in everyday things.

In my opinion there is a tremendous difference between my confidence (not faith or belief " religionists terms) that my truck will start " based on many years of experience with it actually starting with only two exceptions (it is a Cummins diesel for those who know about the reliability of those engines) " and belief in a god that is known through the tales of others and perhaps feelings or emotions.

My oft repeated example of the fact that there is no evidence for the physical universe is almost the same argument.

Yes it is similar to JohnnyJerseys argument. Notice that I do not respond to those who have difficulty accepting that the universe exists or who maintain that there is no evidence of its existence (and do not debate in the Science and Religion sub-forum for some of the same reasons).

To be certain, many atheists are personally unconvinced, but never manage to point out a flaw in the reasoning except by demanding the exclusive right to define religious faith.

Perhaps because I am not an Atheist, I ASK religionists to define the meaning of religious faith (see my exchange with JohnnyJersey in http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ht=#296863 post #18

I have started another thread with the topic, What is Religious Faith

[Crazy Ivan]

If you haven't been to Australia, is there any actual way to prove that Australia exists? What evidence is there to believe it?

Do you know what a satellite is?