Do nonbelievers or non-theists have faith?

[KingandPriest]

In a separate thread, I suggested the following:

This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God

To this, an agnostic replied:

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

[rikuoamero]

KnP
reread this

It does not take faith or a lack of faith to believe that there is a Santa Claus, because I have direct knowledge that the depiction we see in malls and other paraphernalia is an exaggeration of a real person. I know the history of the original Saint Nicholas of which the story originated. Direct knowledge informs my decisions which in turn inform my beliefs. Since I have knowledge and proof that Santa Claus does not exist and never existed, it is easy to conclude no belief is necessary.

Now substitute Jesus for Santa Claus

It does not take faith or a lack of faith to believe that there is a Jesus Christ Son of God, because I have direct knowledge that the depiction we see in malls and other paraphernalia is an exaggeration of a real person. I know the history of the original Jesus Christ of which the story originated. Direct knowledge informs my decisions which in turn inform my beliefs. Since I have knowledge and proof that Jesus Christ Son of God does not exist and never existed, it is easy to conclude no belief is necessary.

Do you accept this substitution? If not, why not? The stories of Jesus Christ have most certainly been exaggerated at least a little. The typical image of Jesus we see in malls and other paraphernalia doesn't even depict the correct race.

[Divine Insight]

So in your opinion, if something appears contradictory, it can be dismissed. In case you are not aware, there are many branches of science which appear contradictory. Should reject modern medicine or quantum mechanics because of possible contradictions?

What you just said here is blatantly false. I don't reject anything simply because it might "appear" to be a contradiction without sufficient consideration. The Biblical stories contain verifiable self-contradictions that no theist has ever been able to give a compelling apology for that wasn't also equally flawed.

And where exactly are these "contradictions" in known science. About the only place they "seem" to potentially occur is in Quantum Mechanics. But we can't even say that those appearances are actual contradictions because we don't yet know precisely what's going on there. Don't forget Science doesn't claim to know everything.

In addition, what you often list as contradictions is a misapplication or lack of comprehension to certain biblucal text. If something doesn't make sense to you, you list ot as a contradiction.

This is absolute baloney. Christian apologists who claim to have apologies for the contradictions in the Bible can't even agree with each other, or convince each other of their imagined solutions to these problems. This is why Christianity itself is a religion of extreme confusion and disagreement. Even the Christian theists can't convince each other of their inconsistent apologies.

You make a claim of sufficient evidence and only list assumptions or hypothetical scenarios about biblical texts.

Again, totally false on your behalf. Especially if you are arguing for Christianity. Unless you can drink any deadly thing and it will not harm you, AND you can heal the sick by just laying your hands on them, then according to the Bible you can't possibly "believe" in Jesus as the Christ, even though you may claim to. Either that, or the New Testament was nothing but lies to begin with.

So there you have have it. Unless you can drink a deadly thing, and then walk into a hospital and heal all the sick people who are there putting all the scientific doctors out of work, you have absolutely nothing. No evidence of Christianity at all. Not only that, but if you claim to "believe in Jesus" and you cannot do these things then you are actually "sufficient evidence" that either you don't truly believe in this Jesus, or the religion is false.

I see NO ONE stepping forward to prove that Christianity is true. And considering the fact that the dogma is filled with obvious falsehoods and self-contradictions I can dismiss it with the very same level of confidence that you dismiss Santa Claus. By your very own criteria no less.

What you deem as sufficient evidence can be called comjecture by those who are actually considered bible scholars. Should we trust your opinion on possible controversial texts or the experts?

I'm not asking you to trust anyone. In fact, aren't you capable of thinking for yourself?

Why should you need to depend on either me or the people you claim are "experts"? Can't you think for yourself?

And besides, who are these "experts" you are referring to?

There are plenty of non-theist experts who point out the fallacies and obvious self-contradictions of Hebrew mythology (you certainly don't need me for that). You should be able to see that much for yourself anyway. Especially since people like myself are pointing these things out to you constantly on forums like this one.

And what "experts" are you referring to? Christian theists? Which ones? There are tons of disagreeing Christian theists. This is why Christianity is so totally divided into so many disagreeing sects and factions. The two main disagreements being between Catholicism and the disgruntled protesting Protestantisms. But yet both of those main factions are even further divided within their own ranks.

I don't see where anyone could point to a single "Christian Theological Expert". It would seem to me that the best shot Christianity has for doing that would be to point to the Catholic Pope. Short of that, all you can point to is rebellious protesting Protestants who can't even agree with each other. Hardly "experts" since they don't even recognize each other as "experts". The accuse each other of having no clue.

In fact, this seems to be the Hallmark of Christianity. Instead of actually trying to make rational arguments for the religion all they do is claim to have "experts". The problem is that no two Christian "experts" seem to be able to agree on much of anything, other than possibly that Jesus was supposedly the demigod Son of Yahweh born of a virgin named Mary. After that, they start disagreeing pretty quickly.

There are no such thing as "Christian Experts". All that exists are Christian theists who proclaim their opinions to be superior to all others, including being superior to other Christian theists.

They all seem to think that they are the only "expert" to be found. Yet they can't even convince other Christians of their apologetic arguments.

So there are no actual "Christian Experts". All that exists are Christians who think they are right and everyone else is wrong.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 102 by Divine Insight]

There are no such thing as "Christian Experts". All that exists are Christian theists who proclaim their opinions to be superior to all others, including being superior to other Christian theists.

They all seem to think that they are the only "expert" to be found. Yet they can't even convince other Christians of their apologetic arguments.

So there are no actual "Christian Experts". All that exists are Christians who think they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Aye. I'd like certain people to consider that if I want to study say...theoretical physics for example, it doesn't really matter where I learn it or from whom. I can learn it at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, UC Berkely, Cambridge, Oxford, University of Tokyo...it doesn't matter.
I'll be learning the same physics, all these colleges agree with each other. The professors are largely in agreement. If Professor A in Princeton says something and Professor B in Cambridge is skeptical, B can do the experiments or calculations and find out whether A has it right.

Now, let's say I want to study theology. Now suddenly we're in a completely different area. I can study Islamic theology and by and large, my professors there will say that the Bible is a flawed book while the Quran isn't.
However, if I go to a Roman Catholic seminary, I will learn that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the duly appointed successor of Peter, and that Christ really is the resurrected Son of God.
If I go to study Mormon theology, I won't get that. I will be taught that Jesus and Satan are brothers, and that there was a Hebrew civilisation in the Americas centuries ago.

[KingandPriest]

KnP
reread this

It does not take faith or a lack of faith to believe that there is a Santa Claus, because I have direct knowledge that the depiction we see in malls and other paraphernalia is an exaggeration of a real person. I know the history of the original Saint Nicholas of which the story originated. Direct knowledge informs my decisions which in turn inform my beliefs. Since I have knowledge and proof that Santa Claus does not exist and never existed, it is easy to conclude no belief is necessary.

Now substitute Jesus for Santa Claus

It does not take faith or a lack of faith to believe that there is a Jesus Christ Son of God, because I have direct knowledge that the depiction we see in malls and other paraphernalia is an exaggeration of a real person. I know the history of the original Jesus Christ of which the story originated. Direct knowledge informs my decisions which in turn inform my beliefs. Since I have knowledge and proof that Jesus Christ Son of God does not exist and never existed, it is easy to conclude no belief is necessary.

Do you accept this substitution? If not, why not? The stories of Jesus Christ have most certainly been exaggerated at least a little. The typical image of Jesus we see in malls and other paraphernalia doesn't even depict the correct race.

This is interesting, but the difference between the two is the documented record that supports Jesus as the son of God, and by comparison there is no such record or evidence of Saint Nicholas claiming to live in the north pole or bringing gifts to children all over the world. In contrast, we have texts that record what Jesus proclaimed about himself. In addition, there are records of miracles actually being performed by Jesus, and not just attributed to Jesus.

Nicholas had a reputation for secret gift-giving, such as putting coins in the shoes of those who left them out for him, a practice celebrated on his feast day, 6 December. For those who still observe the Julian calendar the celebration will currently take place thirteen days later than it happens in the Gregorian calendar and Revised Julian calendar. Nicholas thus became the model for Santa Claus, whose modern name comes from the Dutch Sinterklaas, itself from a series of elisions and corruptions of the transliteration of "Saint Nikolaos".
Saint Nicholas, Santa Claus, the customs today started from miracles associated with him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

This is what I present as direct knowledge.

Now if you want to compare the depiction of Jesus as a Caucasian male with blond or brown straight hair, to Santa Claus, I agree with you. This was a depiction created by artists in an age where literacy was low, so images helped some people remember the bible. As a result, some people have a false depiction of Jesus the son of God as a Caucasian male with straight hair. We can dismiss the depiction of Jesus, but not Jesus as the son of God.

Inserting the words Son of God in your revision is a flaw because you would have to provide your direct evidence to show that Jesus was not or could not have been the son of God. It is possible to prove Jesus more than likely did not look like the images on shirts, jewelry or other paraphernalia, but not you do not have direct knowledge that Jesus was not the son of God. If so please present for discussion.

Nicholas never proclaimed to give gifts to children all over the world, or to do so in one night. Even the dates which is attributed to Santa Claus do not match Nicholas. The dates of Pentecost and other feasts have been kept ceremoniously for centuries, so we have an accurate date log for most of the events surrounding Jesus.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 104 by KingandPriest]

This is interesting, but the difference between the two is the documented record that supports Jesus as the son of God, and by comparison there is no such record or evidence of Saint Nicholas claiming to live in the north pole or bringing gifts to children all over the world.

Hmm...curious. You seem to have missed my post previous to that one, where I made careful note that you claimed to have positive evidence that Santa doesn't exist. You even went to pains to differentiate yourself from agnostics who say 'insufficient evidence'.
Now here you are saying essentially the same thing as the agnostics. You say there is no evidence of Nick at the North Pole or bringing gifts. Not that you have evidence that he doesn't do it, no. What you say is there is no evidence to justify the claim.
Are you like the agnostics or not?

In contrast, we have texts that record what Jesus proclaimed about himself.

And we don't have anything today about Santa? All I have to do is ask any child and they'll more than likely tell me all about Santa. There are TV shows and movies, and books, and whatnot.

In addition, there are records of miracles actually being performed by Jesus, and not just attributed to Jesus.

But if I talk to a child and they tell me Santa left them presents, that's just automatically false, is it?

This is what I present as direct knowledge.

So you tell me Nick has a 'reputation' for gift-giving. Sounds like someone else that you know. You say he has a feast-day, like someone else. You say there was a real person.
Now, pay attention to this bit. What of any of that, actually disproves Santa Claus? The jolly fat man in a red suit, flying reindeer, elves making toys Santa Claus?

Nicholas never proclaimed to give gifts to children all over the world,

Doesn't mean he doesn't do so. It is possible to do things without mentioning a word of it to anyone.

Even the dates which is attributed to Santa Claus do not match Nicholas.

So an ambiguity about dates is enough, or helps, to disprove something in KnP's eyes.

The dates of Pentecost and other feasts have been kept ceremoniously for centuries, so we have an accurate date log for most of the events surrounding Jesus.

Feast days are an accurate date log? Might want to tell that to the people celebrating Jesus's birth this coming 25th December.
Besides...pretty sure Hindus have been celebrating feast days for far longer than Christians.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 105 by rikuoamero]

Hmm...curious. You seem to have missed my post previous to that one, where I made careful note that you claimed to have positive evidence that Santa doesn't exist. You even went to pains to differentiate yourself from agnostics who say 'insufficient evidence'.
Now here you are saying essentially the same thing as the agnostics. You say there is no evidence of Nick at the North Pole or bringing gifts. Not that you have evidence that he doesn't do it, no. What you say is there is no evidence to justify the claim.
Are you like the agnostics or not?

No, I am not like the agnostics. I can present further evidence to show that Santa Claus is a fabrication. I am not sure if this is necessary since you are not arguing that Santa Claus is real. The positive evidence is the fact that we know the concept of Santa was fabricated and is different in various regions around the world. The rise of consumerism and television, added to the stories.

Agnostics on the other hand assert there is insufficient evidence to them to be able to accept or reject God. I do not claim insufficient evidence.

And we don't have anything today about Santa? All I have to do is ask any child and they'll more than likely tell me all about Santa. There are TV shows and movies, and books, and whatnot.

We don't have anything about the life of the real person (Nicholas) that matches Santa other than the reputation of giving gifts. Nothing else.

Outside of similar reputation, everything else about Santa is a known fabrication. Parents/Adults will admit to making up stories.

But if I talk to a child and they tell me Santa left them presents, that's just automatically false, is it?

If the best evidence for believing in Santa is that children believe, then your faith system will be in serious trouble. Should we reject the testimony of the children you interview? No.

If the only thing you have is the testimony of children, it will difficult to be taken serious because adults like to validate a claim with reputable evidence. Testimony of a group of children, vs testimony of a group of educated and trained experts is not on the same level. People are more likely to trust the group of experts.

So you tell me Nick has a 'reputation' for gift-giving. Sounds like someone else that you know. You say he has a feast-day, like someone else. You say there was a real person.
Now, pay attention to this bit. What of any of that, actually disproves Santa Claus? The jolly fat man in a red suit, flying reindeer, elves making toys Santa Claus?

The fact that parents admit to making up a fat man in a red suit, flying reindeer, elves, etc. So if we know for a fact that these claims were made up, it is easy to dismiss.

Some try to make this comparison with the bible by asking the question is it possible that the New testament authors made up stories about Jesus. Asking the question is far from having direct evidence from parents who admit to making up claims about Santa. In other countries, Santa isn't even claimed to use reindeer as a means of transportation.

Investigative studies on the authenticity of the new testament scriptures reveal they are no where on the same level as the tales about Santa Claus. Here is one such study conducted by a former non-theist. See Section II http://ebooks.rahnuma.org/religion/Chri ... ianity.pdf

Doesn't mean he doesn't do so. It is possible to do things without mentioning a word of it to anyone.

There are a lot of things which could have possible occurred. I thought we were talking about evidence, not what might be possible.

If you want to talk about what is possible, then there is no reason to reject any of the miraculous claims in the bible.

So an ambiguity about dates is enough, or helps, to disprove something in KnP's eyes.

If you want to compare Santa Claus to Jesus, then the summation of evidence needs to be on the same level. Otherwise, you are making a fallacy of faulty comparison.

Feast days are an accurate date log? Might want to tell that to the people celebrating Jesus's birth this coming 25th December.
Besides...pretty sure Hindus have been celebrating feast days for far longer than Christians.

The Christmas date of Dec 25 was not arrived by looking at Hebrew feast days. It was actually based on a reliance of innacurate dating methods. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas ... er_25_date.

The feast days were recorded by the Hebrew calendar not Christians. The Babylonian calendar and Hebrew Calendar were two of the most accurate ancient calendars.

[KenRU]

To bring this back to the OP:

In a separate thread, I suggested the following:

This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God

To this, an agnostic replied:

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?

No.

2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?

Depends on what you mean by faith. Faith, as described in the bible? No. Faith in a friend or family member (where one has a history to base such trust), sure.

3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?

Absolutely not.

4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

No, as they can be tested and shown to be true if necessary.



As I said in an earlier post:

Faith, as explained in the bible:

-Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

-For we live by faith, not by sight. Corinthians 5:7

-So that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. Corinthians 2:5

-For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourself, it is the gift of god … Ephesians 2:8

-Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. Romans 10:17


Just to be clear, faith as it is used and described/defined in the bible is not utilized by any atheist or non-theist I know.

To argue otherwise is to admit one of two things:

1) the bible is wrong about what faith means, or
2) you are not using the word in the same context as the bible is, and in which case, the question is a dishonest one.


All the best

[TheBeardedDude]

In a separate thread, I suggested the following:

This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God

To this, an agnostic replied:

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

1) No, atheism is the absence of a belief in something. It requires no faith to be absent a belief in something.

2) Sure, being an atheist doesn't describe what you actually believe. It only describes an absence of a god(s) belief(s). Atheists can also believe (on faith) in all sorts of silly things, like ghosts or alien abductions, etc.

3) No, it is an act of trust in a financial system that has been proven reliable.

4) No, scientific theories are established on the grounds of evidence and rigorous testing of the evidence.

[Rufus21]

It would seem to me that the best shot Christianity has for doing that would be to point to the Catholic Pope.

Which one? Aren't there 4 of them? I guess it depends on if you're Roman Catholic, Palmarian Catholic, Coptic Orthodox or Greek Orthodox. Even the popes can't always agree!

The positive evidence is the fact that we know the concept of Santa was fabricated and is different in various regions around the world.

The same can be said about the concept of God.

Investigative studies on the authenticity of the new testament scriptures reveal they are no where on the same level as the tales about Santa Claus. Here is one such study conducted by a former non-theist. See Section II http://ebooks.rahnuma.org/religion/Chri ... ianity.pdf

I've read parts of that book and it is a joke. It's full of weak circumstantial evidence and the usual bad arguments (Cosmological Argument, Ontological argument, etc.). He treats second-hand accounts of events that happened decades earlier as though they are firsthand accounts from eyewitnesses. His conclusions are only barely supported by the evidence, and he skips over all of the really difficult topics and only deals with the easy stuff. If an actual detective read this book they would be embarrassed.

http://confessionsofadoubtingthomas.blo ... art-1.html

[KingandPriest]

It would seem to me that the best shot Christianity has for doing that would be to point to the Catholic Pope.

Which one? Aren't there 4 of them? I guess it depends on if you're Roman Catholic, Palmarian Catholic, Coptic Orthodox or Greek Orthodox. Even the popes can't always agree!

The positive evidence is the fact that we know the concept of Santa was fabricated and is different in various regions around the world.

The same can be said about the concept of God.

Investigative studies on the authenticity of the new testament scriptures reveal they are no where on the same level as the tales about Santa Claus. Here is one such study conducted by a former non-theist. See Section II http://ebooks.rahnuma.org/religion/Chri ... ianity.pdf

I've read parts of that book and it is a joke. It's full of weak circumstantial evidence and the usual bad arguments (Cosmological Argument, Ontological argument, etc.). He treats second-hand accounts of events that happened decades earlier as though they are firsthand accounts from eyewitnesses. His conclusions are only barely supported by the evidence, and he skips over all of the really difficult topics and only deals with the easy stuff. If an actual detective read this book they would be embarrassed.

http://confessionsofadoubtingthomas.blo ... art-1.html

Are you certain that an actual detective would be embarrassed?

Have you ever investigated a cold case murder before?

Have you used years of experience, understanding criminal behavior or performed countless interviews of supposed witness accounts to identify what actually occurred several decades ago?

Have you spoken to detectives who investigate very old cases to get their view, or are you providing your conjecture based opinion?