Faith not fact

[imhereforyou]

I've been told that having faith in God is better than having proof. I guess it's because if you have no proof but believe your belief is...stronger? Better placed?
I don't get it.
Seems to me that believing in something because of absolute proof is better/stronger than believing in something without proof.
What am I missing here?

Is it better to believe in something without proof? Why or why not? And how do you do that?

Or is it better to believe in something that provides proof?

Or is there a middle ground some how?

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 1 by imhereforyou]

Believing in something and having faith in it are not the same thing.

The bible says even demons believe in God, indeed they fear Him; Satan is surely not an atheist. But do they have faith in God? Do they trust Him, do they love him, do they have confidence in his actions and act accordingly?

JW

Of course they're not the same
We don't need the bible to tell us that
But so many believers seem to overlook that fact
The bible says a lot of things - many of them rather silly, confusing, or otherwise odd.
But who is the 'they' you speak of?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by imhereforyou]

Believing in something and having faith in it are not the same thing.

The bible says even demons believe in God, indeed they fear Him; Satan is surely not an atheist. But do they have faith in God? Do they trust Him, do they love him, do they have confidence in his actions and act accordingly?

JW

But who is the 'they' you speak of?

I have added colour so you can correctly identify the subjects I am refering to when I said "they".

I hope that helps clarify my sentence.

JW

[Divine Insight]

So accurate and well said. Thank you for the input!

I find faith is good for some things. I just don't consider my eternal soul/life something that faith is good for. Why would I or anyone accept faith over fact?
It boggles my mind.

Not only that, but here's yet another perspective.

Let's imagine that there actually is a God who cares about decency and all that is good. If we assume that's true, then which person would this God be more impressed with?

Person A: An atheist who openly confesses that he or she sees no reason to believe that any Gods exist, but who still values decency and goodness simply because this is what they truly desire.

OR

Person B: A theist who proclaims that if there is no God they would see no reason to be a good person and if there is no God they would have no problem pillaging, raping, stealing, and even killing other humans.

In short, I hold that if a person needs to believe that a God exists in order to be a good person, then they obviously aren't a good person. Instead, all they would be doing is pretending to love goodness in order to pacify this God they believe exists.

Note: I realize that all theists do not claim that if there is no God then they would would have no reason to be good. However many theists do make this claim.

Any theist who holds that an atheist would have no reason to be moral is obviously a person who sees no point in being a moral person if there is no God.

So theists who are being "good" solely because they think that a God exists, and would have no reason to be good otherwise, are clearly not good people.

~~~~~~~

Therefore if a God exists who cares about goodness, and God is the father of all human "children", then this God would definitely be far more proud of good atheists who are good simply because this is who they are, than of theists who are only being good because they think some God is watching them.

So any theists who claim that they would have no reason to be good if there is no God are openly confessing that they are not good people.

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 1 by imhereforyou]

Believing in something and having faith in it are not the same thing.

The bible says even demons believe in God, indeed they fear Him; Satan is surely not an atheist. But do they have faith in God? Do they trust Him, do they love him, do they have confidence in his actions and act accordingly?

JW

But who is the 'they' you speak of?

I have added colour so you can correctly identify the subjects I am refering to when I said "they".

I hope that helps clarify my sentence.

JW

Understood
Thank you

[imhereforyou]

So accurate and well said. Thank you for the input!

I find faith is good for some things. I just don't consider my eternal soul/life something that faith is good for. Why would I or anyone accept faith over fact?
It boggles my mind.

Not only that, but here's yet another perspective.

Let's imagine that there actually is a God who cares about decency and all that is good. If we assume that's true, then which person would this God be more impressed with?

Person A: An atheist who openly confesses that he or she sees no reason to believe that any Gods exist, but who still values decency and goodness simply because this is what they truly desire.

OR

Person B: A theist who proclaims that if there is no God they would see no reason to be a good person and if there is no God they would have no problem pillaging, raping, stealing, and even killing other humans.

In short, I hold that if a person needs to believe that a God exists in order to be a good person, then they obviously aren't a good person. Instead, all they would be doing is pretending to love goodness in order to pacify this God they believe exists.

Note: I realize that all theists do not claim that if there is no God then they would would have no reason to be good. However many theists do make this claim.

Any theist who holds that an atheist would have no reason to be moral is obviously a person who sees no point in being a moral person if there is no God.

So theists who are being "good" solely because they think that a God exists, and would have no reason to be good otherwise, are clearly not good people.

~~~~~~~

Therefore if a God exists who cares about goodness, and God is the father of all human "children", then this God would definitely be far more proud of good atheists who are good simply because this is who they are, than of theists who are only being good because they think some God is watching them.

So any theists who claim that they would have no reason to be good if there is no God are openly confessing that they are not good people.

This is one of the many reasons I see Christianity as selfish: you're doing it (assumingly good things) not because you initially wanted to do them and help others, but because you're told to do them. At least in part.

You accept the biblical teachings not because those teachings help others only, but because they help you and you get into heaven.
If Christianity was truly selfless, what you do only helps others. But the bible is said to teach that we are each responsible for our own eternal salvation by what we say and do, not what others say and do.
But that's for another topic - but your comment kinda' says a very similar thing to me.

[brianbbs67]

So accurate and well said. Thank you for the input!

I find faith is good for some things. I just don't consider my eternal soul/life something that faith is good for. Why would I or anyone accept faith over fact?
It boggles my mind.

Not only that, but here's yet another perspective.

Let's imagine that there actually is a God who cares about decency and all that is good. If we assume that's true, then which person would this God be more impressed with?

Person A: An atheist who openly confesses that he or she sees no reason to believe that any Gods exist, but who still values decency and goodness simply because this is what they truly desire.

OR

Person B: A theist who proclaims that if there is no God they would see no reason to be a good person and if there is no God they would have no problem pillaging, raping, stealing, and even killing other humans.

In short, I hold that if a person needs to believe that a God exists in order to be a good person, then they obviously aren't a good person. Instead, all they would be doing is pretending to love goodness in order to pacify this God they believe exists.

Note: I realize that all theists do not claim that if there is no God then they would would have no reason to be good. However many theists do make this claim.

Any theist who holds that an atheist would have no reason to be moral is obviously a person who sees no point in being a moral person if there is no God.

So theists who are being "good" solely because they think that a God exists, and would have no reason to be good otherwise, are clearly not good people.

~~~~~~~

Therefore if a God exists who cares about goodness, and God is the father of all human "children", then this God would definitely be far more proud of good atheists who are good simply because this is who they are, than of theists who are only being good because they think some God is watching them.

So any theists who claim that they would have no reason to be good if there is no God are openly confessing that they are not good people.

God would honor the Atheists, in this case..Even the Catholic church says this.

If the only reason you seek and do good, is to avoid punishment , it is even worse than not believing and doing good because it is good to you.

[rstrats]

imhereforyou,
re: "Is it better to believe in something without proof?... And how do you do that?"

You can't, at least not consciously since beliefs cannot be obtained by simply choosing to have them.

[ttruscott]

I've been told that having faith in God is better than having proof. I guess it's because if you have no proof but believe your belief is...stronger? Better placed?
I don't get it.
Seems to me that believing in something because of absolute proof is better/stronger than believing in something without proof.
What am I missing here?

Is it better to believe in something without proof? Why or why not? And how do you do that?

Or is it better to believe in something that provides proof?

Or is there a middle ground some how?

From the Christian Bible Believing pov you are missing the claim that we have all seen the proof of YHWH's Divinity and power so that we are without excuse, Rom 1:20 but by rebelling against HIM we repress that proof from our minds and end up debased as per the rest of Romans 1 repeated more than once.

This would imply that all skeptics are in rebellion and suppressing the truth they know because they love sin more and clamoring for proof is a red herring.

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 18 by ttruscott]

From the Christian Bible Believing pov you are missing the claim that we have all seen the proof of YHWH's Divinity and power so that we are without excuse

No I know of what it says, (I spent many years reading it and living by it) but I can tell you 100% that's not true.
Nothing that has happened to me has proven to me, 100%, that God is real and is as is said to be. I suppose you would have to believe me saying that is true and not trolling, but I have nothing to gain by trolling and being less than truthful.
Additionally, I don't believe in something to be true and accurate simply because it says it's true and accurate. In other words, I don't believe anything that says "it's true because I say it's true" as the bible indicates.
I suppose in order to do this (bible says it's true for example) one would have to believe that the bible was written by God. Which I don't.

[OnceConvinced]

Is it better to believe in something without proof? Why or why not?

I think it depends what it is and under what circumstances.

The problem with believing without proof is that you can turn into a gullible fool who believes every bit of nonsense that they hear. Especially if it lines up with your own beliefs, you are going to embrace it without much in the way of critical thought.

What if you have to cross that rickety old bridge in your car. It looks as though it's about to collapse. Do you first check that its safe or do you have faith and drive across? I'd say it would be foolish to drive across without checking. Gathering proof of its safety would be wise.

What if your are a young girl walking along the road and some dodgy person pulls up and offers you a lift. Do you put your faith in God that he will keep you safe, or do you prudently decline? I would say that to put your faith in God and climb into the car would be very foolish.

On the other hand if you require proof for everything, that's going too far to the opposite extreme. Can you imagine being in a relationship and demanding proof that your partner loves you all the time? Are you going to continually be watching them and checking on them to make sure they're not cheating on you or something like that? That's not going to result in a healthy relationship. There has to be a certain amount of trust/faith in your partner for it to work. (Having said that you need some kind of proof to begin with that this person loves you before you throw all your eggs into that basket and get too deeply involved.)

And how do you do that?

Well there's the big problem. You can't just force yourself to have faith in something. No matter what you might try to convince yourself of, deep down you need something solid before you will actually believe it.

For instance you might try to tell yourself that bridge is safe to cross, but deep down you know it may not be.

You may insist to yourself that climbing into that car with that dodgy stranger is going to be safe, because God is looking out for you, but deep down do your really believe it?

You may try to convince yourself that your partner is trustworthy and insist to yourself you are going to have faith in that person, but that's not going to necessarily change what's going on deep inside. The lack of faith is still going to be there, especially if they have already let you down before.

Likewise, you can't choose to have faith in God if deep down you don't believe. You can try to twist your own arm behind your back and demand of yourself to have faith... that may work for some, but not for all, because deep down you don't believe.

You can't just turn belief/faith off or on.

Or is there a middle ground some how?

Maybe. For certain things. Like you might not fully trust or have faith in your partner, but so far he/she hasn't done anything to destroy that trust/faith so you may gain some confidence out of that. The problem is if she or he lets you down? Then even that inkling of faith is destroyed.

Likewise, you may be a believer in God and your are putting your faith in the bible because so far the bible hasn't let you down. But then when something in the bible does let you down, then your faith may be in big trouble.