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]

Also, declaring victory in a debate is generally considered bad form.[/color]

Funny that you tell ME this when you have Grumpy declaring victory by saying I've "failed" and Bernee declaring that I "equivocate", neither of whom has backed up their declarations. Ridiculous how selective your judgment and commentary are.

[Grumpy]

JohnnyJersey

Funny that you tell ME this when you have Grumpy declaring victory by saying I've "failed"

It is not my victory(which I have not claimed), it is your failure to justify your contention that faith is the only thing we use in acceptance, it isn't.

Grumpy

[Cathar1950]

Also, declaring victory in a debate is generally considered bad form.[/color]

Funny that you tell ME this when you have Grumpy declaring victory by saying I've "failed" and Bernee declaring that I "equivocate", neither of whom has backed up their declarations. Ridiculous how selective your judgment and commentary are.

The just shall live by faithfulness and you are saved by becoming one with Jesus that was faithful unto death and vindicated by being raised to God's right hand.
Granted their is trust and faith in much of what we do and assume but you have equated the purpose, results and claims.

As children we learn about the world we live in and ourselves while there is some trust in the nature of reality equating your trust in God, or at least your understanding of God, is not the the same experience. There are understanding of how the world works in which we humans largely share but when it comes to first and third level experiences there is no agreement upon the interpretation even among those that are claiming an understanding of the same God.
It is like comparing a round object where every human that feels the object can agree it is round as in the case of the ball, but you are looking at a subject which you have objectified and one person says it is round and another says it is square while another says it is a triangle and others don't feel any object at all while you claim it is round. The ideas of "faith", or the Bible's faithfulness are not equal in experience or meaning. What kind of evidence do you need to show you they are different concepts where yours is limited by the believer or faithful and narrowly experienced in diverse ways? It is a language game you are playing where you are playing fast and loose with the rules.

[Cathar1950]

JohnnyJersey

Funny that you tell ME this when you have Grumpy declaring victory by saying I've "failed"

It is not my victory(which I have not claimed), it is your failure to justify your contention that faith is the only thing we use in acceptance, it isn't.

Grumpy

Kind of like going to a sword fight and you never pull out your sword because your opponent cut himself pulling out his own sword.
You want to walk away but you just can't help but stare as he keeps grabbing the sword from the wrong end cutting himself again and again.

[Flail]

Now that is painting with a really broad brush indeed. It's like saying all people have trees in their lives.

Such a broad brush you would think nobody could deny it; but most have denied it, anyway. I'm sure irreligious people would deny having trees in their lives also if they thought it would imply that they might have some thought pattern in common with religious people. They'll deny rational thinking on the simplest level (i.e. that a word means what its definition says it means) just to convince themselves and anyone else that they're "right".

...are you attempting to equate unverified and unprovable 'faith' in a particular invisible God with confidence that your car will start...a confidence based upon oft repeated empirical and circumstantial evidence that it has always started previously?

[Cathar1950]

Now that is painting with a really broad brush indeed. It's like saying all people have trees in their lives.

Such a broad brush you would think nobody could deny it; but most have denied it, anyway. I'm sure irreligious people would deny having trees in their lives also if they thought it would imply that they might have some thought pattern in common with religious people. They'll deny rational thinking on the simplest level (i.e. that a word means what its definition says it means) just to convince themselves and anyone else that they're "right".

...are you attempting to equate unverified and unprovable 'faith' in a particular invisible God with confidence that your car will start...a confidence based upon oft repeated empirical and circumstantial evidence that it has always started previously?

In one broad stroke he trivialized both reality and faith while ignoring the meaning of faithfulness and trust. He ignores the fact that words do have varied meaning as do concepts and claims concerning the ultimate meaning and purpose of not only the universe but differing from most other's world views.
It looks to me he wants to prove he is right by ignoring the basic grounds of our experiences and nature.
How to respond?

[Zzyzx]

.

In one broad stroke he trivialized both reality and faith while ignoring the meaning of faithfulness and trust. He ignores the fact that words do have varied meaning as do concepts and claims concerning the ultimate meaning and purpose of not only the universe but differing from most other's world views.
It looks to me he wants to prove he is right by ignoring the basic grounds of our experiences and nature.
How to respond?

JJ evidently fancies himself a "wordsmith" and a comedian, as evidenced by his silly comments in the Solomon thread in which I misspelled the name. The information presented was valid and could not be addressed rationally in favor of literal "interpretation" of the bible story -- so he tried a cutsie response that eventually resulted in locking of the thread.

Such people come and go through this forum and none have been contributing members very long before leaving of their own accord (when their "arguments" are repeatedly trashed) or they are banned (as per Whirlwind most recently).

It is unfortunate that those people cannot or will not debate actual topics -- but if they try they are "cut off at the knees" when it becomes obvious that they cannot verify claims and stories.

[JohnnyJersey]

JohnnyJersey

Funny that you tell ME this when you have Grumpy declaring victory by saying I've "failed"

It is not my victory(which I have not claimed), it is your failure to justify your contention that faith is the only thing we use in acceptance, it isn't.

Grumpy

[JohnnyJersey]

JohnnyJersey

Funny that you tell ME this when you have Grumpy declaring victory by saying I've "failed"

It is not my victory(which I have not claimed), it is your failure to justify your contention that faith is the only thing we use in acceptance, it isn't.

Grumpy

Well, I never declared any victory either; I simply said that you failed, after you said that I failed. Somehow, however, it was my allegation that you failed which was construed to imply that I was declaring victory, whereas your allegation that I failed was not construed as such. The result was that I was given an admonition to not "declare victory" while you were not given one.

It's clear to me who around here is out to ingratiate themselves to the irreligious by making pariahs out of anyone religious. When the double standard is as glaring as it was in this case, it is undeniable.

What a Fricking JOKE.

[JohnnyJersey]

this