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?

[Crazy Ivan]

but to the BRITISH, during WWII:
This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man.
G.D. Birla, In the Shadow of the Mahatma

Assuming the quotation is verified (which I don't) I still don't think it's relevant as far as diplomatic efforts are concerned, something fundamentalists tend to care little about. Fortunately, they're usually not the ones in mediating positions.

[sickles]

as i already posted, faith cannot stand up to the skeptics challenge, while belief may be able to . facts can. simple as that.

Merely making a statement that amounts to "Just as I said, I'm right and you're wrong," doesn't prove anything. Again, you are throwing your opinion out there hoping it will "stick" as fact, but there is no reasoning in your assertion.

there is reasoning and its not opinion. It is the skeptics challenge and is thus:

How do we know what we know is true?
How can we justify what we claim to know?

faith cannot answer the first question. It cant answer the second question.
belief may be able to answer both questions, depending on what is being believed.
and facts can answer both questions

how is this opinion?

Apparently the "skeptics challenge" is not keen on the workings of logic and philosophy.

It is your opinion that "faith cannot answer the first question. It cant answer the second question.
belief may be able to answer both questions, depending on what is being believed.
and facts can answer both questions", and this is based on your semantical gymnastics.

then how about proving me wrong, instead of just saying im wrong, which is just your opinion.

[Grumpy]

JohnnyJersey

Sure, you can accept anything you want on whatever evidence you want; it is on faith that you accept that which you accept.

Not by any reasonable definition of faith, I don't.

Right, and that "magic is not" "reasonable" is your preconceived notion.

That is the rational conclusion, yes. Without any evidence for "real" magic, that will remain the rational expectation. "And then a miracle occurred" has never been and never will be any part of science, math or philosophy used to address the real world.

And you're not doing a great job convincing anyone (other than your fellow atheist "yes-men", perhaps) that I have conducted "verbal violence" against you.

Never tried to convince anyone of any such thing, I recognize your disagreements with what I think are NOT violence, but your ad hom attack was.

Grumpy wrote:
That is a lie, I meet the definition of a Christian(one who follows the TEACHINGS of Jesus), but not of a theist(supernatural claims are not acceptable as anything but fiction, myth, legend or fable), or any type of religionist(IE I reject the dogma of any church). The evidence leads me to these conclusions.


"One of these things is not like the other..."

Wrong, following Jesus's teachings is being a Christian. Period. Believing supernatural stories is not. If your religious beliefs are dependent on believing things you know can't be true(to paraphrase Will Rogers), well...good luck with that, I fear you are destined to disappointment.

So now it's your tactic, when it's convenient for you, as it was the tactic of your fellow atheists before I made it my tactic in order to make my point.

Produce a quote from me where I infate(as opposed to sharpening the precision of)any word's meaning or withdraw your sperious charge.

As for my "ad hom rant" - WHERE?

No false witness, your ideas and words are indeed anti-Christian. And now you seem to want to "inflate" the word "violence" to suit your needs; thanks for illustrating that the double standard regarding the use of the word "violence" is indeed a word game meant to deride Christians and religion in general while absolving anti-religion and anti-Christian people of the same. Disingenuous, at best.

There you go, the entire ad hom diatribe.

Grumpy

[Goat]

I'm an atheist and I believe in the supernatural and in God.

You say that word a lot. I don't think you know what it means.

The definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe in God.. or at least lacks a belief in God. Your sentence is an oxymoron.

[Lux]

Likewise for posting a statement that one doesn't "think JohnnyJersey wishes to respond to my request anyway, which is a pity..." without waiting a reasonable amount of time.

The reason I said that was that I saw you were online in the forum for a long time, and responded to another post in this thread but not to mine, so I figured you didn't want to post your source. In any case, you had no obligation to post it, because I made a request, not a formal challenge, so there's no need to take it personally. If I had made a challenge, I would have waited and if I hadn't gotten a response after some days, I would have raised it to your attention, not mentioned it to Zzyzx.

Anyway, thanks for the quote. I looked it up and read some about the matter. You might want to know, however, that it seems like the claims about Gandhi that Eric L. Bullough makes in that book are not proven and are being seriously disputed.
There are several versions of Gandhi's alleged child molestations circulating, some say he spent nights with girls as young as 13, others that the girls were actually 18 and older, other that they were members of his own extended family. All kinds of accusations, defenses and reasons are also available.
I have no doubt that most people considered "saintly" have a bunch of dirty laundry that the media would rather hide, but this particular accusation seems to be rather unsustained, at least for now.

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

There has been a fair number of statements addressing other poster's and their behavior lately in this thread. Please avoid this.

I will point out no one is obligated to respond to a given post or question. The only obligation is to support claims one has made.

Let's stay on topic and avoid the ad hominem comments.

[JohnnyJersey]

Likewise for posting a statement that one doesn't "think JohnnyJersey wishes to respond to my request anyway, which is a pity..." without waiting a reasonable amount of time.

The reason I said that was that I saw you were online in the forum for a long time, and responded to another post in this thread but not to mine, so I figured you didn't want to post your source. In any case, you had no obligation to post it, because I made a request, not a formal challenge, so there's no need to take it personally. If I had made a challenge, I would have waited and if I hadn't gotten a response after some days, I would have raised it to your attention, not mentioned it to Zzyzx.

Just so you know, I may be 'online' but that doesn't mean I'm looking at this page or posting or even at my computer. Also, just so you know, I try my best to respond to people in order; so, even though I responded to someone since your post, that person was way ahead of you in terms of posts that were replies to me that I would get back to. You made a lot of presumptions and cast me in a bad light, whether intentionally or not. I ask that you not do so again. Remember also that nobody is required to respond to anyone.

[Anyway, thanks for the quote. I looked it up and read some about the matter. You might want to know, however, that it seems like.

What did you read about the matter and where did you find "the claims about Gandhi that Eric L. Bullough makes in that book are not proven and are being seriously disputed"?

[There are several versions of Gandhi's alleged child molestations circulating, some say he spent nights with girls as young as 13, others that the girls were actually 18 and older, other that they were members of his own extended family. All kinds of accusations, defenses and reasons are also available.
I have no doubt that most people considered "saintly" have a bunch of dirty laundry that the media would rather hide, but this particular accusation seems to be rather unsustained, at least for now.

What is your basis for believing some things about Gandhi and not others?

It seems to me to be another case of selective evidence, a tactic atheists love to use to discredit anything, from religion to history to science, just to continue to convince themselves they're "right". Rather disingenuous, but you're fooling yourself more than anyone else.

[Lux]

Just so you know, I may be 'online' but that doesn't mean I'm looking at this page or posting or even at my computer. Also, just so you know, I try my best to respond to people in order; so, even though I responded to someone since your post, that person was way ahead of you in terms of posts that were replies to me that I would get back to. You made a lot of presumptions and cast me in a bad light, whether intentionally or not. I ask that you not do so again. Remember also that nobody is required to respond to anyone.

I made a presumption, you're right. That was wrong of me, I apologize.

I know no one is required to answer to anyone, that's why I don't think I was actually casting you in a bad light (if I'd made a challenge and then claimed that you didn't respond, that would've been different). But I'll refrain from such comments in the future, seeing that it offended you.

What did you read about the matter and where did you find "the claims about Gandhi that Eric L. Bullough makes in that book are not proven and are being seriously disputed"?

I read a number of links, none of which cited the sources for the claims in Bullough's book. Some of them disputed the allegations, some offered additional accusations. Would you like me to look them all up and post them? That would have to be on Tuesday, though, because there were a huge number of links and a lot of them were irrelevant, so I'd have to re-read them all.

It would be a lot easier if you know the sources Bullough used. If he did indeed have good sources, I'll withdraw my statement. Unfortunately I don't have access to the book, which probably cited sources if they exist.

What is your basis for believing some things about Gandhi and not others?

I'm not believing any particular things about Gandhi, at the moment. What is your basis for thinking that I do?
I decided not to believe, for now, that Gandhi molested children, given what I consider a lack of evidence. Personally I don't think of one single author that cites no sources as conclusive proof. Add to that the many different allegations that are being made (just google Gandhi molested children and you'll find several different versions of the accusation).

It seems to me to be another case of selective evidence, a tactic atheists love to use to discredit anything, from religion to history to science, just to continue to convince themselves they're "right". Rather disingenuous, but you're fooling yourself more than anyone else.

It seems to me that you like to generalize. Above, I explained why I don't "pick a side" in the matter of this particular accusation against Gandhi. Take it or leave it, but if you consider my reasoning flawed, remember that I'm not the mirror of every atheist in this forum.

Also, evidence MUST be considered, challenged, revised. If you're going to take anything anyone ever said as valid evidence of something, you're going to believe an awful lot of things.

Please note that I never said your claim was false. I asked for the source because of a personal interest, and then I noted that I haven't found enough evidence to believe it, at least not yet. You're taking this personally, when it isn't.

[JohnnyJersey]

I made a presumption, you're right. That was wrong of me, I apologize.

I know no one is required to answer to anyone, that's why I don't think I was actually casting you in a bad light (if I'd made a challenge and then claimed that you didn't respond, that would've been different). But I'll refrain from such comments in the future, seeing that it offended you.

Wow, what do I make of this - an apology followed immediately by excuses and equivocation... It seems you're apologizing for making a presumption and then justifying your presumption as being OK since it was a presumption of a perceived lack of response to a request instead of a challenge (great nitpicking there, btw) and you wrap it up with the explanation that you only now will refrain from such comments based on seeing that it offended me rather than any kind of cognition of error on your part.

I guess all I can say is that I accept your apology for what it is in light of the rationalizations and excuses that you offer as justification.

What did you read about the matter and where did you find "the claims about Gandhi that Eric L. Bullough makes in that book are not proven and are being seriously disputed"?

I read a number of links, none of which cited the sources for the claims in Bullough's book. Some of them disputed the allegations, some offered additional accusations. Would you like me to look them all up and post them? That would have to be on Tuesday, though, because there were a huge number of links and a lot of them were irrelevant, so I'd have to re-read them all.

It would be a lot easier if you know the sources Bullough used. If he did indeed have good sources, I'll withdraw my statement. Unfortunately I don't have access to the book, which probably cited sources if they exist.

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion; I just don't see where your opinion carries any more weight than Bulloughs' or my opinion on the matter, as you are unable to demonstrate it. "a number of [unnamed] links" doesn't convince me of much.

What is your basis for believing some things about Gandhi and not others?

I'm not believing any particular things about Gandhi, at the moment. What is your basis for thinking that I do?

I don't believe this statement. I believe you DO choose to believe at least some particular things about Gandhi. Just the fact that you speak about him as if he were a real person demonstrates that you believe at least that particular thing about Gandhi (that he was a real person) at the moment.

I decided not to believe, for now, that Gandhi molested children, given what I consider a lack of evidence. Personally I don't think of one single author that cites no sources as conclusive proof. Add to that the many different allegations that are being made (just google Gandhi molested children and you'll find several different versions of the accusation).

Yes, I think you have now identified the particular thing about Gandhi that you choose not to believe. So it's not "any particular thing" that you choose not to believe, it's certain particular things that you choose not to believe while you do choose other particular things to believe.

And it's all on faith in your various sources (that you choose to put faith in) and your own intuition and thinking.

It seems to me to be another case of selective evidence, a tactic atheists love to use to discredit anything, from religion to history to science, just to continue to convince themselves they're "right". Rather disingenuous, but you're fooling yourself more than anyone else.

It seems to me that you like to generalize. Above, I explained why I don't "pick a side" in the matter of this particular accusation against Gandhi. Take it or leave it, but if you consider my reasoning flawed, remember that I'm not the mirror of every atheist in this forum.

You did "pick a side". You said you "decided not to believe, for now, that Gandhi molested children." So, you picked the side, "for now", of denying that Gandhi molested children.

Why the disingenuous equivocation in picking a side (even if it's "for now") and then following it up with a denial of picking a side?

Also, evidence MUST be considered, challenged, revised. If you're going to take anything anyone ever said as valid evidence of something, you're going to believe an awful lot of things.

I don't. For example, I don't take anything you present as "valid evidence", such as your claims that links that you don't list by people you don't identify somehow discredit Bulloughs.

Please note that I never said your claim was false. I asked for the source because of a personal interest, and then I noted that I haven't found enough evidence to believe it, at least not yet. You're taking this personally, when it isn't.

Duly noted. Please note that what I took personally was your negative presumption and statement of that presumption that I had some desire to not respond to your request for information. As for your disagreement with me about Gandhi, I don't take that personally; but I do take personally any implication or expressed sentiment that your choice of belief is somehow more rooted in evidence and/or reason than mine.

If you want to believe that Gandhi's sex experiments never comprised molestation or anything unseemly, that's your prerogative. Many people also believe that Michael Jackson slept with lots of children in a purely innocent manner, also. Many may also believe that the nice man who drives around town offering kids candy and free car rides is not dangerous as there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part, at least not yet.

[Goat]

It appears that the stories about Ghandi are very exaggerated

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... th-virgins