Faith doesn't even engage on that level. It's more or less a rhetorical device, an affirmation of a way of life, of practice, of value, in the face of possibility.

In terms a description of the world, it's incohrent. If I understand God exists, for example, any of you question of doubt is resolved. My postion is I know God is true. To what I know, faith doesn't even enter the picture. In possessing this knowledge, I know there is no need for faith as an excuse of belief. If one knows, they don't need to appeal to the unknown.

Faith is about locking in a particular way of thinking or acting, not describing what is true.

What use for all those words if no theist would ever agree with your definition of faith? And you certainly must know that. So why make it then?

The fear arguments actually work in terms of describing a lot of human behaviour. In either case, they are arguments about someone's motivation to hold a particular position. For many people, the atheist/theist line does depend on these fears. If they didn't fear death or God's action, they would not be theist or atheist respectively. The argument just has nothing to do with good reasons, be they descriptive or ethical, for believing or disbelieving God.

The fear arguments actually work in terms of describing a lot of human behaviour. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Maybe, except they're not used merely to describe behaviour. They're used to look down on behaviour. Eh, that weakling, he believes in God, must be a coward who is too scared of death. So if atheists look down on theists for such petty reasons - theists should be able to do the same. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

They don't need to agree. In this respect, they are ignorant of themselves. As for the point, it's about understandi the relationship of knowledge to faith.

Also, some theists would agree. My argument here is not that God and knowledge of God is impossible, it is that "faith" fails to respect knowledge.

In ethical and descriptive terms, a theist should be arguing that belief in God is justified because it's what's true.

They don't need to agree. In this respect, they are ignorant of themselves. As for the point, it's about understandi the relationship of knowledge to faith. — TheWillowOfDarkness

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" - why don't you start from there?

I do: that's why it merely rehtorical. In faith, one hopes for God, for an unknown to turn out how they wish. In terms of an argument, it like saying: "I hope the coin turns up heads."

Some people complain faith doesn't give a reason for belief, but that's too kind. Faith doesn't even take a position on the world or ethics-- it's just someone saying "I wish."

I do: that's why it merely rehtorical. In faith, one hopes for God, for an unknown to turn out how they wish. In terms of an argument, it like saying: "I hope the coin turns up heads."

Some people complain faith doesn't give a reason for belief, but it's that's too kind. Faith doesn't even take a position on either the world or ethics. — TheWillowOfDarkness

There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your vain philosophy...

Alas, you fail to note the category of things for which there is no evidence, but which require belief in order to be possible, and hence real, and hence true. Some things are made true in virtue of being believed. So no, it's not like saying I hope/believe the coin turns up heads, because my hoping/believing that the coin turns up heads, has nothing to do with it actually turning up heads. It's more like saying I hope my wife will be faithful to me, because if I don't hope that, I won't marry her, and then certainly her being faithful won't even be possible. But my hoping in that case is the substance of things hoped for (that which will bring it about) and the evidence of things not seen - who really knows if she'll be faithful or not? Except that by faith, one can make it the case. By lacking faith, one will certainly lose.

That's precisely why faith acts as a rehtorical enforcer. The world anyone hopes for gets attached to faith, creating a situation where people think faith is required to hope.

Hope becomes confused with belief, which in turn becomes confused with truth, such that people think they need to have faith or else what they hope for won't come true. But, of course, hope has nothing to do with it-- turth is what matters.

A faithful wife is defined by the truth of her actions. Hope doesn't matter. A woman you despair would cheat might never do so. It's her actions, not your hopes, that define that. Her faithfuness is entirely possible, despite your lack of hope.

Similarly with God. What matters with God is not hope, but truths of the world and ethics. The theist follows God because of what God means for the world, and that it improves our actions and lives.

Her faithfuness is entirely possible, despite your lack of hope. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope, because I won't marry her if i don't have faith in her. Faith is a pre-requisite for her faithfulness.

That's precisely why faith acts as a rehtorical enforcer. The world anyone hopes for gets attached to faith, creating a situation where people think faith is required to hope. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Faith is hoping and acting on that hope. It's being committed.

Which is why it's rehtorical-- faith is convincing you to marry her. It has nothing to do with with truth, nothing to do with describing her or her behaviour.

Faith is not required for her faithfuness (she might be faithful to someone else she's involved with), just marriage to you.

Which is why it's rehtorical-- faith is convincing you to marry her. It has nothing to do with with truth, nothing to do with describing her or her behaviour. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It does have something to do with truth, because if I don't have faith in her, I don't marry her, and thus there will be no truth of her being faithful to me.

To you, as you have refused to marry her. But that's your action, not her loyalty to her partner.

In the context of belief in God, this would merely mean you choose not to follow God. You would just marry some other belief instead. This is why it's particularly rehtorical-- you are demanding faith in God to get people to follow God. It's not an argument made on truth (ethical or descriptive reason to believe in God), but an act made to cause followers of God.

To you, as you have refused to marry her. But that's your action, not her loyalty to her partner. — TheWillowOfDarkness

We were discussing faithfulness towards me though in this particular circumstance, I thought that was evident.

In the context of belief in God, this would merely mean you choose not to follow God. You would just marry some other belief instead. This is why it's particularly rehtorical-- you are demanding faith in God to get people to follow God. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Your faith isn't just following God, it's your commitment to God. It's this commitment and the actions that follow from it that are the fruits.

Fruits which are irrelevant to the faith argument. It doesn't mention them. It can't, for that would take knowledge. Instead of arguing what is true (the fruits of the theist belief), the faith argument only deals with appeals to fear and hope. It's a rehtorical argument made to cause commitment to God without considering truth.

Your faith isn't just following God, it's your commitment to God. It's this commitment and the actions that follow from it that are the fruits. — Agustino

Substitute faith in God with Hitler, what's the difference? If you reason with me why there is a difference and that one should commit to God over Hitler, then why not reason, instead of have faith, that one need not believe in God?

Faith in Hitler is still faith. I wasn't discussing who and what one should have faith in (the ethics of faith) but rather the nature of faith.

Likewise, it seems to me that atheists wish theist's beliefs to be grounded in some fear of annihilation... — Agustino

I don't think this is a wish of mine, but rather an observation.

The doctrine of theistic beliefs have the notion of some sort of "eye in the sky" authoritarian surveillance with the ability and licence for eternal judgement.

This is not me criticising the notions of theistic beliefs as much as I am simply describing the beliefs.

My not believing in a theistic deity subsequently eliminates this "eye in the sky" authoritarian surveillance with the ability and licence for eternal judgement; thus no reason to fear.

Or do you mean to tell me that there are no psychological advantages at all in being an atheist? I freely admit there are psychological advantages in being a theist for example - reduced fear of death, ability to hope to meet loved ones again, and so forth. — Agustino

Is this really an advantage?

If this were the case, why don't these theistic individuals all wish to die?
Why do they cry at a funeral?

It always seems rather inconsistant to me. On one side they are overjoyed to be with their loved ones who have passed away in this eternal paradise (my take is that it is a holy celestial North Korea) and yet have such sad funerals. Exactly how well does this delusion function really?

Well I think that your life clinging by the thread and doctors and others trying to save you is a medical trial, is it not? — Agustino

The definition of a medical trial (or clnical trial): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial

What you are refering to is medical practice. Personally I would rather have a medical professional practice medicine if I were hanging on to life by a thread rather than conduct a medical (clinical) trial.

And prayer/meditation in an effort to develop a relationship with God doesn't count as investigating it? — Agustino

You mean mumbling to yourself using a post hoc ergo propter hoc approach to the outcomes... uhh... no it doesn't count.

Who said God is (completely) "unknowable"? The unknown isn't necessarily also unknowable. — Agustino

Every bit of theistic doctrine presents a god beyond comprehension (aka "unknowable"); thus it is not a criticism, but rather a description. Everyone one of these god incarnations in theistic notions are somehow supernatural; thus beyond comprehension... thus unknowable. (although I find it to be quite odd how these believers always seem quite convinced that they know exact character trait as well as like and dislike of these unknowable creatures... uhh... really?)

The reason why most arguments end up this way is that people who don't believe will never agree with the reasons/explanations offered by those who believe, and will instead find any other possible explanation for them that they can. This is a silly game. Any fact can be explained in a multitude of ways. You choose to believe it a certain way, I choose to believe it a different way. There's nothing really to discuss, except share that one of us has faith and the other doesn't. — Agustino

Then these people of faith should finally have the good taste and stop arguing. They have nothing to back a claim and thus nothing to present other than an unfounded personal notion of what they prefer the universe to be without any critical investigation.

I cannot for the life of me understand a virtue in faith of this religious manner of speaking. Why live a life of false pattern recognition for the sake of ease? Why dumb down investigation for the sake of having an answer to be consistant with a preconception bias? Why insist there must be an organizing force for the sake of making one feel better?

I know many don't care for Richard Dawkins, but I like this comment he mentioned:

"We constantly create false positives. We touch wood for luck, we see faces in toasted cheese, fortunes in tea leaves. These provide a comforting illusion of meaning. This is the human condition in our bewildering and complex world. (and) In the irrational mindset, if you believe in the mystical pattern you have imposed on reality you call yourself 'spiritual'."

The problem as I see it is that many of the theistic notions lead to rather totalitarian forces that place an end to investigation. Indeed, if you start with the answer prior to the investigation, then you have a bias that is unavoidable and will in the end be defended at all costs. I view this sort of mindset to be a cancer of the mind or a surrender of the mind. It has an extreme arrogance of certainity without ever making an effort to investigate. It has a final answer before the first question is ever asked. As I said... I cannot see much virtue associated with such a surrender of the mind. This is what really needs to be discussed and why it is constantly being discussed. Live and let live is one thing, but that is not written into any doctine of these theistic notions. As I see it there is much to be discussed because if not there may be no discussion allowed in the name of this sort of totalitarian invisible proxy of constraint and censure.

Meow!

GREG

In short...

“Science adjusts its views based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”
― Tim Minchin

Meow!

GREG

I don't think this is a wish of mine, but rather an observation. — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes, the theist will say likewise.

My not believing in a theistic deity subsequently eliminates this "eye in the sky" authoritarian surveillance with the ability and licence for eternal judgement; thus no reason to fear. — Mayor of Simpleton

As the theist does not believe that death is the end, he has no reason to fear it. Quite simple. Don't you see how stupid all of this is? You caricature the theist, the theist can just as easily caricature you.

This is not me criticising the notions of theistic beliefs as much as I am simply describing the beliefs. — Mayor of Simpleton

Yeah, describing them in a way that no theist would agree to them. I guess we should take that as clearly a fair description.

If this were the case, why don't these theistic individuals all wish to die? — Mayor of Simpleton

Because it's not up to them to decide when to leave the world. It's also immoral to desire to die sooner than your time, because it is disobeying God's will. Furthermore, you could add that since death is inevitable and its time is decided by God, there is no reason to wish for it, since whether you wish it, or you don't, it will come at its allotted time anyway.

Why do they cry at a funeral? — Mayor of Simpleton

Because, at least until death, they will be separated from the loved one? They cry more for themselves than for the person who has died. Only the atheist is under the delusion that he's crying for the person who has died ;)

my take is that it is a holy celestial North Korea — Mayor of Simpleton

How quaint that no theist describes Heaven in these terms, don't you think so? It seems quite evident to me that your dislike for authority is one of the main reasons behind your atheism - and yes, an emotional, not a rational reason, exactly as I have claimed before.

The definition of a medical trial (or clnical trial) — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes, moving from medical trial to clinical trial is called moving goal posts.

Personally I would rather have a medical professional practice medicine if I were hanging on to life by a thread rather than conduct a medical (clinical) trial. — Mayor of Simpleton

Medicine isn't so "clear-cut" that someone can just "practice medicine".

Every bit of theistic doctrine presents a god beyond comprehension (aka "unknowable") — Mayor of Simpleton

No, being beyond comprehension does not mean unknowable, it simply means being (currently) unknown. The theists draw a distinction here and say that God is entirely intelligible, however, not entirely intelligible for finite human intellects. Definitely they don't claim God is incomprehensible in an ontological sense - only partly incomprehensible for the finite human intellect - the same way a black hole is incomprehensible.

unknowable creatures — Mayor of Simpleton

How uninformed this is. Unknowable creature(s) with reference to God >:O . God is creator, not creature. That is a fundamental tenet of theism, how peculiar that your attacks merely show your ignorance of that which you want to attack.

Then these people of faith should finally have the good taste and stop arguing. — Mayor of Simpleton

And who are you to issue warrants regarding what should be done and what shouldn't be done? The moral authority itself? Have you killed God to put yourself on the throne? See, that's the problem with your kind of atheism - you can't even issue moral injunctions. Once you undermine any and all authority, you undermine even your own self.

Why insist there must be an organizing force for the sake of making one feel better? — Mayor of Simpleton

It's not for the sake of making one feel better, it's simply because this appears evidently true to some. You can wake up and look at the splendor of the world and say "just happened by chance", not everyone can.

Why dumb down investigation for the sake of having an answer to be consistant with a preconception bias? — Mayor of Simpleton

Yeah, I wish to ask you the same thing.

"We constantly create false positives. We touch wood for luck, we see faces in toasted cheese, fortunes in tea leaves. These provide a comforting illusion of meaning. This is the human condition in our bewildering and complex world. (and) In the irrational mindset, if you believe in the mystical pattern you have imposed on reality you call yourself 'spiritual'." — Mayor of Simpleton

Just because Mr. Dawkins cannot reach up to the grapes does not mean they are sour.

The problem as I see it is that many of the theistic notions lead to rather totalitarian forces that place an end to investigation. — Mayor of Simpleton

How do they place an end to investigation? Investigation, ie experiment, is what deals with the empirical realm. Theism deals with metaphysics. What does investigation have to do with metaphysics? Nothing. Metaphysics cannot stop any investigation, neither can any investigation change metaphysics. The two are independent.

Indeed, if you start with the answer prior to the investigation, then you have a bias that is unavoidable and will in the end be defended at all costs. — Mayor of Simpleton

We always start with presuppositions which are not proven. Furthermore, there is no investigation (experiment) in metaphysics the way there is investigation in physics.

It has an extreme arrogance of certainity without ever making an effort to investigate. — Mayor of Simpleton

What is there to investigate, in the sense of experiment? This is the wrong-headed approach from the very beginning. One needs to think through metaphysics, and identify the principles that are required to be accepted in order to make sense of ANY KIND of physics whatsoever. Then one needs to draw whatever conclusions there are to draw out of such principles. As for arrogance, the atheist is quite arrogant himself when, for example, he thinks the universe should be under some compulsion to follow its laws such that miracles are impossible.

Live and let live is one thing, but that is not written into any doctine of these theistic notions. — Mayor of Simpleton

Right. The governance of society is a different subject than the attitude one is to have to other individuals. Live and let live is simply an attitude individuals should have with respect to one another - because there's nothing else they can do about each other. But I quite possibly believe that the good governance of society involves setting up a strong culture which enforces the virtues and religious practices which have always been essential for human communities through means such as education, social pressure, and so forth.

Yes, moving from medical trial to clinical trial is called moving goal posts. — Agustino

Medical trials is laymans terms for clinical trials.

Meow!

GREG

No, being beyond comprehension does not mean unknowable, it simply means being (currently) unknown. — Agustino

No...

... unknowable means cannot be known.

Definition of unknowable
: not knowable; especially : lying beyond the limits of human experience or understanding

Meow!

GREG

How uninformed this is. Unknowable creature(s) with reference to God >:O . God is creator, not creature. That is a fundamental tenet of theism, how peculiar that your attacks merely show your ignorance of that which you want to attack. — Agustino

Give me one example of a theistic god that is knowable; that which can be perceived directly and not via "inspiration"... where god reveals god's self to the believer as the believer believes god has reviealed god's self... a very circular notion. Give me something that can hold up as evidence and not something that is just evident.



Meow!

GREG

Medical trials is laymans terms for clinical trials. — Mayor of Simpleton

Ok, even so, what does that have to do with anything? First you make an unsubstantiated distinction between a placebo in a medical trial, and a placebo in a medical intervention - what reason do you even have to suppose there may be such a distinction? That's just the same level as thinking that eating grass might cure cancer, and we need to go out and test it - investigate it, as you love to say - to see if it really does. No we don't. Nobody does science like that. We have no reason to think eating grass cures cancer, and thus we have no reason to test it.

It's evident that you're just trying to wiggle out of the truth in order to have reality fit with your preconceived worldview.

No...

... unknowable means cannot be known. — Mayor of Simpleton

Ok so? I fail to see anything that follows out of this. Does it follow that incomprehensible is unknowable? No, because what is incomprehensible today, may be comprehensible tomorrow - and thus can be known.

Give me one example of a theistic god that is knowable; that which can be perceived directly — Mayor of Simpleton

To be knowable to you means to be perceived directly using the five senses. That's not necessarily what being knowable is in the first place. The theorem of Pythagoras cannot be perceived directly for example. There is no physical theorem for you to touch or see. It is an object of the intellect. But this doesn't mean that the theorem doesn't exist either.

As for an example of a theistic God that is/was directly knowable. The resurrected Jesus Christ.

First you make an unsubstantiated distinction between a placebo in a medical trial, and a placebo in a medical intervention - what reason do you even have to suppose there may be such a distinction? — Agustino

One is an emprical test to see if there is an actual beneficial application to the cure disease and the other is the actual practice employing tested medicine for the curing of disease.

No offense here, but if I'm on my deathbed I'd prefer that the doctors use empirically tested medicines rather than use me as a test subject to see what happens to happen.

Meow!

GREG

I'd play somemore, but the rationality of this converstation just went bye bye.

I have a dinner to attend.

Meow!

GREG

One is an emprical test to see if there is an actual beneficial application to the cure disease and the other is the actual practice employing tested medicine for the curing of disease. — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes and the empirical test concludes that there is actual benefit in its application to cure disease. It follows then that it should be employed in the practice.

No offense here, but if I'm on my deathbed I'd prefer that the doctors use empirically tested medicines rather than use me as a test subject to see what happens to happen. — Mayor of Simpleton

You're thinking too black and white. You may be on your deathbed and no "empirically tested" medicine is able to cure you for certain, however, some yet untried medicine (which by the way isn't the equivalent of the placebo, because the placebo has been tried before) may be able to give you a small chance. Would you go for the empirically tested medicine in that case?