What is faith? Really?

[mistermack]

I'm not saying that the existence of god is unalloyed good, just that it's not rational to claim that god does not exist.

And presumably, just as irrational to claim that god DOES exist?
If so, it might be in stating the bleedin obvious, but for once I might have to agree with Seth.

[pErvinalia]

The problem for Seth is (amongst all his problems) that no one here, at least, and virtually no atheists claim god does not exist. He's beating (off to) a strawman.

[Brian Peacock]

If faith is all you bring to believing that a story is real then that's a rational reason not to believe the story I reckon. The burden is on the ones with faith to show how believing the old myth is rational, not the other way round.

[mistermack]

If faith is all you bring to believing that a story is real then that's a rational reason not to believe the story I reckon. The burden is on the ones with faith to show how believing the old myth is rational, not the other way round.

Yes, and it says a lot that they like preaching to the converted, but don't like debating with atheists.
To give Mick his credit, he did give it a go, even if he restricted his argument to ''I posted a link''.

But I find it surprising that so much preaching goes on, without a corresponding willingness to put all this theism and deism under scrutiny. Believers seem to go in for a lot of ''declaring'' while generally shying away from logical reasoned argument.

I did follow Mick's link, and it's very similar to William Lane Craig's tosh.
Basically what religious people have been doing for thousands of years. Pointing to, and using, what we don't yet understand, and claiming it's evidence of a big juju in the sky.

Years ago, it was perfectly valid, as the evidence of design seemed to be in everything.
Now we know different. There is less and less every day that we don't understand.
And all of the things that would have convinced a rational person of a creator, like how the sun keeps shining, where people and animals came from, and where the Earth and Sun and Moon came from, are well understood.
So now, people like Lane Craig have to restrict their arguments to the things we still don't understand, like infinity, and the concept of nothing, etc etc, to weave an argument for a god.

Very few believers go that far. Most just say, I have faith.
And we all know where they got it. They were indoctrinated as kids.

[pErvinalia]

If faith is all you bring to believing that a story is real then that's a rational reason not to believe the story I reckon. The burden is on the ones with faith to show how believing the old myth is rational, not the other way round.

That's crazy you atheist religious zealot!!1 I bet you want to kill all Christians. Seth and I know your type! Marxists the lot of you!!1

[Hermit]

I find it surprising that so much preaching goes on, without a corresponding willingness to put all this theism and deism under scrutiny.

No surprise to me.

[Seth]

I think you should lead a libertarian anti-theist campaign against the ultimate threat to human freedom...

Obviously god isnt the ultimate threat to freedom, but as I've mentioned before if Seth's comrades every find out he is an atheist (sorry non-theist tolerist - not trade marked as there is already a book on tolerism which definitely isnt libertarian) they will disown him.

Except that they all know and don't, probably because I don't arrogantly demean them or attack their faith for no better reason that that I think I'm infallibly right.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Then again, if God is not a "supernatural being" and is in fact an entirely natural being that you just don't comprehend, your entire Atheist platform is resting on a slender reed planted in a foundation of shifting sand.

If so, the question is, firstly, whether it is simply a creator being with no personal connection to the sapient beings within its creation.

If it has a personal connection, as alleged by most monotheistic religions, which version is correct? Is it Allah, is it the Jewish master of the universe, or is it the catholic version?

Whichever version of the monotheistic god you pick, Seth, be aware that He is, from all written accounts, a fascist monster that demands his people to be the ultimate sheeples.

I think you should lead a libertarian anti-theist campaign against the ultimate threat to human freedom...

Nothing in logic says god has to be a nice guy. I believe historically most gods are nasty, jealous, vindictive and cruel. That's usually why people worship them, to curry favor and avoid the gods wrath.

I'm not saying that the existence of god is unalloyed good, just that it's not rational to claim that god does not exist.

So, you are clearly prepared to be an arse-licker if it will save you from the wrath of god...

Coward!

Did I say that? Nope.

Liar!

[Brian Peacock]

If faith is all you bring to believing that a story is real then that's a rational reason not to believe the story I reckon. The burden is on the ones with faith to show how believing the old myth is rational, not the other way round.

That's crazy you atheist religious zealot!!1 I bet you want to kill all Christians. Seth and I know your type! Marxists the lot of you!!!

Marxism is just Christianity without God or Jesus anyway.

[Seth]

I'm not saying that the existence of god is unalloyed good, just that it's not rational to claim that god does not exist.

And presumably, just as irrational to claim that god DOES exist?
If so, it might be in stating the bleedin obvious, but for once I might have to agree with Seth.

Well, that depends on the individual and his or her experiences and the knowledge they have gained through their personal relationship with God, if any.

The problem is that one person can say "I saw a tree fall in the forest and it made no sound" as a matter of personal faith or belief and no one can prove that the individual did not experience this. Scientists might conclude, based on physics, that it is highly unlikely that such a thing could happen, but in the absence of perfect knowledge of the universe, they cannot say conclusively that the event did not occur because they have an incomplete understanding that leaves room for some entirely natural phenomenon of which they are unaware, such as an alien species surrounding the tree with a force field that evacuates all the air, leaving the tree to fall in a vacuum, which would not allow any sound to be transmitted to the observer.

Is this likely? No. Is it plausible? Not really. Is it possible? Yes.

What's at issue here is the standard Atheist doctrine that any report of an experience attributed to interaction with God must be by definition a "supernatural" and therefore imaginary event.

This standard position of Atheists is as much a matter of religious faith as the claim of the theist. There is no science at work in that particular Atheist claim. None at all. Only unreason, illogic and religious belief.

I expect more of putatively rational atheistic rhetoric, so I'm exposing the flaws in your reasoning in order to stimulate you into deeper rational examination of your own observer biases and departures from reason and logic.

These departures make you look silly and ignorant.

[MrJonno]

The problem is that one person can say "I saw a tree fall in the forest and it made no sound"

Not a problem as no one would care if such a person said that unless they wanted to sack someone from work because they person did think trees do make a sound when they fall

It's not freedom of thought that is a problem in society, you can think whatever you want its freedom to put that thought into action a very different matter

[pErvinalia]

Stop persecuting Christians, Jonno!

[mistermack]

I'm not saying that the existence of god is unalloyed good, just that it's not rational to claim that god does not exist.

And presumably, just as irrational to claim that god DOES exist?
If so, it might be in stating the bleedin obvious, but for once I might have to agree with Seth.

Well, that depends on the individual and his or her experiences and the knowledge they have gained through their personal relationship with God, if any.

The problem is that one person can say "I saw a tree fall in the forest and it made no sound" as a matter of personal faith or belief and no one can prove that the individual did not experience this. Scientists might conclude, based on physics, that it is highly unlikely that such a thing could happen, but in the absence of perfect knowledge of the universe, they cannot say conclusively that the event did not occur because they have an incomplete understanding that leaves room for some entirely natural phenomenon of which they are unaware, such as an alien species surrounding the tree with a force field that evacuates all the air, leaving the tree to fall in a vacuum, which would not allow any sound to be transmitted to the observer.

Is this likely? No. Is it plausible? Not really. Is it possible? Yes.

What's at issue here is the standard Atheist doctrine that any report of an experience attributed to interaction with God must be by definition a "supernatural" and therefore imaginary event.

This standard position of Atheists is as much a matter of religious faith as the claim of the theist. There is no science at work in that particular Atheist claim. None at all. Only unreason, illogic and religious belief.

I expect more of putatively rational atheistic rhetoric, so I'm exposing the flaws in your reasoning in order to stimulate you into deeper rational examination of your own observer biases and departures from reason and logic.

These departures make you look silly and ignorant.

YOU define my positions, and then YOU say they are silly and ignorant.
Nice one, Troll.

[Brian Peacock]

That is funny.

If godlings exists but aren't supernatural then they must be natural. If they're natural they must be something to point to their existence other than just old myths. But there's only old myths and people's beliefs in them as true, and most, if not all, bellievers say that godlings are supernatural - which is a special kind of something or other (I haven't quite figured out what exactly).

Now it seems that even the generous allowing of supernatural stuff, which is something that is not natural, but is above nature, beyond touch, taste and smell and all that, while discounting it as explaining anything about what godlings are, where they are, how they do their godlingy deeds, and why they want people to sing songs and the like, has to be treated just like natural stuff to be rational.

It's a topsy turvey old world out there isn't it?

[

[MrJonno]

Stop persecuting Christians, Jonno!

I would have to find some first, there are a rare species here as least the ones they are open about it.

christianity is just a death cult that is basically dying